Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of the tree, which can have multiple benefits, as she pointed out. Late last year, I visited St Vincent de Paul Primary School in Liverpool to support its tree-planting exercises. I can assure my hon. Friend that the environment is at the heart of the Government today, not just post-Brexit.

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

8. What assessment she has made of the effect on the rural economy of the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 21st April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

6. What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the Standing Orders of the House.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Government have implemented significant change to Standing Orders since the beginning of this Session. On 22 October 2015, the House voted to approve new Standing Orders to implement English votes for English laws, delivering on a key Government commitment by giving England and Wales more control over decisions by which they alone are affected. Standing Orders undergo frequent revision. The Procedure Committee, the Clerks and the Government monitor their use to ensure that they reflect how business in the House is conducted in practice.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Procedure Committee, on which I sit, published a report this week on private Members’ Bills, calling for amendment to the Standing Orders because the present procedure has been brought into total disrepute due to the frequency with which Bills are talked out. Does the Leader of the House agree that the procedure is in total disrepute, or does he think that filibustering is democratic?

[Dr Coffey]

In this case, he is a she. We debated this last week in Westminster Hall, as the hon. Lady will be aware, as she participated in the debate. It would be remiss of me to answer before the Government published their response to the Procedure Committee’s report. We will publish our response in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Voter engagement in terms of general election turnout collapsed in the 2001 election, after four years of a Blair Government. I am pleased to say that voter turnout has increased. The hon. Lady talks about this institution potentially being corrupt. That is not the case, as we have high levels of integrity, but where MPs have been found to break the law, they have been sent to jail and that is where they belong.

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

2. What parliamentary mechanisms are available to hon. Members to scrutinise Barnett consequentials within the estimates process. [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Estimates are formal requests for authorisation of expenditure proposed to the House by the Government. Scrutiny of these, which are effectively departmental budgets, is undertaken in a variety of ways, including debates selected by the Liaison Committee, and it is also open to Select Committees to examine these budgets. The Procedure Committee has recently announced that it will look at the House’s procedures for examining estimates and the passing of legislation that authorises this expenditure—the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, which we dealt with yesterday.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for her answer. May we have a commitment today that steps will be taken to modify the estimates process so that Members representing Scottish constituencies can properly scrutinise the impact of legislation on Scotland?

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Thérèse Coffey

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The hon. Lady will recognise that the Government realised there was a problem with that and it has been corrected. I believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has a letter to that effect.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady, but that merely demonstrates the indecent haste with which this whole enterprise has been cobbled together.