House of Lords Reform

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Martin Docherty-Hughes

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I wish to add my disappointment at the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who considers himself to have very left-wing credentials, has co-opted Members of the House of Lords into his shadow Cabinet. That is a travesty if ever there was one.

I may have been a huge fan of the political novels of Anthony Trollope in my formative years, but I have no wish to live in the 19th century. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will indulge me for just a moment, I feel that I must share some figures with the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has shamed me into doing this, and marital relations would become strained if I did not mention the fact that the distinguished—certainly he is in my house—MSP for Cunninghame North unearthed some figures that showed that nearly 75% of appointments to the Lords are defeated, retired or deselected MPs or former advisers. After every election, we actually hear the stampede towards the ermine, from this place to that place. If this matter were not so serious, I would be laughing. We have hereditary peers and Church of England bishops—I have often wondered whether that means that God is an Englishman.

[Martin John Docherty]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if God were a Scotsman, he still would not want a place in the House of Lords?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. We have in the Lords cronies, party donors, party-placed men and women—although there are fewer women than men—failed politicians, and retired politicians who are looking for a wee hobby in 2016. Perhaps that was fitting in Anthony Trollope’s time, but, for the love of God—Madam Deputy Speaker, forgive me—let us get a grip. I bet that when we do get rid of this relic, just like the smoking ban we will wonder why it took so long and why we waited so long. No one on these Benches is saying that there are not some folk in the House of Lords who are well intentioned or who have much expertise and skill to offer their country’s legislative process. No one is even saying that we should not enter into a debate about the relative merits of a second Chamber to revise legislation. That is a debate that we could and should have in the future. What we are saying is that anyone who seeks to pontificate over, revise, introduce or influence legislation in our Parliament should be elected by the people whom they purport to serve. It is as simple as that.

I am almost embarrassed to repeat the numbers for China’s National People’s Congress—as I have now made comparisons with China and Iran, I can see that we are in good company with those beacons of democracy.

Nuisance Calls

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Martin Docherty-Hughes

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. The difficulty, though, is that a person’s personal data are out there among a host of organisations that will further continue to pester them.

It is essential that the Government reconsider whether the rules about how our data are collected, used and traded need to be tightened. We must get the balance right between enabling decent businesses to carry out direct marketing activity when consumers have given their consent for their personal data to be used and preventing the abuse of their data by unscrupulous businesses. I also urge the Government to lead a cross-sector business awareness campaign to ensure that companies know their responsibilities as regards marketing calls and texts and to consider how future legislation could tackle nuisance marketing.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the impact of the charitable sector’s cold calling on our communities? These discussions should also include the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Charity Commissions for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland to ensure that charities recognise their duty of care to the vulnerable and the elderly.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This should include all organisations that choose to use cold calling as one of their tools.

Senior executives need to be made more responsible for the actions of their companies. Although the Government have committed funding to an awareness campaign, more action is required and there is, in my view, an important role for the Financial Conduct Authority. It is time that the responsibility was no longer placed so heavily on the victims of nuisance calls and businesses who engage in this practice should be held more accountable for the genuine distress and anxiety they cause to consumers.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Martin Docherty-Hughes

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on what is perhaps the most important democratic issue facing this House, the United Kingdom and this generation. The concept of English votes for English laws is, on the surface, uncontroversial, but what is proposed is English votes for English laws and English votes for Scottish laws—and English votes for Scottish lords. We will take no lessons from Government Members on a democratic deficit.

The debate last week showed that these shambolic proposals have not been thought through; they have been worked out on the back of an envelope. The answer to English votes for English laws is an English Parliament. There can be no democratic shortcuts. The proposals initially drawn up by the Government simply do not stand up to scrutiny, which makes it all the more important that proper scrutiny is undertaken.

According to the Library, of the approximately 3,800 Divisions between 26 June 2001 and 26 March 2015, only 0.7% would have concluded differently had the votes of Scottish MPs been discounted. One must then ask what is the reason for the urgency, for the indecent haste behind the move, even taking into account the pause until September.

The UK Government have published a list of 20 Bills passed in the previous Parliament that they said did not apply to Scotland. However, after careful analysis by the First Minister of Scotland, 13 of them were found to be relevant to Scotland. That is why her request for talks on English votes for English laws must be treated with respect.

We in the SNP quarter of the House are deeply concerned about what can only be described, and what can only appear, as an abuse of process behind the move. To implement such a profound and divisive measure, rushed through with the aforementioned indecent haste, and without proper scrutiny, by suspending the Standing Orders of the House, closing down debate via an English Grand Committee—incidentally, it will have powers that a Scottish Grand Committee does not have—and with the use of iPads for a separate layer of voting, would all be laughable were it not so serious and if it did not fly in the face of the democratic procedures we all hold so dear.

[Martin John Docherty]

Has my hon. Friend noted the lack of attendance on the Government Benches, despite the seriousness of the matter before us? If English votes for English laws were so important to Government Members, those Benches would be full.

[Patricia Gibson]

I heartily concur with my hon. Friend. I hope that people in Scotland watching the debate on the Parliament channel will draw the inevitable conclusion.

Let us be clear that changes to Standing Orders almost always go through Committee scrutiny first, usually in the Procedure Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has noted in a point of order that were such changes to be made without scrutiny,

“any majority Government could change Standing Orders to restrict the voting rights of any Member without so much as a by-your-leave.”—[Official Report, 27 May 2015; Vol. 596, c. 65.]

Mr Speaker, who was in the Chair at the time, replied that it was “an extremely important point”.

Let me give some more context. We know that changes to Scotland’s block grant are made in line with UK spending changes on the basis of population percentages. The funding policy states that

“the system of devolved finance is subject to overall UK macroeconomic and fiscal policy.”

The system of devolved finance is, in fact, fully contingent on English finance. It is also a one-way street; Scottish Bills do not affect England, but English Bills may very well affect Scotland. Government Members have consistently refused to recognise that throughout this debate.

The former Member for Richmond (Yorks), William Hague, acknowledged as much when he said:

“we recognise that the level of spending on health and local government in England is a legitimate matter for all MPs, as there are consequential effects on spending for the rest of the UK”.

The McKay commission pointed out that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 largely applied to England but had appreciable effects on commitments to public spending in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, even though health and social care is a devolved matter. It concluded:

“Any reforms undertaken to respond to English concerns must therefore be mindful of possible impacts outside England and seek to mitigate such impacts.”

In addition to Barnett consequentials, other, more general financial consequences can arise. For instance, if earned income was redefined, Scottish income tax revenues would be affected. There is a perennial question that I have not heard any Conservative Member answer: we still cannot get a logical definition of what qualifies as an England-only or an England and Wales-only Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was told in response to a letter to the Leader of the House that the Scotland Bill would qualify as an England-only Bill. That demonstrates how ludicrous this whole debate is. How insulting to Scotland is that?