Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on jobs in Wales of the UK leaving the EU single market.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on jobs in Wales of the UK leaving the EU single market.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on jobs in Wales of the UK leaving the EU single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was awaiting the document from the Welsh Government. It was received on Monday, and of course we will work through the details. It will be subject to discussion at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations—the right place for it to be considered and discussed—but much of the language around accessing the single market is not incompatible with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said.

[Kirsten Oswald]

The Supreme Court ruling yesterday concluded that the Sewel convention was a convention and therefore not a matter on which it could rule. Our friends in Plaid Cymru are moving to table a legislative consent motion in the Welsh Parliament, and the Scottish Parliament will also vote on a legislative consent motion. Does the Secretary of State agree, in the spirit of democracy, that the devolved Governments are best placed to determine the future of the people living and working in our nations? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We would like to hear the reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a robust case for the benefits of leaving the European Union. Perhaps to his list of posthumous figures from Scottish history I could add David Hume, whose essay “Of the Balance of Trade” predates “The Wealth of Nations” and provides an effective rebuttal to the so-called jealous fear of free trade among merchants at the time.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

A hard Brexit outside the single market threatens to cost Scotland 80,000 jobs over a decade and to cost people an average of £2,000 in wages. What action will the Secretary of State personally take to keep Scotland in the single market, even if the rest of the UK leaves?

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Since we debated the publication of the Chilcot report in July, I cannot be alone in hearing constituents express their doubts about the likelihood of any action on its findings—recalling previous occasions where evidence of failures was debated in this place, only to see the issues disappear without trace as the months and years moved on. Since the time when the matters on which Chilcot reported took place, we have watched the Arab spring rise and fall, Daesh has taken large swathes of the middle east back to the dark ages, and a resurgent Russia provokes NATO—just as the hammer-blows of an ill-thought-out Brexit and the rise of Trump threaten to destabilise the relationships on which the alliance depends.

Already, those of us who believe the public still need answers see others characterise the Iraq war and the events that led up to it as ancient history. This is not a new phenomenon. In the 2010 Labour leadership race, David Miliband said:

“While Iraq was a source of division in the past, it doesn’t need to be a source of division in the future. I said during the election campaign that I thought it was time to move on.”

But, of course, as the Chilcot report makes clear, it is decidedly not time to move on.

The exchanges in July’s debate showed that the route to military action was settled directly between Bush and Blair. One of them was driven by a determination to finish the job left unfinished by his father, while the other was convinced that if he said yes to each step along the road to war, he could drag America back from the brink at the 11th hour.

“I will be with you, whatever”,

wrote Blair, as he subcontracted to Bush the decision on whether the war would go ahead. He committed UK troops to go, if that was what Bush decided. The report is damning on this point. Sir John said in launching his report:

“We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted.”

It might have taken many years and millions of words for the UK to catch up on what its Prime Minister did, behind the scenes, in our name. In the US, the verdict was arrived at long ago and the conclusion was clear: the Iraq war was not an innocent mistake; there was no need to argue over flawed intelligence; and the Bush Administration wanted a war and everything else was pretext. Blair’s decision to hitch the UK armed forces to that wagon of deception is not something that we can allow layers of events to silt over.

The public have long demanded—and deserved—an explanation and action. The families of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq deserve to know the truth, and deserve to know that this will not happen again. Their loved ones were marched to war behind a dodgy dossier that was designed to mislead. Those with family members in the UK armed forces expect to see military intervention used to root out injustice and instability. Instead, that is what the Iraq war left in its wake.

On top of the dishonesty about the reason for going to war, the consequences appear to have received no thought from those leading the charge. If there was any post-invasion plan, it was the Bush Administration plan—to leave behind an Iraq deliberately weakened, politically and militarily. The result of that flawed policy was the first appearance of Daesh, growing from the ashes of the discarded Iraqi army—an Iraqi spark that became a flame in the war in Syria and threatens to engulf communities across the middle east, Europe and beyond.

Some right hon. and hon. Members would like us to move on. I was struck in July by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) who drew attention to the need to learn the lessons of Iraq in advance of the intervention in Libya, only to be told: “We are not putting boots on the ground, so it isn’t an issue for us.

However, if we move on from Iraq now and leave the drawing of lessons from these events for another day, how many more Iraqs, Syrias and Libyas will there be?

In July, in response to the hon. Member for Bridgend, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that he had voted for intervention in Libya because he was

“terrified that people would be killed.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 489.]

But, of course, people were killed, and are still being killed, in each of those countries and many more. They are dying as they flee once-thriving communities. Much of the destruction is still rooted in that flawed pact between Bush and Blair, and until we understand how we got here, it is not clear how we will find our way back. Why does that matter now? There are many reasons. Two of them are the largest aircraft carriers ever purchased by the UK Government. They are designed to project UK power across the globe, but to what end? If the policies driving the use of those vessels are not open to democratic scrutiny or review, will they and their associated air power add to our security or undermine it?

Since the launch of the Chilcot report, we have seen an increasing number of appearances by the former Prime Minister. He has read the runes and believes that scrutiny is over for him. However, I know that Members in this Chamber believe that the armed forces’ sacrifice means that any decision to send them to war must be made with integrity and based on fact. In this case it was not, and we must scrutinise that further.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

He has already intervened.

I want to say to colleagues on the Labour Benches who have spoken in favour of the Conservative Government’s position that I very much regret that they seem to be hiding behind the defence trade unions in justifying how they will vote tonight. Surely they do not have to be very smart to understand that if we do not start this rearmament and do not commit this £200 billion, we will have enough money to give a financial guarantee to every worker in that industry and to redeploy their ingenuity, skills and experience into construction and engineering projects that would be for the benefit of humankind rather than for its destruction. I would have thought that the Labour party argued for that, but it has lost its moral compass on this and many other issues, which is why it is in its present situation.

I was elected to this Chamber on a manifesto, but this issue was not buried somewhere on page 13. Every leaflet that I put out during that campaign had the words “No Trident” in 24-point type. In every election address that I made, I told the electors that I would vote against this proposed rearmament at every opportunity. I was elected with 49.2% of the vote.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my utter dismay at the fact that the House is considering Trident renewal when civic Scotland, the Churches, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and MPs here and in the Scottish Parliament are all so firmly against having Trident on our soil?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I do indeed.

I was about to say that the people who came second and third in my seat at the election also agreed with the position that I take here today. In fact, more than 80% of the Scottish population voted in that election for political parties that oppose the proposition before us. That should be a problem for the Government. How can it be, when one nation in this United Kingdom is so absolutely against the proposition, that that nation and no one else gets vested with the delivery of the system and all the security consequences that come with it? If the Defence Secretary is so keen on this project, he might want to consider the construction of a naval base somewhere on the coast of Kent. He would then be able to have all the nuclear submarines he wanted without our condemnation.

Finally—I say this in response to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—in such stand-offs, somebody somewhere has to put the gun down first. The alternative to rearmament and the creation of a more dangerous world is a process of disarmament to provide an example and the building of international alliances that will make our world safer. After all, that is our exact strategy on chemical or biological warfare so why not with nuclear weapons, too? The SNP will vote against this proposition tonight, and I hope that colleagues on the Labour Benches will search their hearts and come with us into the Lobby.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

European citizens living in my constituency are anxious because of the despicable messages of the leave campaign— horrible incidents since the referendum and a lack of clarity now. The Prime Minister has just said there will be no immediate change to their circumstances. Does he recognise how little reassurance this brings?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to reassure Members. The only reason I am saying “No immediate changes” is that I am just trying accurately to reflect the legal situation, which is this: for people who are free at the moment to come and live and work in the UK—let me repeat that if they come here and they cannot support themselves, we can ask them to leave; that is important and has been the case for some time—as long as we are members of the EU, that continues. At the point at which we go, a Government will have to make a decision about what to negotiate with the rest of Europe about the rights of Europeans to come and live and work here—whether there will be visas or work permits, or what have you—and then there will be consequences potentially for British citizens going to live and work in Europe. The House is going to be able to debate all these things, so Members will be able to contribute to all these discussions and conversations, but I must answer accurately from this Dispatch Box, and what I can say is that as long as we stay in the EU those rights are protected, and I have gone further than that and said that everything I have heard from those who were campaigning to leave is that those rights will be continued after we have left.

National Defence Medal

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the National Defence Medal.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This is a short debate covering a vast subject, and I hope to chart a way forward to a more substantial debate in the near future. I know that a number of hon. Members will want to contribute, and I am keen to allow that, because the topic is worthy of considerable discussion. However, if time runs short, I hope that Members will excuse me if I fail to take as many interventions as they or I would like.

When I began exploring the subject and took on the task of leading this debate, I was concerned about having time to do the research necessary to do justice to the subject, but as it turned out, I need not have worried. Many people have been generous in sharing their knowledge, for which I thank them sincerely, and copying me in on their correspondence with the Government. I appreciate the many people who have taken the time to get in touch with me, both before and since I secured this debate. However, any errors in my speech are mine alone.

In the time allotted, I cannot hope to cover all the anomalies thrown up by the current policy, but there is one that I cannot let pass. Today is the 51st anniversary of the death of Warrant Officer John F. Lonergan of 131 Parachute Engineer Regiment and Sergeant Cyril Atfield of the Royal Army Pay Corps, both of whom were killed at Al Milah, 60 miles from Aden, South Arabia, in what is now the Republic of Yemen.

The deployment of 131 Para Regiment to South Arabia was the first time a Territorial Army regiment had been sent into conflict since 1945. In the engagement that led to the deaths of those men, five others were wounded and one officer was awarded an MBE for gallantry. It is surely undeniable that all the men were in a dangerous situation as a result of their service, but because of tight medal rules, none of the others involved in the engagement would receive a medal to acknowledge their service, unless they happened to be around long enough to receive one for long service.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am not sure that that is accurate. They would qualify for the General Service Medal, Arabian Peninsula, even though they were killed within the 28 days, if their commanding officer put them forward for one.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman sincerely for that contribution. I will speak about that particular medal, so his intervention is useful.

Much is said about the British medal policy being based on risk and rigour, but as Al Milah demonstrated, anyone who steps forward as a member of the armed forces may find themselves sent into a foreign land, sometimes to be woken at night by the sound of incoming fire. To me, that is self-evidently a dangerous proposition, and it certainly strikes me as enough risk to demand that we recognise it. However, this debate is not about an action or actions that took place a long time ago. It must be about what is right here and now, and that is what I hope that we can address.

One piece of correspondence shared with me relates to the action in Al Milah. It is yet another Ministry of Defence rejection of recognition for the service of Warrant Officer Lonergan, Sergeant Atfield and other members of the armed forces who placed themselves in harm’s way in Yemen at that time. The request was not for bravery medals; it was simply that they be awarded the General Service Medal with clasp South Arabia, which was awarded to other members of the armed forces in Yemen at that time. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has been pursuing the case.

The letter from the MOD quotes Winston Churchill in 1944, in a debate about the medals to be issued at the end of the second world war. I have curtailed it for brevity, but I hope that Hansard will display the citation for Members’ benefit. He said that

“a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it, it is of less value…A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one which does not admit of a perfect solution…All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest.”—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]

I argue that those points are as valid now as they were then.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

I have a constituent called Glen who has been campaigning on this issue for many years. He was drafted through national service to serve as a non-commissioned officer in the Suez emergency in the 1950s, yet he feels that he has never received adequate recognition for the years that he dedicated to service and the sacrifice that he made. Surely we should do all that we can to honour those drafted to protect our country.

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. There are many people in a similar position. They feel that they are being missed out, and that people do not understand or recognise what they have done.

The difference between my position and that of the MOD is that I believe we must take account of changes in context. As John Maynard Keynes said:

“If the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for consideration. She will be aware that there are many ex-service personnel who did not receive an operational medal during their service with the armed forces. Some of them were not on the front line: submariners on nuclear deterrent duty, for instance, or those in the Royal Observer Corps. May I make a plug for those in the Ulster Defence Regiment who served in Northern Ireland? Some of them also do not meet the criteria. There are a number of people I feel should be considered. Does she feel that the Minister should refer to them in his review?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I agree. I have been contacted by people who have served in many and various ways but are not entitled to a medal. It is an issue of concern, and I hope that we will hear more about it from the Minister. It does not matter how many independent reviews, staffed largely by people embedded in the status quo, take place; the changing facts provide the challenge facing the Government. The facts have changed. It is time that British medal policy changed to reflect them, and that it followed the example set by Commonwealth and other countries.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is absolutely right to say that many people are concerned about having their contribution recognised, particularly people who served in Northern Ireland and feel that they were not recognised for their contribution in the same way as people who served in more recent battles. I wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of Robert Scollick, my constituent, and the Cabinet Office response said:

“I have to tell you there are no plans for further work on this issue, nor can I offer you a time scale when it might be sensible to return to this issue.”

I wish the hon. Lady luck in bringing to the Government the idea that the time to discuss it is now.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I agree that it is time to re-examine the issue. Things have changed. We must remember that our armed services are now made up entirely of those who have joined up voluntarily. They do so entirely of their own volition, and they clearly understand the potential peril that they face.

One of the other ways in which the context, and therefore the facts on which to base a decision, have changed involves the adoption of the armed forces covenant in 2010. On page 4, we find the commitment that performing any form of service in the armed forces deserves recognition and gratitude. Indeed it does, but unfortunately, for too many of those serving in our armed forces at present, we do not always deliver them. The armed forces covenant is mentioned often in this place, but such lofty words do not always translate into real and proper consideration of how we ought to support our service personnel and veterans.

Consider the recent poor outcomes of the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or the lengthy struggle to extract fair compensation for service personnel suffering from mesothelioma. The UK Government do not always do enough or act at an appropriate speed. A tangible recognition of service undertaken by means of a national defence medal would be only one way to continue to improve how we deal with our service personnel. We should surely be considering all our obligations.

Significantly, the most recent medals review, led by Sir John Holmes, recognised that the case for a National Defence Medal was worthy of consideration. I agree with him that such a decision would be significant and that it requires a broad political consensus; I am pleased to see a range of Members here. At the time of the review, the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals advised specifically that the issue might usefully be reconsidered in the future, going so far as to consider how criteria might be applied for such an award. I do not propose to do so here, but I agree that the matter would have to be examined properly so that a clear award framework could be set out.

I am interested in the principle of a medal being awarded and that is what we should consider today. In the meantime, Ministers have agreed that the eligibility requirements for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, which is currently awarded only to other ranks and not to officers, should be harmonised in the future, and I hope that today’s discussion will be a way to further that debate.

Having examined the argument against a UK national defence medal, I found it to be thin and inconsistent. Medals are already awarded for service, or sometimes just for being somewhere at the right time. While some people with just 10 years of service may have two Jubilee Medals, I have been contacted by a former member of the RAF who served for 20 years but received no medal at all. It is impossible to argue that that is a coherent position. Many people leave the service with no medal while some people who joined in 2000 and left in 2012 have received two medals without seeing any operational postings. How does that policy address Churchill’s plea that recognition should

“give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and…hurt the feelings of the fewest”?—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I am aware of the General Service Medal; in fact, I received one with a clasp for air operations in Iraq. However, I have a constituent who, as the hon. Lady just said, served in the Royal Air Force for 26 years in RAF Germany, during the cold war, which we could argue was a series of operations, without receiving a medal. So the hon. Lady has lots of support as she considers how we can recognise that type of commitment to our nation and our security with a national defence medal.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection; that story about his constituent is illustrative of the stories of members and former members of the armed services who have contacted me. There are people in so many different situations who fall down gaps that we perhaps did not realise were there.

How can this situation possibly be justified? If, as Churchill said, we want

“to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved”

medals, is it any wonder that some people might consider that they are not being recognised equally? And is it any wonder if some former members of our armed forces consequently shun Remembrance Day events and other commemorative events? That concern has been raised with me and it is a great shame that some of those who have served, sometimes in very difficult situations, are not entitled to a medal, which causes them to be anxious about remembrance ceremonies. That is very unfortunate and entirely avoidable.

In the same 1944 debate that Churchill spoke in and that I have quoted, Leslie Hore-Belisha MP commented on exactly that kind of discrepancy in recognition. He said:

“The fact that such anomalies exist is no excuse for deliberately adding to them. It is the function of good legislation and administration to remove them and, if not to remove them, at any rate to diminish them.” —[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 908]

That is what we should consider. The British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign advances the simple and logical proposition that one way of diminishing such anomalies is to ensure that all members of the armed forces get the recognition they deserve for stepping into that role.

Other Governments have recognised this issue and acted to recognise the contribution made by their service personnel. The UK Government should now do the same, and acknowledge in this tangible way the work and the willingness to face peril that is common to everyone who signs up as a member of our armed forces.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I am sure she will agree that when people sign up for the military, they sign up to put life and limb on the line for this nation, and for them not to have a medal that recognises that contribution is part of the insult, given that—depending on which operation they were involved in and what medals were awarded—they have made that core decision to put their life and limb on the line for the nation, which would be recognised by this medal we are discussing.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That intervention absolutely gets to the crux of this issue. The Australian Government have recognised that point with their new defence medal, which was instituted in 2006, and they describe the purpose of that medal as being to recognise

“the outstanding contribution to our proud military history made by Australian men and women in uniform.”

That is all of them. Similarly, when New Zealand instituted its defence medal in 2011, the country’s Defence Minister, Wayne Mapp, described the basis for issuing the medal as follows:

“Many thousands of New Zealanders have met the demanding requirements of military service. They have served their country and community loyally and well...Up to now, there has been no recognition of this service, on which the Government places high value. This medal remedies that.”

That is exactly the type of recognition that I am looking for.

Here, however, the Ministry of Defence seems to place great store on the argument that a national defence medal would devalue other awards, which is an absurd proposition. When I asked a question about this topic at business questions recently, the Leader of the House of the Commons said he did not think that medals should be handed out in this way, and that the value of medals for particular examples of valour and service would perhaps be devalued by the issuing of a national defence medal. I could not disagree more. People who join our armed forces do so knowing that they are putting themselves into peril, and it is high time that we recognised that.

I believe that those who have been awarded medals for bravery do not feel that their awards are devalued because other colleagues receive the same campaign medal as they do, and nor would they feel that their awards were devalued by the receipt of a national defence medal. Those who were awarded a General Service Medal do not feel that it was devalued because others were awarded it, too. Arguments such as that made by the Leader of the House of Commons are simply camouflage for an unwillingness to listen.

Having already quoted Churchill, I will close my remarks today by doing so again, and this time I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to his advice. Writing on the conduct of negotiations between states, he advised:

“In war and policy one should always try to put oneself in the position of what Bismarck called ‘the Other Man’. The more fully and sympathetically a Minister can do this, the better are his chances of being right.”

I commend those sentiments to the Minister and I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to take forward the recognition by Sir John Holmes that the case for a national defence medal deserves proper consideration.

Points of Order

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The answer is that I have had no advance notice of this matter. It would be only fair for me, from the Chair, to say at this stage that whether it amounts to what she has described as a major change of policy or is merely a temporary pause or tactical judgment, I do not know. Suffice it to say that if there is a change of policy or a significant change in Government intentions for a notable period, the House would expect properly to be informed of that, and there are means by which Ministers can inform the House: either through the device of an answer to a written question or by a written ministerial statement. To my knowledge, neither has thus far been forthcoming. The hon. Lady’s point of order and my response to it will shortly be heard by the Wales Office, and I hope that proper account will be taken of it. If the hon. Lady needs to return to the point, doubtless she will do so.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to a matter that is of some concern to me. In December I asked, by means of a written question, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had last met the Financial Conduct Authority to discuss certain matters. The response advised me that Treasury Ministers meet a wide variety of organisations and referred me to the Treasury’s transparency reports online, stating that that is where details of such meetings are published. The reports detailed no bilateral meetings between the Treasury and the FCA over a two-year period.

I therefore challenged the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—she is aware that I am raising this matter today—on that point during a Back-Bench business debate on 12 January. She did not address the matter in her response, so I raised it with her again in a Back-Bench business debate on 1 February. To my great surprise, the hon. Lady stated:

“Contrary to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire seems to think,”—[Official Report, 1 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 748.]

she had met the acting chief executive of the FCA, and that she regretted that I had formed a different opinion.

Of course, my opinion was formed on the basis of a written answer, the Treasury’s own transparency reports and exchanges with the Minister in this Chamber, all of which I should have been entitled to rely upon. It is worth noting that a similar issue has arisen in relation to another question, with the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People referring me to a non-existent or impossible to locate piece of information on the Department for Work and Pensions website.

The record therefore suggests that I have misunderstood or am mistaken, but neither is true. I would be very much obliged for your advice, Mr Speaker, on how to put the record straight on this matter. Finally, I would be most grateful if you could advise me on how best to stop Ministers referring Members to websites that do not contain relevant information.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, the thrust of which she was kind enough to give me advance notice. I think that I am right in saying that she also gave notice to the Minister concerned.

[Kirsten Oswald]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that confirmation. The short answer to the hon. Lady—this is for the benefit of the House—is that answers to Members’ questions should be direct, substantive and candid. I have sympathy with the view, which she has expressed, that it is not helpful if Government Departments simply refer right hon. and hon. Members in written answers to websites on which the information requested may be located but cannot easily be found. The much more straightforward process, which I think the public would expect, would be to provide an answer to the question. It is not really all that complicated.

That said, I have to emphasise, of course, that the content of written answers, and indeed of ministerial statements in the House, has to be a matter for the judgment of individual Ministers; it is not for the Chair to determine. However, I am offering an overall sentiment, which I think would be shared across the House. As to how the hon. Lady can put the matter straight, I suggest that, by dint of this point of order, she has begun to do so.

European Council

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly, that is going to be the challenge of the coming months. As I have said, I have no selfish interest in this; I will just tell it as I see it. As I have learned over six years of being Prime Minister, this organisation is imperfect and can sometimes be frustrating, but we are better off in it. I profoundly believe that and I will take that message around the country.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

People in Scotland are entitled to hear the clear and positive case for remaining in the EU, and to make their decisions on the basis of hearing all the arguments in full. The Prime Minister spoke today about the importance of taking account of the express will of the people. Will he undertake to take full account of the express view of the Scottish people and ensure that if we vote to remain, we are not removed from the EU against our will?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much look forward to taking this message to Scotland and campaigning in Scotland. I enjoyed doing that during the independence referendum, and I look forward to making the argument again that we are better off together. It is a one United Kingdom decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

There are tremendous opportunities for development of the Scotch whisky industry. I think that the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom Government and all parties in the House are united on that. When the President of China was in the United Kingdom recently, we had the opportunity to present his wife with a bottle of her favourite malt whisky from Scotland, and both he and his good lady were able to make clear how important the product is to developing markets in China.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Scottish businesses about the possibility of a UK exit from the European Union, and what concerns have those businesses expressed about the impact it would have on their ability to gain access to, and export to, the single market?

[David Mundell]

The clearest message that I receive from businesses in Scotland is that they want a short EU referendum campaign so that we can have the minimum amount of uncertainty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the items that is part of the discussion between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It is so surprising that SNP MPs have such little confidence in Mr Swinney and the Scottish Government in the negotiation to hold out for positions that would be beneficial to Scotland—I find it staggering.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

13. Does the Secretary of State agree with the First Minister, Professor Muscatelli and the STUC that more powers for Scotland cannot come at any price, but that the fiscal framework settlement must deliver fairness for Scotland? Will the Secretary of State commit to a date before the Scottish elections by which an agreement must be reached?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree that the arrangements must be fair—fair to Scotland and fair to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is perfectly achievable. I do not want to provide a running commentary, but the negotiations and discussions that have taken place have been productive. For example, I absolutely agree with the comments of Mr Swinney to the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee —he clearly said that the Scottish Government should benefit from the positive decisions they take but accept the consequences of bad policy decisions. That should also apply to the UK Government in relation to our responsibilities.