Stephen Flynn MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I will not give way because we are all constrained by time, in the same way that Labour Members will not take interventions either. The Secretary of State’s answer to me earlier was that £200 million has been put forward through the National Wealth Fund. Each and every one of us knows that that is not in the gift of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State to dictate. It ultimately relies on the private sector coming forward with a proposal. Indeed, in evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee just last week by EY, which has done the Project Willow report, it was quite clear in its observations that there will be no progress until 2030 at the earliest. That is simply not good enough, because while the Government mobilise every effort to save British Steel, they allow Grangemouth to fall on the back burner. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) referred to industrial strategies. He seems to forget in that context that energy is a reserved matter for this United Kingdom Government—something the Secretary of State is all too familiar with, given our previous roles in this here House. The final thought I will leave with Labour Members is that they should remember the fact that the Bill they are supporting extends solely to England and Wales.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Much to my surprise, but perhaps to the relief of the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday not a single Member of this House raised the fact that energy bills have once again increased. In fact, on the Labour party’s watch, they have gone up by £281, despite its pre-election promise to reduce them by £300. Will the Leader of the House afford us all a debate on Government time as to that latest broken promise from the Labour party?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Despite there being a trade deficit and despite the best efforts of this Government, including the Secretary of State, for whom I have a great deal of personal respect, the reality is that we have still been hit by significant tariffs from the States. People at home right now will be worried about jobs, inflation and the global headwinds, which will undoubtedly hit us irrespective of our own tariff situation. One industry in particular, back home in Scotland, that will be watching with eager eyes is the Scotch whisky industry, given the billions of pounds of exports that go to the United States. I do not want the Secretary of State to try and control—nor could he—Trump’s tariffs policy. What he can do, however, is control his domestic taxation regime. Will he take this opportunity to re-engage with the Chancellor in and around the Scotch whisky taxation status?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Bosnia and Herzegovina · Hansard source

  More

  I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last November, I visited the Srebrenica memorial centre, and I am sure the Minister will share my revulsion at the fact that it had to close its doors for a short period just a few weeks ago due to the political situation there. Before he does so, can he elaborate on the position that the United States of America has adopted in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether he views the US as a stable ally that recognises that the western Balkans are crucial to the security of Europe as a whole?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Those who know me well know that I do not talk of this often, but for half of my adult life I was physically disabled. When I first walked through the doors of this Chamber, I did so with a crutch on my right arm to support my body weight. I know how it feels. Right now in Scotland, some 55% of children living in poverty have a disabled person in their household. Can the Prime Minister explain to me—actually, no, can he explain to those children how the Labour party making mum and dad poorer will lift them out of poverty?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the warm words from the Secretary of State earlier about the Acorn project. How confident is he that the Chancellor is listening?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Government say they will not change our fiscal rules because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their tax policies because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their position on the single market because of their manifesto. Perhaps the Secretary of State could outline to me and to people right across the UK where in her manifesto it stated that they were going to take £5 billion away from disabled people?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  There are many issues on which the Prime Minister and I will passionately disagree, but when it comes to the security of Ukraine and support for President Zelensky, we are of course united. I too commend the Prime Minister for his announcement yesterday, and on his partnership during the summit with our European and, indeed, our Canadian allies. Unfortunately, it has been reported this afternoon that President Trump is set to meet American aides to discuss withdrawing military aid to Ukraine. Are those reports something that the Prime Minister recognises, and, if so, what impact will that have on the timetable to which he and President Macron are currently working?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Prior to the election, the Labour party promised to reduce energy bills by £300, yet on its watch, energy bills are about to increase by almost £300. Is the failure to keep that promise a consequence of Government incompetence, or has the Labour party been caught lying to the public?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  Aside from a few of Putin’s poodles, who are not in their seats in the Chamber today, we are of course united in our support for the people of Ukraine, and in wishing the Prime Minister well in his discussions with the President of the United States later this week. But I am afraid that is where the unity ends, because while we support increasing defence spending, we cannot support the populist playbook of cutting foreign aid. Indeed, that position was shared and agreed with by the Foreign Secretary just a matter of days ago, when he said that it would be a “big strategic mistake” that would allow China to step in. Why was the Foreign Secretary wrong, and the Prime Minister right?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The Scottish National party has stood alongside the people of Ukraine in solidarity—not just for the last three years but for the last 10 years, following Putin’s invasion of Crimea. I will not invite the Foreign Secretary to agree with me on this in the Chamber, but I am sure he thinks that President Trump’s remarks about Zelensky being a dictator were beyond repulsive. Surely we all know that no deal can be made with Vladimir Putin that he will not break. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  Shocking! No way!

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, in excess of 400 redundancy letters were issued to workers at Grangemouth, Scotland’s only oil refinery, so perhaps the Minister will start matching his warm words about the just transition with action. On the North sea, what the industry, the investors, the workforce and our journey to net zero require is certainty. He obviously cannot comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw, and so cannot provide the answer that I think we all know is ultimately coming, but can he give us some certainty on when he expects the Government to issue the updated environmental guidance?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Women’s State Pension Age (Ombudsman Report and Compensation Scheme) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish measures to address the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in its report entitled “Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues”; to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960 inclusive who have been affected by increases in the state pension age; and for connected purposes. I do so with no joy whatsoever—indeed, my reason for doing so is born more out of complete and utter frustration—but because it is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. It is the right thing to do because we require trust in politics, and I think that all of us at this moment in time, certainly in this Chamber, are conscious of the breakdown in trust between ourselves in this Parliament and the public outside. For those of us who have stood alongside the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who have pledged to support the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who promised to take action if we were ever to gain Government office, it is important that that trust is repaid, and my Bill seeks to do that. It seeks to do the right thing by those to whom we made a promise. This is also the right thing to do because, for many of the women who are impacted, this injustice is not alone. Throughout their lives, many will unfortunately have been impacted by the fact that they did not receive a salary comparable to that of their male counterparts. These are women who will have faced the injustice of knowing that they were not able to get themselves up the career ladder simply because they were women and there was a male counterpart. They are the people who will have known that whether or not they were going to have children might well decide what their career opportunities were. It was an unforgivable injustice that they had to experience, and we should not be compounding that injustice by not giving them the compensation they deserve for having their pension entitlement changed. This is also the right thing to do because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman tells us it that is the right thing to do. If we do not have trust and confidence in the estate in which we operate, and if we do not support the outcomes of our ombudsman, I must simply ask: where are the public to go? Where are they to place their trust? The ombudsman made it abundantly clear that these women were the victims of maladministration, and that the Department for Work and Pensions had not acted in the way that it should have done. Much worse than that, however, the ombudsman was clear that the DWP could not be trusted to rectify the wrong that it had imposed on those women. So what happened? We were effectively delegated the responsibility to respond, and what did we see? We saw a Government turn their back on those women, but not before, of course, they had held placards; not before, of course, they had given warm words when they had felt that it was politically expedient to do so. Let us listen to some of those warm words. Let us start off with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said: “All your working life you’ve got in mind the date on which you can retire and get your pension, and just as you get towards it, the goalposts are moved and you don’t get it, and it’s a real injustice.” Let us look at what the Deputy Prime Minister said: “They want their money back, and quite rightly so.” Let us look at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: “Pleasure to speak in the state pension age debate and talk about women who are being treated so badly. Govt please listen. #WASPI”. The Home Secretary said: “I want to keep fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.” The Business Secretary said: “I have always supported local campaigners and will continue to stand up for the WASPI women of Tameside. I know you will fight on.” The Defence Secretary said: “Labour will correct this historic wrong.” For those of us in Scotland, let us look north of the border. The leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, said: “Under my leadership, WASPI women will finally receive the justice they deserve.” The wider Labour party in Scotland stated: “Labour will right the historical wrong of pension discrimination by compensating more than 300,000 women in Scotland with an average of £15,000. When Labour wins, Scotland’s women win.” What happened? A parcel of rogues, indeed. I was one of many who were in this Chamber prior to Christmas when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions decided to make a statement right before Parliament broke off to confirm that the Government were sorry for the maladministration that took place, that they were going to make sure the Department for Work and Pensions, which inflicted this wrong upon those women, would never do so again and that lessons would be learned—but that was your lot. The evidence they used to back up their decision not to award any compensation—in fact, not even to discuss the concept of compensation in this Chamber—was based upon the data, as I understand it, of just 200 respondents from many years ago. The Government then went on to say that there is no money at all, as if they are not the ones who get to decide how money is spent; as if they are not the ones who have decided to box themselves in on pretty much every tax lever that exists; as if—I appreciate that not everyone in the Chamber will agree with me on this point—they are not the ones who have decided to simply accept the broken economic norms formed by leaving the European Union and rejecting access to the single market and the customs union, and to accept that it will cause economic damage and limit the money is available to them. None of that was their fault at all. How very dare they? Do they think the public are zipped up the back? Do they think the WASPI women are not listening and watching the decisions they have chosen to take? This is a defining issue. Many of us in the last Parliament watched on as a TV show changed the mind of the Government in respect of the Post Office Horizon scandal. Many of us watched on as Parliament forced the Government to change tack on the infected blood scandal. Many of us have spoken about the Equitable Life scandal, the Hillsborough disaster, the loan charge debacle and, indeed, the WASPI campaign. Defining issues of the last Parliament can still be defining issues of this Parliament, but only if the Government act to provide the compensation and redress that these women so badly deserve. There was a man who went on to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said: “The walls of Westminster are so high.” He was inferring that we do not listen to what the public want, nor do we see what they are fighting for and what they believe in. But we know where the public stand on this issue. We know that they believe the WASPI women should be given the compensation that they deserve, and with this Bill we will seek to provide it. Question put.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In the 2024 new year’s honours list, Stuart Hogg was awarded an MBE. Since then he has been charged, convicted and sentenced for domestic abuse. Does the Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council agree that he should be stripped of that state honour?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  As we hope for this ceasefire deal and for the release of the hostages, we continue to mourn all of those who have been killed since the vicious terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023. In that respect, my mind is very much with the six little babies who did not see this proposal because they froze to death in Gaza just a few short weeks ago. The collective punishment of the Palestinian people will not be forgotten by history, just as all of those who sat silent, and who encouraged and armed extremists in the Israeli Government, will be judged by history. The ceasefire deal is not yet certain; it has been widely reported this morning that the Israeli Cabinet has not yet signed it off. Can the Secretary of State please elaborate on what the consequences would be if either Hamas or, indeed, the Israeli Government reneged on this deal?

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do what the Prime Minister refused to do yesterday and rule out future spending cuts?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I will begin by doing something unusual, which is to commend the Prime Minister on his earlier answers to the Leader of the Opposition. I also pass on my party’s condolences to him on the loss of his brother. Outside this place, temperatures continue to plummet, energy bills continue to rise and the winter fuel allowance has been unacceptably taken away from so many vulnerable pensioners. The Prime Minister intimated prior to Christmas that he had no regrets about any of the decisions that he has taken in office. Does he understand that the public do?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has mentioned GB Energy and the desire to get on with allowing the Crown Estate in England and Wales to borrow. He will not have forgotten that GB Energy is likely to be located in my Aberdeen South constituency, and many of its projects to drive the net zero agenda across the UK will come to fruition in Scotland. Will he provide a little clarity on why he believes these powers should apply to the Crown Estate in England and Wales, yet his Government are not legislating for the powers to be provided to Crown Estate Scotland? I am at a loss to understand the reasoning.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Minister will not hear much disagreement about the points he is making so eloquently. However, may I query why these provisions and powers, which he believes are relevant for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, are not also being provided to the Crown Estate in Scotland?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Secretary of State is now arguing that energy bills will fall by £300 by 2030. A simple question: how much will they rise by before then?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  When it was politically convenient to do so, the Secretary of State chose to back and support WASPI women. Today, she chooses to betray them. The public voted for change, but instead they have been given more of the same—shame on you. If she is so confident in her position, why does she not let us all decide through a vote in this House?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  As everyone in the House will be aware, we are currently in the middle of the BBC’s scam awareness week. The advice in that context is always simple: if you see a scam, you should report it. With that in mind, can the Prime Minister advise the House whether he is aware of anyone who has promised to reduce energy bills only for them to increase? Is he aware of anyone who promised to back business, only to tax business? And is he aware of anyone who promised to protect pensioners, only to pick their pockets for their winter fuel allowance?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, the Labour party had to be dragged into accepting that there was a collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman’s boss said that “war is ugly”. The Labour party earlier this year had to be dragged into even uttering the word ceasefire. Will the Minister show the leadership that his bosses failed to show, and say that if Benjamin Netanyahu’s feet touch the ground in the UK he will comply with the arrest warrant?