Ukraine

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. I want to put on the record, once again, our steadfast and unyielding support for the people of Ukraine in defending themselves, their homes and their country against Putin’s illegal and aggressive war. I share the concern expressed by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), that Putin’s plan appears to be to keep the war going until Ukraine’s democratic allies lose interest and somehow let support slip away. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

I have spoken to colleagues who have just returned from Kyiv—they were attending events to mark the second anniversary of the war—and they report that, at this critical time, Ukraine needs our help now every bit as much as it did on the day Putin attacked. First and foremost, we must guard against complacency. We cannot let the Ukrainian people down simply because we lose interest, because if Ukraine loses, we all lose.

I very much welcome the UK Government’s financial and military support package and the new €50 billion multi-year funding package from the European Union, as well as the fact that Germany has committed to doubling its military aid. I share the Minister’s hope that many of Ukraine’s allies will now follow that lead, most notably the United States. Its prevarication has surely only emboldened Ukraine’s enemies and depressed the Ukrainian people further.

However, there is still so much we can do. I take the Minister’s point about the sanctions regime, but what about using frozen Russian assets to assist Putin’s war victims, most notably the £2 billion sitting in a London bank two years on from the sale of Chelsea football club? As we look ahead, has the FCDO’s atrocity prevention monitoring body been keeping track of breaches of international law and war crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine? With a marked increase in the targeting of civilians in Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv and Lviv, are the UK Government preparing a case for the International Criminal Court against Russia for the deliberate targeting and bombardment of civilians in Ukraine?

Defending the UK and Allies

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please resume your seats. We have already had an hour on this statement and it looks as though a considerable number of Members still wish to get in. Please ask short questions so that I can help get everyone in.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

The right of innocent passage is a fundamental principle of international law and cannot be interrupted by non-state actors. However, although the Prime Minister might wish that this was not the case, international law is not a menu. It comes as a package; we cannot pick and choose which bits we want to uphold and which we want to ignore. Is he unable to see how ignoring Israel’s egregious breaches of international law in Gaza, while purporting to act in defence of it in Yemen, actually undermines international law and the rules-based order?

Cost of Living and Brexit

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) intervened earlier to complain bitterly that his party was not to be represented on this Committee and that that would be the Lib Dems’ excuse for not supporting this motion. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, this is an amendable motion and if the hon. Gentleman felt that passionately about it, he could table an amendment. I wish he was here so that I could remind the Lib Dems that when they proposed the creation of the EU withdrawal Committee, their proposal awarded the SNP precisely zero seats, despite our having the vast majority of Scottish seats. Perhaps the Lib Dems do not want to address this issue and are throwing smoke bombs right, left and centre because they do not want to be reminded that they are where they are because of the dirty deal they cut with the Tories in 2010. I just wish the Lib Dems were here to stand up and face the consequences of it.

No one can deny the detrimental impact that increases in the cost of living are having on businesses and families across Scotland and the United Kingdom, and only the most blinkered Brexiteer would deny the role that leaving the EU has had in driving those increases. Unfortunately, the powers available to the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast mean that it is this place that must find a long-term solution to this crisis. As much as I commend the work done in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, it is this place that has to find those solutions.

That is why we must, with some urgency, establish this Committee. We must put in motion a process whereby the people of these islands can see and understand why food price inflation is through the roof and why mortgages are becoming increasingly unaffordable for so many. The evidence that will come to this Committee and the reports that will come from it will, we hope, furnish this hapless Government with the facts and evidence they need to see where they are going wrong and perhaps allow them to do something about it.

Let us be clear: the economic disaster of Brexit has not just fallen out of the sky. It has not just miraculously appeared. I am reminded of an exchange I had with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) almost exactly a year ago, when he was Minister for Brexit Opportunities—I try to get through that title without laughing. I took the opportunity to remind him of his 2019 promise that the “broad, sunlit uplands” of Brexit were just around the corner for the British people and British business. Last year, I described the case of a small Scottish cosmetic company, Gracefruit, whose owners had told me that, because of red tape, soaring costs and loss of markets, they no longer had the mental or emotional strength to make a success of what had been a thriving business. Gracefruit was emblematic of so many small and medium-sized enterprises across the islands whose business had been destroyed by Brexit. In his reply to me, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset said:

“We are freeing people in this country from red tape because we look at the United Kingdom playing a global role—trading with the globe, being as economically productive as anywhere in the world…That is why the EU is a failing economic option and why we sing hallelujahs for having left it.—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 933.]

That was the Minister for Brexit Opportunities. I thought at the time that his reply was vacuous and glib. Twelve months on, I see it as deluded, arrogant, negligent and dangerous. If there is one reason why the creation of this cost of living Select Committee is essential, it can be found in that single reply. It was he and his well-heeled City chums who sold the people of England a pup in 2016. They sold it as a dawn of a new era of freedom and prosperity and of taking back control, but, instead, we live in a time of uncertainty and grave economic hardship, suffered, ironically, by those who bought into the fantasy that Brexit would be good for them and who have been left with the grim reality that Brexit has been a major driver of spiralling food costs, soaring mortgages and lower wages.

The pain of Brexit has been felt most acutely in our rural communities—communities such as my Argyll and Bute constituency, which had benefited from decades of EU membership and the support that it gave to our agricultural sector and the market that it provided for our outstanding seafood and shellfish sector. All of us who represent rural constituencies such as Argyll and Bute know that incomes are lower and costs are higher. Nearly 70% of households in my constituency are at risk of fuel poverty or extreme fuel poverty. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, 56% of my constituency are off gas grid. To avoid fuel poverty, an average all-electric household would need an income of £72,200. To avoid extreme fuel poverty, they would require an income of £39,600. This is in the context of a median household income of just £33,000. Anyone can see the crisis of fuel poverty that is coming down the line, as indeed there will be with so many of my constituents.

The Royal Society of Edinburgh released a paper, “The cost of living: impact on rural communities in Scotland”, which recommended that any piece of legislation related to the cost of living should be “rural-proofed” and I heartily agree. It also recommended that the UK Government recognise the contribution of rural communities—whether it be through their whisky, tourism, timber or fish farming. In areas such as Argyll and Bute, the contribution made by my constituents to the UK Exchequer through whisky production alone is gargantuan compared with what they receive.

Rural Scotland has been hit hard by the cost of living crisis, which is why the people of these islands need the Committee to be set up. They need to have confidence that the decisions that we make here are done with all the available evidence that we can possibly muster. That is what the Committee would do. I say to Members, whether they be from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, to vote this motion down on the minutiae—[Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but this was an amendable motion, which his party, if it had any real commitment to the cost of living crisis, could have amended. To vote down this motion on the minutiae would be disingenuous in the extreme, because this is a genuine attempt on behalf of our constituents to address the biggest crisis in their lives at the moment. The Government and, sadly, the other opposition parties are playing political games with what should be a motion that unites all in the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am calling the wind-ups at 4 o’clock and there are three others wanting to speak, so I ask Members to do the maths and be generous to their colleagues.

Counsellors of State Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

2nd reading
Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I will not detain the House for too long. The Bill is what it is, and it does what it says it will do. It is a pragmatic solution to a problem that has arisen, and it is by and large uncontentious and uncontroversial. For as long as the United Kingdom chooses to have a constitutional monarch, whose role includes the granting of Royal Assent to legislation, the appointment of judges and Ministers, as well as a host of other engagements and functions both at home and abroad, there is an identifiable need to extend the number of people who can deputise for the monarch when he or she is overseas, is unwell, or is for whatever reason unable to conduct those duties.

Given that two current Counsellors of State are, for different reasons, non-working royals and have withdrawn from public life, the proposed appointment of two new Counsellors of State who can exercise those royal functions when needs be makes sense. The Bill is a reasonable workaround that provides temporary solutions to the constraints of the Regency Acts, which state that Counsellors of State are the spouse of the monarch and the first four in the line of succession. Although the Bill gets us over that inconvenient hurdle, I suggest that the Government should find a more robust and enduring way of dealing with such situations, which will undoubtedly arise in the future.

I understand why the King would want to make his brother, the Earl of Wessex, and his sister, the Princess Royal, Counsellors of State, as both have previously performed that duty for the late Queen. As an aside, will the Minister explain why on the Bill as printed the Earl of Wessex seems to be given prominence ahead of the Princess Royal? I find it a strange order in which to put them. As a wider point, rather than having to revert once again to the Regency Act 1937, using the 1953 precedent that made the Queen Mother the additional Counsellor, as if she had been appointed at the same time as others, it would probably be better to find a more formalised way to appoint people to those positions. The Bill is a quick-fix solution to an immediate problem, but it does not get over the structural issues latent in the Regency Acts. I point the Minister to a well informed post by Dr Craig Prescott of Bangor University, writing for the University of London’s Constitution Unit. He says that this question will arise time and again until it is formally sorted, and that if there is to be, as we believe there will be, a more slimmed down royal family that focuses more on the direct line of succession, such issues will need to be addressed.

I have no doubt that the Bill will pass, but I suggest that the Government should eventually get round to looking at how Counsellors of State are appointed. That said, given the current state of the United Kingdom, I sincerely hope that this issue is somewhere around No. 101 in the Government’s list of 100 things they need to do. If it is not No. 101, I suggest it should be. At some point, however, it may be worth considering the issue again.

Everyone understands that, for a whole host of reasons, the monarch cannot always be available to perform their duties. That is why over the centuries, Counsellors of State have been appointed to assist the sovereign. The current Regency Acts provide for Counsellors of State because they are important to ensure that Government business can continue to run smoothly. As the 1937 Act states, Counsellors of State should be in place to

“prevent delay or difficulty in the despatch of public business.”

Much has changed since 1937, and I hope that when the Government get round to looking at this issue again, they will consider the revolution in communication and technology, which I understand the late Queen herself embraced to great effect during the covid lockdown. If the Bill is about improving procedures and ensuring good administrative practice, we should be looking to the future, embracing that technology, and finding a better solution, rather than simply looking back to 1937 and a time when the telegram was the fastest means of communication, and the ocean liner the quickest means of international travel. Is there a barrier to stop the King signing documents by means of an electronic signature? What is there to prevent formal royal correspondence from being done via email? Is there any legal impediment to the monarch appearing via a video link to join a meeting of the Privy Council? I do not see why any of that should be controversial, so perhaps the Minister could tell me whether or not such things are possible.

Finally, on the theme of modernisation, I suspect that many people will be asking what is the point of us examining how we can help the monarchy to modernise when certain parts of the institution seem stuck in the past. The treatment last week of Ngozi Fulani at Buckingham Palace was appalling, and I am delighted that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The Bill before the House has a very narrow scope, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could focus on that.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Modernisation is vital, but the institution must help itself to modernise. This Bill is part of that. We will support the Bill today, and I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Counsellors of State Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Committee stage
Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

I add my voice to those who have thanked everyone who was involved in bringing this Bill quickly and speedily to the Floor of the House, and to everyone who helped get it passed with such unanimity and good humour. On the subject of good humour, I have a quick history lesson for the Minister: the kingdom that he referred to as beginning in the 10th century actually began in 1603 with the Union of Crowns, when the King of Scots took the throne of the United Kingdom. That is just a brief history lesson for everyone.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We have all learned something today; we have also learned how speedily legislation can go through the House when everybody is agreed. It has been my honour and privilege to have been in the Chair through all those stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Human Rights Abuses and Corruption: UK Sanctions

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I, too, begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this debate. I also put on record my appreciation for all that they do as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions. I also thank those who have spoken in this debate—the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), as well, of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

It is essential that we take every opportunity in this House to talk about the plight of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the Rohingya in Myanmar and the Yazidis in Iraq, and that we shine a light on state corruption and abuses of human rights where we see them. That is why the passing of the Magnitsky law in 2020 was so important, putting in place a system whereby meaningful sanctions can be taken against states, institutions and individuals involved in human rights abuses or corrupt practices. It was an extremely important first step, but it was only the first step, because having the law in place and not using it effectively is almost as bad as not having the law there at all. The APPG’s report “Stuck In First Gear” makes for depressing reading for those of us who desperately want to see the United Kingdom lead the way in freezing the assets of, and imposing meaningful sanctions on, individuals and states who commit the most egregious human rights violations.

It appears that having given themselves the power to do something significant and meaningful, the UK Government are becoming increasingly timid in the exercise of that power. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West pointed out, from a first-year high of 102 sanctions, there were only six in the following year. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife and the hon. Member for Strangford said, in highlighting the ongoing abuses in Bahrain and China, as much as we would all love to believe that things were getting better around the world and the situation had improved so much, we know that it simply has not. Indeed, it could be argued that things are getting much worse. It is therefore extremely disappointing to learn that in the opinion of so many highly respected members of the APPG there is a paucity of ambition when it comes to using the legislation effectively and consistently.

Lord Ahmad said:

“Sanctions work best when multiple countries act together…to send a political signal that such behaviour is intolerable.”

But, as we have heard, when the United States announced sweeping sanctions against 16 countries and many individuals, the UK used the power only once against an individual and on four occasions against the Myanmar regime. Why are the powers not being used in a co-ordinated fashion and in tandem with our democratic allies? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to exactly what was the behaviour that the United States saw at the end of 2021 in China, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Liberia, Syria, Ukraine and Iran that they deemed to be intolerable but which the UK Government presumably found to be tolerable?

Yesterday, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) were in contact with Richard Ratcliffe who, along with his wife Nazanin, has repeatedly called on the Foreign Secretary to use Magnitsky sanctions and whatever other options are available to better protect British nationals who are being illegally or arbitrarily detained overseas. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said—Richard made this point, too—the Foreign Secretary has had in her possession since last September a file containing 10 names of Iran’s hostage takers, including three people directly involved in Nazanin’s detention and imprisonment. Could the Minister explain why no sanctions have been imposed on any of those Iranian officials, who both we and they know are complicit in the arrest and detention of UK nationals and in human rights abuses against them?

In 2020, the Government’s intention was to take a global leadership role on Magnitsky sanctions. No one anywhere in the House would criticise them for that ambition, but to be a global leader we must ensure that our own house is in order. Further to the important points made by the hon. Members for City of Chester and for Hammersmith, we must close the loopholes in the UK’s financial system.

Earlier this week, we debated the deteriorating security situation in Nigeria, where endemic corruption is taking that country to the brink of collapse. Next year’s presidential elections could be the last chance Nigeria has to prevent itself from descending into chaos and even, heaven forbid, civil war. But that endemic corruption is not just a problem for Nigeria to solve in isolation. Professor Sadiq Isah Radda, the Nigerian President’s anti-corruption tsar, said:

“There are thieves and there are receivers, London is most notorious safe haven for looted funds in the world today. Without safe havens for looted funds, Nigeria and Africa will not be this corrupt. So, for the West to have a moral voice of calling Nigeria or Africa as corrupt, they must shun looted funds by closing safe havens and returning all looted funds to victim countries.”

I urge the Minister, in addition to strengthening and imposing meaningful Magnitsky sanctions, to look strongly, closer to home, at the role that financial institutions here in the City of London are playing in facilitating corruption, to the extent that a Commonwealth country could be on the brink of collapse if something is not done very quickly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The summer Adjournment debate will start at around 2.15 pm, so any Members wishing to take part in that debate should start to head towards the Chamber.

Relationship with Russia and China

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

No, I will not give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. You have had six minutes, Mr O’Hara, so please draw your remarks to a conclusion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Please resume your seat. Mr O’Hara, you are coming towards the end.

[Brendan O'Hara]

That was a nonsense assertion to make, and I utterly reject it.

We must be absolutely clear in what we do and what we say. We must be tough on Russia. There is no room for equivocation at all. It is time for the Government to get tough on those who have laundered Russia’s dirty money here in the United Kingdom. That is why the Scottish National party supports calls for an economic crime Bill to be brought in now, to unify the House. We want to see that registration of overseas interests. We want to see far more robust use of unexplained wealth orders, which have been not used at all, and a blacklisting of all dubious Russian banks. The UK Government must immediately ban Russia from the SWIFT banking system and take proper cognisance of and improve the Scottish limited partnership system before it gets further out of control.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that I am running out of time. There is much more that I would like to say, but I cannot.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Was that the hon. Gentleman’s speech? Shall I cross him off the list?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I do not believe it was my hon. Friend’s speech, Mr Evans, but if it was, it was a perfectly good one and I thank him for it. The points he makes are absolutely valid.

Safety of Journalists

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I understand that time is very tight, and as a courtesy to those Members wishing to participate, I will be as brief as possible. A free and independent press is vital to democracy, and it should go without saying that journalists—indeed, all media—must be able to work free from intimidation or persecution.

Democracy relies on people who have the bravery, the tenacity and the ability to hold the powerful to account, yet according to the 2021 world press freedom survey, 75% of the 180 countries examined are considered problematic, bad or very bad environments for a free press. In that survey, the United Kingdom ranks 33rd. While not the exemplar we probably hoped for, it is better than most. Rather than a blanket condemnation of those we know who would take no notice, I want to appeal to the Government to use what influence they have on their closest friends and allies: Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Bahrain, India, Pakistan and Israel.

Recently, we saw the Israeli air force deliberately targeting and destroying media facilities in Gaza, including two tower blocks that were home to numerous Palestinian and international news agencies, and causing the death of a Palestinian journalist Yousef Abu Hussein when they bombed his home. These attacks have been condemned unreservedly by the International Federation of Journalists, the world’s largest organisation for media professionals. It called on the UN Security Council to intervene to stop what it calls the “systematic targeting” of journalists by Israel. I hope that the Minister will also condemn those attacks and insist that Israel abides by its international obligations to protect media professionals and ends the practice of targeting buildings that house news outlets.

The world press freedom index ranks Saudi Arabia at 170 of 180 countries, and the savage murder of Jamal Khashoggi by the regime in 2017 showed just how frightened it is of a free press. Reporters Without Borders says that Saudi Arabia is the third most censored country on earth, where, with no independent media, journalists are kept in their place through draconian laws, which include harming the image and the reputation of the King and the state. There are about 30 journalists currently in prison in Saudi Arabia, among them the perceived dissidents Ahmed al-Suwian and Fahd al-Sunaidi, who were sentenced to three and a half years each just last year.

This is also a problem much closer to home. Just two weeks ago, the Prime Minister met the Hungarian leader, the right-wing populist Viktor Orbán. I would like to think I am not naive enough to believe that the Prime Minister would have tackled Mr Orbán on his illiberal and authoritarian crackdown on and censorship of Hungary’s free press. In recent years, almost 500 media outlets have been centralised into one giant pro-Government grouping, resulting in Hungary tumbling to 92 on the 2021 index.

Another of the UK’s greatest allies is Bahrain, currently just two places above Saudi Arabia at 168. Bahrain has now made it illegal for journalists to openly criticise Government policies or their decisions. There are several Bahraini journalists currently in jail, including leading human rights activist Nabeel Rahjab, who is serving five years for tweeting about Government corruption, and Mahmoud al-Jaziri, who in recent years has been sentenced to 15 years in jail. In November, 18 individuals, including a 16-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, as well as a respected TV producer, were arrested for simply commenting on the death of Bahrain’s longest-serving Prime Minister on social media.

These are the actions of our closest friends and allies—allies that include India and Pakistan. They are at 142 and 145 on the index, which makes them among the most dangerous and repressive countries in which a journalist can work freely. In India, journalists are reported to have been attacked by the police, ambushed by political activists and targeted by criminal gangs or corrupt local officials. Again, the election of a right-wing populist in the shape of Prime Minister Modi has increased the pressure on Indian media to toe the Government line, and those who resist face calls for their murder in what are clearly co-ordinated hate campaigns on social media. In Kashmir, the Indian Government can and do, without explanation, shut down dissenting media outlets, as they did with the Kashmir Times, while journalists continue to be harassed by police and paramilitaries, among them Aasif Sultan, who was arrested in 2018 and remains in detention today.

It is a very similar story in Pakistan, with reports of the military increasing its influence in civic society, including on free and independent journalism. There are deeply worrying reports of journalists being kidnapped and threatened as to their future actions. Indeed, four journalists were murdered in 2020 in connection with their work, especially when investigating local political corruption and drug trafficking.

There is so much more I would like to say, but I realise that time is short and others wish to speak. In conclusion, I think it is absolutely right that we condemn China, North Korea, Eritrea and others for what they do, but I urge the Government to look at the action and behaviour of their friends and their allies, and to use what influence they have on them to get them to change their ways.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin at 4.50 pm. We are now on a three-minute limit.

Free School Meals

Debate between Nigel Evans and Brendan O'Hara

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

That is not really a question for me—I am not and never would aspire to be the Secretary of State for Education—but I take on board the hon. Member’s point, because it is about political choices. That is why I am so pleased that the Scottish Government have chosen to use the limited powers they have to support 156,000 of our children and young people by committing £10 million to ensure that those children who need it will continue to get a free school meal during this holiday and every holiday up to Easter 2021. In addition, the Scottish Government have announced £20 million of funding to be made available to local councils to help tackle financial insecurity. That funding will be sufficiently flexible for councils to be able to provide support to people who, shamefully, have no recourse to public funds and would otherwise be destitute and have no access to mainstream benefits.

Of course child poverty still exists in Scotland; no one could or would deny it. But the difference between what the UK Government are doing and what the SNP is doing in Holyrood is that the Scottish Government are doing what they can, with limited powers, to alleviate the worst effects of the Government’s policies, to try to improve the lives of Scotland’s poorest children. That was recognised by both the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty, who praised the Scottish Government for using what he described as their

“newly devolved powers to establish a promising social security system guided by the principles of dignity”.

Included in that new security system is the Scottish child payment, which will pay the equivalent of £10 a week per child to families with eligible children who are currently in receipt of low-income benefit. From November, the fund will be open to families with children under the age of six, recognising that, of all children in poverty, almost 60% live in a family where a child is under six years old. Although there is no cap to the number of children per family, it means, for a family with two children under six, £1,040 a year extra in their pockets. That is expected to alleviate the worst excesses of poverty for 194,000 children, and it is a significant investment by the Scottish Government.

I understand that the Government intend to vote against the motion tonight. I hope the Whips have done their arithmetic, because I understand that at least one group of Conservatives will be voting with the Opposition this evening—the Scottish Conservatives. It was less than a month ago that the new leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), declared that providing free school meals, breakfast and lunch to every primary school pupil in Scotland was to be his flagship policy in next year’s Scottish elections. He said:

“I have seen myself the difference that providing free meals can make. I just want to make sure no-one falls through the cracks and by giving this to all primary school pupils we can make sure the offer is there for everyone.”

Given his words, it is absolutely inconceivable that he and his colleagues would do anything other than vote for the motion tonight and provide the same level of support for the 1.5 million children in England who will benefit from school meals. That is why, despite being wholly devolved, we will be in the Lobby this evening alongside, I believe, every single Scottish MP when the House divides this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It will be five minutes for the Chair of the Education Select Committee and four minutes thereafter.