Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Patrick Grady Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen
My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I agree with her assessment. We need to come to terms with the fact that there are flaws in the way we operate. They have been powerfully and vividly depicted in Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, and the Government must respond in a suitably comprehensive way.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I want to recognise the valuable and incredible work of many of the campaign groups, not least the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, chaired by my constituent, Joyce Donnelly, whose husband Tom was infected and passed away from hepatitis C. Joyce was in the Gallery yesterday and earlier today, and she and others have acted as convenors and advocates for the wider community at great personal cost; there is not just the financial cost, but the time and effort put in by those in those roles. Will that effort and cost be taken into account in the calculation of compensation, or is there other ongoing support that the Government can provide to the campaign and advocacy groups? Joyce described her forum as “stony broke”.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful representation on behalf of Joyce Donnelly, who I believe I have met. The purpose of today’s announcement is to bring an end to the need for campaigning as quickly as possible, and to provide comprehensive compensation to all those who qualify as quickly as possible. However, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) said, we need to ensure that the different communities are comfortable with what is being proposed, and are familiar with the details of how tariffs have been calculated and how they will work. Rather than my prescribing, as a Government Minister, what should happen, I am trying to facilitate the process by giving someone whom the communities clearly respect the opportunity to lead the engagement, urgently, that will inform the regulations that underpin the new body.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patrick Grady Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Dowden
The Labour party keep on pushing on this point, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the latest list of ministerial interests, which was published in December and provides details of Minister’s interests, including those of the Foreign Secretary, that are judged by the independent adviser to be relevant, or could be perceived to be relevant, to their ministerial roles. All of it is there in the public domain.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
With reference to the written questions that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office has answered, can he outline what the Government consider to be the difference between a foreign court and an international court?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
We have answered this question on a number of occasions.
Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords
Patrick Grady Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I suppose I ought to begin by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) a very happy birthday, based on what he was saying about the birthday present he has just received.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and other occupants of the Chair often remind us, topical questions are supposed to be short and to the point. But I having been unsuccessful in catching Mr Speaker’s eye during topical questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last week, and following my point of order later that day, he kindly granted this Adjournment debate to explore what would otherwise have been a very short topical question: where is the Foreign Secretary and why is he not answering questions in this House? We now have the opportunity to explore that in a little more detail, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for that.
We might as well acknowledge at the start that, even though we have more time than might have been expected to explore this issue, I suspect that the Government’s response will be relatively short, and that the Minister will simply suggest that the House must wait patiently for them to publish their response to the Procedure Committee’s recent report on this issue within the usual timescale.
However, that does not change the reality that the appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords has had immediate and practical consequences for Members of this House, and it raises wider questions about the relationship between the two Houses, the accountability of Ministers more generally, and the kind of precedent that his appointment has set. The Government should be prepared to answer those kinds of questions at any time, and they should certainly have thought some of those things through before the appointment was made. If they are going to smash up conventions by appointing a Foreign Secretary from the Lords, they should not have to hide behind conventions about timescales for responding to Select Committee reports before trying to justify that decision and deal with its consequences.
There are therefore two interlinked themes that it is worth exploring. First are some of the practical implications and consequences relating specifically to the current Foreign Secretary being a member of the House of Lords, but there are also the wider principles involved about how Ministers—especially those who sit in the Lords—are scrutinised by the elected House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand, and I well understand the issue he brings to the House. There is a clear disconnect between the essence of elected democrats and the scrutiny of Secretaries of State who sit in Cabinet, and moreover the electorate. Does he agree that in order to tackle this issue and ensure that all Secretaries of State are liable to answer to Members of the House of Commons, more must be done to overcome this issue in future and ensure that it does not become a regular occurrence?
Patrick Grady
I thank the hon. Gentleman—another important parliamentary convention has now been observed with his intervention in the Adjournment debate. I am grateful for and agree very much with the point he makes, and we will look at all that in a bit more detail. Indeed, most of us will be familiar with the context that he started to describe.
The Prime Minister announced on Monday 13 November that David Cameron would be appointed to the House of Lords and would serve as Foreign Secretary. Mr Speaker wrote to the Procedure Committee on 22 November requesting that it explore options for enhanced scrutiny by the House of Commons of senior Ministers in the House of Lords. The Procedure Committee, of which I and some other Members present are members, published its report and recommendations—including the key recommendation that the Foreign Secretary should appear before this House to answer questions—on 17 January 2024. Two months later, we are still waiting for the Government’s response.
As I said in my point of order last week, there have been two sessions of FCDO questions since that report was published, and no sign of the Foreign Secretary. In fact, there have been three sessions of FCDO questions since his appointment, and if the usual rota continues, we can extrapolate that there ought to be another three sessions before the summer recess. FCDO Ministers have responded to 10 urgent questions, including one today, and made eight oral statements since the new Foreign Secretary was appointed. There have been 22 written statements from FCDO Ministers in the Commons, three of which have been on behalf of FCDO Ministers in the Lords, including one in the name of the Foreign Secretary himself. As each question session passes, and as each urgent question is answered or statement made, the accountability gap grows wider, the frustration of Members of this House increases and the absurdity of the situation becomes clearer.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I welcome this debate. As Lord Cameron has agreed, and as has been re-instigated, he is now taking half an hour of questions in the Lords directly to him, not to other Ministers. In the House of Commons we get no minutes and no questions to the Foreign Secretary. That cannot be right for a democratic Chamber, can it?
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. That is precisely why it is important that we have the opportunity to draw these points to the Government’s attention. Incidentally, I do not know whether he has written it down or said it anywhere, but around the time of his appointment there were indications from Lord Cameron that he would be happy to co-operate with accountability mechanisms, but they do not seem to have been put in place, and I will come back to that.
Accountability is particularly important, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because we are living through times of significant global turmoil, with perhaps some of the biggest threats to the established rules-based order of peace and security since the second world war. There is no guaranteed or permanent mechanism for Members of this elected House as a whole to directly question and scrutinise the work of the Government’s chief diplomat, their roving ambassador on the world stage, their voice in the corridors of foreign powers: His Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. David Cameron, Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. Our constituents are writing to us at this time about the challenging situation we see in Gaza, and clearly they want answers from the person who is making decisions. Given the lack of accountability in the system when there could be war crimes being committed—not least by our own country in trading arms—it is absolutely right that we should have the opportunity to scrutinise. Does he believe that we need to ensure that we have a Foreign Secretary who is elected democratically from our country and that they should not be sitting in the House of Lords?
Patrick Grady
Yes, precisely. The key point is accountability to this elected House, and I will come on to that in more detail. We have been elected to hold the Government to account, and we are being denied that opportunity because of decisions made by the Prime Minister.
Much of this comes down to what the Prime Minister and the Government wanted to achieve by the appointment of David Cameron in the first place. It might have shaken up the world of breaking news and podcast analysis for a few days. It might have signalled some kind of change in direction of the Government’s priorities. It might have calmed the blue wall, even if at the same time it was slightly worrying the red wall. It also sends a strange message to every Conservative Member of this House—perhaps every Member other than the Prime Minister himself—that none of them are good enough or have the necessary skills or experience at this point in time to be the Foreign Secretary. That applies not least to the immediately previous Foreign Secretary. He may have been redeployed to be Home Secretary, but he has still essentially been judged by the Prime Minister not to be the right person for the job.
The end result, as we have already heard in interventions, is woefully inadequate opportunities for Members of the Commons to scrutinise effectively the work of the Foreign Secretary and, by extension, the Foreign Office as a whole. Many of us have a huge amount of respect and regard for the Minister for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —not something people will often hear SNP Members say about Conservative Ministers. However, he now has to effectively deputise for the Foreign Secretary in this House, without any additional ministerial support having been provided in the Commons team, as far as I can tell, so by definition he has more to deal with than before. It must stretch him and his team, no matter how deftly and effectively they try to work. No matter how capable any of the Ministers are, none of them can truly answer on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, for the simple reason that they are not the Foreign Secretary. They will not have been in the meetings he has been in, been on the trips he has been on or attended the summits he has attended, so all their answers, all their responses to questions and all their positions outlined in statements are second-hand at best.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who cannot be here this evening, wrote a powerful letter to the Procedure Committee when it was considering this matter. He highlighted the ongoing situation of his constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained by the Government of India for nearly seven years. I have heard from many of my constituents who share those concerns about the treatment of Mr Johal. My hon. Friend’s letter, and his point of order in the House on 10 January, drew attention to what he called the “extraordinary lack of response” from the Foreign Secretary to letters about this case and his frustration about not being able to raise these concerns directly with the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House. Such frustrations and concerns were present in other evidence taken by the Procedure Committee and have been heard in other departmental questions, urgent questions, statements, points of order, in Westminster Hall debates and even in interventions right here this evening.
The Procedure Committee considered a range of options and possibilities for enhanced scrutiny of Lords Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State. It looked at previous suggestions of holding question sessions in Westminster Hall or one of the larger Committee Rooms, or convening a special Grand Committee either here in the Chamber or elsewhere, but it came to the conclusion that the simplest and most straightforward way to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary would be for him appear in the Chamber during departmental questions and for any relevant UQs or statements and to answer questions from the Bar of the House.
The Hansard Society suggested in its evidence that there may be some practical and presentational issues with the Foreign Secretary standing, presumably at a lectern, at the Bar of the House while other Ministers continued to answer from the Dispatch Box. I think the word used was “ridiculous”. Perhaps some of us would have some sympathy with that, but it should not be insurmountable. Then there is the question of whether the Lords would need to give permission for one of its Members to appear in the Commons or whether the Commons would need to agree to some kind of resolution to make changes to its Standing Orders. But none of that should be insurmountable. All of these issues, starting with the actual appointment of the Foreign Secretary, are in the gift of the Government.
Ultimately, whether the Foreign Secretary comes to answer questions in this House, like pretty much everything else that happens here, is for the Government to decide. The Government can make it happen or they can choose not to make it happen. By choosing not to do so, they will send a message about exactly what kind of regard they have for this House, for the mandate we have for our constituents and, therefore, for our constituents themselves.
We can recognise that the appointment was not totally without precedent. The Procedure Committee’s report and the very thorough and helpful Library briefing on the subject both list various examples of Ministers and Secretaries of State who have served in the Lords in recent and not-so-recent times, but that does not mean that those situations were not also sub-optimal in how the Ministers were scrutinised and held to account. There have been some attempts to distinguish between Secretaries of State for various Government Departments and those that have been considered great offices of state. However, the concept of a “great office of state” is not written down anywhere, and any Prime Minister at any time could choose to change or divide the responsibilities of the Treasury, Home Office or the FCDO, which not so long ago was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before one of the many former Prime Ministers we have had in recent years merged it with the Department for International Development.
In each case where a Secretary of State has been appointed in the Lords, whether that was Lord Mandelson as Business Secretary or Baroness Morgan as Culture Secretary, the governing party at the time said that it was all fine and there were lines of accountability to the Commons, and the official Opposition at the time were suitably outraged and said it was an appalling state of affairs that would never happen on their watch. That tells us a lot about the interchangeability of the two major parties in UK politics and the imperative of any incumbent Government of whatever colour to maintain the established status quo of constitutional convention and practice.
Perhaps that starts to get us to the broader points of principle at play and the broader question of whether the Government and the Prime Minister, or indeed any past or future UK Governments and Prime Ministers, really care all that much about scrutiny by this House and the role of the Commons more generally. The established principle in this Parliament and the devolved institutions is that the Executive is drawn from, and accountable to and through, the legislature. There are plenty of examples around the world where members of the Executive—the equivalent of Ministers and Secretaries of State—are not drawn from the legislature. In many of those cases, however—we think particularly of the United States—there is an incredibly thorough vetting and approval process. Appointment hearings in the United States Senate can take days or weeks, even for relatively junior appointments.
Closer to home, in Scotland’s Parliament—indeed, we saw it happen today in Wales with the appointment of the new First Minister—the appointment of Scottish Government Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers must be agreed to by Parliament before they are approved by the King. Incidentally, that includes the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, who are not Members of the Scottish Parliament but appear in its Chamber, which is designed to accommodate them, so they can sit or stand and answer questions and be held to account by the elected Members.
A process for approval of Ministers by a vote of the legislature could quite easily be adopted in this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) tried to introduce something precisely to that end through a ten-minute rule Bill in a previous Session. In some respects it ought to be a formality, because if the Government can command a majority that accepts the Prime Minister’s decisions about ministerial appointments, it should be able get those appointments through. At the very least it would allow some public deliberation and questioning about the wisdom of individual appointments and the relevant experience, suitability, and perhaps outside interests, of Ministers-designate. I am sure that people might have had questions about the Foreign Secretary’s outside interests upon his appointment. Such accountability is not something that a Government confident in their decision making and command of a majority in the House should be afraid of.
There have also been questions about reciprocity: if Ministers who are Lords are to appear before the Commons to take questions, should Ministers who are MPs appear before the Lords? On the face of it that might not seem an entirely unreasonable question, but it comes back to the point about accountability, which is relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Members of the House of Lords have been appointed to their positions for the rest of their lives by the Prime Minister of the day, or perhaps because they are a bishop in the Church of England or someone’s ancestor. Members of the House of Commons are accountable to their voters. Our constituents make a choice about who should represent them and we make representations on their behalf, not least by asking questions of Ministers—that comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for York Central.
The question of whether the Minister is elected is slightly beside the point. In this debate, I do not expect a response from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on behalf of the people in his constituency; I am putting questions on behalf of the people of Glasgow North to the Government, and I expect and look forward to a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. As the hon. Lady said, our constituency inboxes are full of huge issues, none bigger at the moment than the situation in Israel and Gaza and the need for an immediate ceasefire. However, there is no way for any of us to put those views directly to the Foreign Secretary. I have no method of putting that point on the record directly to him, and of receiving a response on behalf of the people of Glasgow North.
That leads us not just to questions about the scrutiny of Lords Ministers by the Commons, but to the role and purpose of the second Chamber, the accountability of unelected parliamentarians, the relationship between both Houses and the relationship between the legislature and the Executive. That goes back to the point that I, and many others, have made before: meaningful reform of the Lords is not possible without meaningful reform of the Commons. Meaningful reform of the Commons would mean the Government—in particular, the Prime Minister—giving up significant powers of patronage, appointment and executive control. Neither of the main parties wants to give that up once it has achieved power.
There is a reason why the Labour party has been promising and failing to deliver meaningful reform of the House of Lords for over 100 years. Giving up the power to directly appoint Members to the House of Lords would be a significant diminution of the Prime Minister’s powers of patronage. Fully or even partially electing the Lords would inevitably challenge the assumed supremacy of the Commons. The first priority of any UK Government on acquiring power is to retain that power; that will not change after the next election, no matter the outcome.
The Minister will tell us all to wait patiently for the Government’s official response to the Procedure Committee’s report, and perhaps even tell us that it will be published soon or before the recess. We can take a pretty good guess at what it will say. If the Government wanted the Foreign Secretary to appear before this House at departmental questions or at any other point, they would have already made arrangements for that to happen.
Constituents in Glasgow North, some of whom were represented by the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) once upon a time, will look on with confusion, disappointment and increasing disenchantment. The Scottish Parliament is not perfect, but its procedures for scrutiny of Ministers and accessibility to the wider public are light years beyond what is in place in Westminster. Just as there is reason why the Labour party has repeatedly failed to reform the Lords, there is reason why the SNP refuses to take seats in the unelected House.
When Scotland becomes independent, perhaps there will be some kind of second Chamber of Parliament, or a stronger system of participative and deliberative democracy through citizens’ assemblies to explore proposals before the legislature takes them forward. Whatever the shape and form, it will be decided by the people of Scotland, who are and always will be sovereign in Scotland, irrespective of the conventions and traditions of Westminster. A Foreign Secretary in an independent Scotland—certainly one with an SNP Government—would work to uphold peace and human rights around the world, invest in poverty reduction and tackling climate change, and represent a country proud at last to be free of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
The longer Westminster diverges from that vision, transparency and accountability, and the more Prime Ministers, of whatever flavour from whatever wing of whatever party, think they can avoid scrutiny by elected parliamentarians and appoint their friends, donors and allies to positions of power without consequences, the more the people in Glasgow North and across Scotland will come to realise the difference that we can make and will make with independence.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patrick Grady Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Baker
The hon. Gentleman makes a great case for his constituency, and I would certainly like to see terrific levels of investment into it. However, I would like us to go further: I would like to see that investment zone reach right across the whole of Northern Ireland. I hope and expect that together, the UK Government and the restored Executive will make the most of that opportunity.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Why do the UK Government think it is good thing for Northern Ireland to have access to parts of the EU single market, but not for other parts of the United Kingdom to have such access, particularly those parts of the United Kingdom that voted to remain in the EU and the single market?
Oral Answers to Questions
Patrick Grady Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the performance on Chiltern has not been good enough in recent times. I know that Chiltern has recently begun engagement with the rolling-stock leasing market, which will help reduce overcrowding, but also, together with DfT, it is looking at providing additional capacity at peak times. I know that the rail Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) will ensure that these plans continue to progress and keep my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) updated.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
It is not that there is anything wrong with it; it is just that it is not the United Kingdom. And I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that deterrence works: we know that it works because our scheme with Albania has ensured a 90% reduction in arrivals from that country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patrick Grady Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Yes, we will. We have raised the reports of sexual violence attacks on 7 October with UN Women and with the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. I will make sure that we continue to do this and to impress upon international organisations that the whole world needs to respond to this.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
We are having cross-governmental discussions about AI, and we are very clear that AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly. This was a key topic of discussion at the AI safety summit, and it remains a priority for the Government. Fairness is a core principle of our AI regulatory framework, and UK regulators are already taking action to address AI-related bias and discrimination.
Patrick Grady
In that case, is the Minister aware of the findings of the Institute for the Future of Work that the use of artificial intelligence
“presents risks to equality, potentially embedding bias and discrimination”,
and that auditing AI tools used in recruitment
“are often inadequate in ensuring compliance with UK Equality Law, good governance and best practice”?
What steps are being taken across the whole of Government to ensure that appropriate assessments are made of the equalities impact of the use of AI in the workplace?
Saqib Bhatti
That is exactly why we had the AI safety summit, at which more than 28 countries plus the EU signed up to the Bletchley declaration. In March, we published the AI regulation White Paper, which set out our first steps towards establishing a regulatory framework for AI. I repeat that AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly, and that is one of the core principles set out in the White Paper.
Debate on the Address
Patrick Grady Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Well—God save the King! Those are not words that might be expected from someone brought up to have a healthy scepticism of the role of the hereditary principle in a modern democracy, but if the kind of woeful, unambitious and retrograde legislation that has been announced today is what the new monarch will have to put up with for the rest of his reign, he will need all the divine salvation he can get.
One person who can be more confident in their ambition is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss); I am delighted that she has been selected as the candidate for the redrawn constituency of Glasgow North at the next general election. She has been an outstanding Member of this House, and I have every confidence that she will be returned at the next election to continue working with the same passion as she does now for her constituents, making the case for a fairer, greener, healthier, wealthier and independent Scotland. Only independence can truly deliver the change Scotland needs to tackle the cost of living crisis and the challenges that face the world today.
The cost of living—and the cost of energy in particular—is the single biggest issue affecting people in Glasgow North today. Although inflation rates are going down, that does not mean that prices are going down. Prices are still going up: mortgages and rents, food and grocery bills, car and home insurance and phone and internet costs are all higher today than they were under the previous Prime Minister last year, or indeed the Prime Minister before her. While every country in the world has had to deal with the consequences of the pandemic and with the conflict in Ukraine and elsewhere, only the UK has had to deal with the impact of Brexit—a Brexit that 78% of people in Glasgow North voted against, and that none of the Westminster parties is prepared to admit has been nothing short of disastrous.
There is nothing in today’s announcements that deals with any of that. The Government could have announced more energy fuel rebates, mortgage interest rates relief or the kind of action on food prices that has been taken in Ireland. They could have put in place an essentials guarantee so that people definitely have enough to live on, or simply uprated universal credit in line with the recommendations of the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extreme poverty. Instead, there is silence. That silence is echoed on the Front Bench of the official Opposition, who are so terrified of doing or saying anything that might frighten people who voted Conservative last time round that their position becomes almost indistinguishable from that of the Conservatives.
The Labour party used to pride itself on delivering devolution to Scotland—on the second attempt and 18 years late, mind you—but now, like the Conservative party, it seems to think that a kind of constitutional perfection has been reached and that Scotland’s Parliament now has all the powers it will ever need to continue to be the best wee devolved Parliament in the entire universe. Even though the leader of the Labour party in Holyrood says that he would “love” for employment law to be devolved to Scotland—a power that was promised as part of the vows made to voters in 2014, and that would allow the Scottish Government to drive forward workers’ rights and protections in Scotland—the position of the leader of the Labour party in Westminster is: “You’ll have had your devolution, so that’s the end of the matter.” Neither side will devolve employment law, but yet again the King’s Speech lacks an employment Bill, which could protect and enhance the rights of workers to fair hours, fair pay and fair treatment in the workplace. So, it will probably fall again to the arcane private Member’s Bill system to try to take forward any improvements.
The same appears to be true for large areas of animal welfare. Scotland is a nation of animal lovers, and although the live animal exports Bill announced today is welcome, I hear regularly from constituents who want more action from the Government on puppy smuggling, trophy hunting and animal testing, all of which could be dealt with in a wider animal welfare Bill with the Government’s backing. Yet once again, we are faced with a year of bits and pieces of ad hoc legislation, subject to the whim of Members in turning up on Fridays for private Members’ Bills.
Not content with ignoring the welfare of animals, the Government seem determined to ignore the basic rights and dignity of some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. Asylum seekers and refugees I meet in Glasgow North have come here because they have fled conflict, persecution or natural disasters. They have not come just to seek work, but of course they want to be able to work. They do not want to be told that they have no recourse to public funds and to become destitute. They have valuable skills and experience, and they want to put them to use to earn money, pay for their own accommodation and pay taxes into the system rather than take resources out. However, the Tory Government want to do the opposite of that: they actively want to spend taxpayers’ money to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to make a positive contribution to society and the economy.
Like other Members, the issue I have most heard about from my Glasgow North constituents in recent weeks is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the need for an immediate ceasefire. I have received more than 700 such emails at the last count; many—if not most—are from constituents reaching out for the first time, appalled, horrified and sometimes even traumatised by what they are seeing on the news, especially those who have friends and family in the region. Thousands of completely innocent children have been killed—by some counts, one child for every 10 minutes of the conflict so far—and acts of what can only be described as collective punishment are being inflicted on people in Gaza by the Government of Israel. Likewise, there is no justification for the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas. Nor is there any excuse for antisemitism in any form. At the end of the day, a lasting settlement can only come about through negotiation and a willingness to come to agreement.
That is why a ceasefire, which means that everybody involved ceases firing, must be the start. That is not the position of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, but it is the position of the UN Secretary-General, the UN General Assembly, the World Health Organisation, Oxfam, Amnesty International, Scotland’s First Minister, His Holiness Pope Francis and the many, many Glasgow North constituents who have reached out. They also want aid convoys to be allowed in, people who want to leave to be able to do so, and then legitimate representatives to get round a table and work out a route to peace.
As Pope Paul VI said:
“peace is not simply the absence of warfare, based on a precarious balance of power; it is fashioned by efforts directed day after day toward the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect form of justice among men”—
more succinctly: “if you want peace, you must work for justice.” The God that he spoke of is the God held to be true by Jews, Muslims and Christians alike—the God who teaches in their holy books that we should treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. In that golden rule of reciprocity lies the route to peace in the middle east, and indeed to peace and justice around the world—in Afghanistan, in Ukraine, in Sudan and in so many other places.
We live in a world that is more turbulent and unstable than it seemed just eight years ago when many of my colleagues and I were elected to this place. Not all the challenges can be dealt with by a legislative programme announced from a throne in the House of Lords, but we have to consider how best to play our part. The Government’s shameful cut to the aid budget diminished the UK’s standing in the world and has done lasting damage to countries and communities where programmes have been stopped or scaled back. The forthcoming White Paper might stabilise things, but it may not be enough, especially if other policies continue to go in the opposite direction.
The way to respond to the climate crisis and the challenge of the energy crisis is not to simply carry on as if nothing is happening. We have to wean ourselves off the oil and fossil fuels that are changing the planet’s climate, and invest in clean, green, renewable energy from sources that Scotland has in abundance: wave, wind, and—though it may be hard to believe—solar. Investments that can use and develop the skills of our workforce and provide new, well-paying jobs for this and future generations. The petroleum licensing Bill announced today appears to do just the opposite.
At a time when we need to be looking outward, showing leadership on the world stage, the UK Tory Government—and, sadly, their wannabes in the official Opposition—are increasingly looking inward. The King’s Speech is largely legislative navel-gazing, trying to cobble together interest and support from wherever it can be found in a desperate attempt to stay in power. If that speech, and the official Opposition’s reaction to it, is literally the best that the UK can do, then the UK is frankly no longer fit for purpose.
Scotland can and must, and in the end will, do much better than this. Independence would give us the powers and opportunity to tackle the cost of living crisis at home and the climate crisis across the globe. It is time, as the late, great Winnie Ewing said, to stop the world, because Scotland wants to get on.
Bishops in the House of Lords
Patrick Grady Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing the debate. My first email from a constituent asking me to participate in the debate was in February, so I congratulate Humanists UK on the effectiveness of its campaigning machinery and the passion of its members. I echo the thanks to the all-party group, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) have a record of making interventions on the subject of the Lords Spiritual and Lords reform, and they have wide agreement among our SNP colleagues. Our position is clear: the House of Lords should be abolished. There is no place in a modern democracy for an unelected legislature, let alone one that grants membership to religious clerics as of right.
In 2005, I was proud to move the resolution at SNP conference that most recently confirmed our party’s long-held position that no SNP member would take a seat in the unelected House. It is important to be clear, as we were in the debate that I led from the Back Benches in January about reform of the Lords, that we hold the individuals concerned in the highest regard; nothing we say is meant with any personal disrespect or questioning of their sense of duty and commitment to the roles that they have accepted.
We can also appreciate the role of faith leaders more widely across society. In Westminster Hall we often have debates about the importance of freedom of religion and belief around the world, and we hear of many places where these rights are not respected, so we should be proud to live in a modern, pluralistic society where people can practise their faith and speak openly about their beliefs in the public square.
Faith communities continue to make up a significant proportion of our society, and it is right and proper that the leaders of those communities are accorded respect and, where appropriate, a voice in our national discourse. We need only look at the service in St Giles’ cathedral yesterday, where leaders from the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and humanist communities were invited to greet the monarch after he was presented with the Honours of Scotland. Our views on a constitutional monarchy notwithstanding, that gives an indication of the importance of faith and belief communities to our wider civic society. But providing that kind of representative role, having a platform in the media or being a statutory consultee on certain aspects of public or planning policy is very different from having an active role in a legislative Chamber of Parliament.
The unelected Chamber is already anomalous. The presence of bishops as ex officio members is more or less unique in western democracies; it is even more peculiar when we consider the special privileges accorded to the bishops in the House, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire outlined. All that comes on top of the antiquated and essentially undemocratic role, and frankly existence, of the House of Lords itself. These points have been well made by my hon. Friends and do not need much more rehearsing.
Ironically, there are more people in the Lords than in the Commons who want the upper Chamber abolished or reformed, because so many Members of the Commons, particularly on the Government and official Opposition Benches, want to be appointed to the Lords at some point. That is why I concluded in my debate back in January—as the Lord Speaker concluded in his thoughtful intervention for the Hansard Society, and even Gordon Brown conceded in his latest weighty tome, which I think is already gathering dust on the shelves of the Leader of the Opposition—that the biggest barrier to reform of the Lords is that no meaningful reform of the Lords can be carried out without also reforming the Commons. And any meaningful reform of the Commons would mean taking power away from the Government. And no UK Government, of whatever colour, will readily give up that power.
Despite all the grand talk about parliamentary sovereignty, the House of Commons is essentially a plaything for the Government of the day. The Government set the agenda, control the time, and control the standing orders and rulebook, no matter what myths and conventions say otherwise. An elected Lords would challenge the primacy of the Commons. A cap on the size of the Lords would limit the powers of patronage held by the Prime Minister. The removal of the bishops would call into question the relationship between Church and state, meaning the relationship between the Church and Crown.
The Crown in Parliament and the royal prerogative are the Government’s free hand to wield Executive authority. No matter what nice words the Government use to dress up how much they value the House of Lords and appreciate the work of the bishops, the reality is that any tinkering at the edges or pulling on the thread of the UK’s constitutional tapestry risks unravelling the whole thing—and no UK Government would want to do that.
Patrick Grady
I do not have time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East again on securing the debate. Musing about reform of the House of Lords has been an entertaining parlour game in UK politics for more than 100 years, since the Labour party first promised and failed to deliver meaningful reform. I fear that the forces of antidisestablishmentarianism will continue to prevail. My hon. Friend and I both know that meaningful reform is not going to happen. The meaningful reform that will truly let democracy flourish in Scotland will come when the people of Scotland choose to leave the broken Westminster system and become an independent country.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I want to get in before the hon. Gentleman finishes, because he may have a bit more time than he thought: he has up to 10 minutes. I did not want him to cut him off if he wanted to give way but was mistakenly thinking he did not have enough time.
Patrick Grady
Apologies, Mr Davies. I was pretty much finishing, but I will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
My hon. Friend was talking about the issue of establishment and the role of Church and state. The Cecil Committee in 1935 was very clear
“that a complete spiritual freedom of the Church is not incompatible with Establishment.”
Does my hon. Friend agree with the Cecil Committee?
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend is right. The points about the establishment of the Church of England have been well made. The point that I am trying to make is that we cannot unpick. This is the nature of the UK constitution, such as it is. Everything is so tightly interwoven that if we start picking at one part, the whole thing will fall apart. That is not in the interests of the Government, because the point of the UK constitution is to give the Government as much unlimited and unchallenged power as possible while retaining the pretence of democracy. The alternative to that, for the people of Scotland, is for us to vote to become independent.
Infected Blood Inquiry
Patrick Grady Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), on securing this debate, and I add my thanks and those of the SNP for the commitment and leadership they have shown on this issue over so many years, particularly through the all-party parliamentary group. It is also right to recognise the considerable personal and professional experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) brought to the debate right at the start.
Between 16 Back-Bench speakers and nine different interveners, many tributes have been paid to those who have lost their lives because of the infected blood scandal, and our condolences go to all those who have been bereaved. We have heard many moving stories this afternoon, and that perhaps is one of the most important points to take away: that this is not some abstract policy debate; this is about people, individuals and families whose lives have been completely transformed—often shattered—as a result of this scandal, and for many of whom time is now running out.
The impact has not just been living, and indeed dying, with the consequences of being infected or affected by contaminated blood products; it has also been the fight for justice, which itself has become all-consuming and a life-changing experience for so many people. So we also thank those campaigners, and we must now resolve to make sure that justice is delivered.
Among those campaigners is Joyce Donnelly, one of my constituents in Glasgow North, who is the convenor of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum. Her husband, Tom Donnelly, lived with haemophilia and received contaminated blood products at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As a result, he contracted hepatitis C and lived with that condition for 35 years until his death in 2015. Joyce has campaigned passionately and tirelessly for justice and recompense for all those whose lives, in her words,
“were similarly blighted by a disaster that should never have been allowed to happen.”
I also want to thank other constituents who have been in touch and shared their stories in recent years and assure them of my support and solidarity.
When I met Joyce a couple of weeks ago, her frustration—like the frustration expressed by many Members today on behalf of their constituents—was palpable. The forum that Joyce convenes supports many people who have struggled and are struggling to cope with the impact the scandal has had on their lives and their families. We have heard examples of that across the Chamber today: people accused of being alcoholics; the pain and fatigue they suffered as a result of disease; the stigma they have had to put up with; and the survivor’s guilt, which a number of Members spoke about passionately. Now they are looking for justice and compensation before it is too late.
In some cases it is too late: even if the person infected is still alive, they have lived all these years without the financial support that could have made it easier to deal with the effects of their conditions. The interim compensation payments that have been made to many are welcome, but in many cases they are not enough. It is now estimated that around four infected people are dying every week; as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, nine people in Scotland have passed away since the interim report was published. So the need for urgent action by the Government could not be clearer, and the lack of action only adds to the frustration, and even anger.
There is action that could be taken now. Indeed, it is action that was recommended by the inquiry, especially on the appointment and even interim formation of the recommended arm’s length body. Everyone accepts that compensation must be paid, so the process of establishing how that will be paid and beginning to compile who will be paid could have already started, even if what or how much they will be paid still has to be calculated. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) articulated that issue clearly.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of all the suffering, it is now time to see generosity, not penny-pinching?
Patrick Grady
Yes, that has come through very clearly in all the contributions.
Sir Brian also recommended that interim payments should be made now—not “at pace”, not at some indeterminate point in the future, but now—to recognise deaths that have otherwise not been recognised: bereaved parents and bereaved children who have lost their parents, where these have not already been recognised by an interim payment.
It is also important to recognise, as the right hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and others have said, that ultimate responsible for this lies at UK Government level, because the infections took place before the establishment of devolution; before control of the health services was devolved.
The Government say that they accept the moral case for compensation, as they should. The current Chancellor’s testimony to the inquiry described the scandal as
“a failure of the British state”.
Sir Brian Langstaff’s report concluded that
“wrongs were done at an individual, collective and systemic levels.”
The Paymaster General has the opportunity to answer some of these key questions today, many of which have already been asked by Members, but which I repeat to make clear that the SNP shares those concerns. When will the Government appoint a chair and interim members to serve on the arm’s length body and advisory board that will administer the compensation scheme? What engagement have the Government had with Sir Brian Langstaff since 5 April? Have they been asked for or provided written statements in response to the report? I echo the questions about rule 9 inquiries that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked.
Where does responsibility lie within the civil service on bringing forward Government action? Has a named senior civil servant been appointed since Sue Gray moved on? Above all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said, what on earth does “at pace” mean? The Government keep saying they are working at pace, but Members who have spoken in this debate, our constituents and the campaign groups can see no evidence of that whatsoever. The Paymaster General said again at questions this morning, in answer to my hon. Friend, that it was all terribly complex and the Government had to take time to get things right, but surely the inquiry was set up in the first place to make those recommendations so that the Government could take them forward without having to do even more additional work?
As Joyce put it to me, people are fed up waiting for jam tomorrow from this Government. Perhaps the Government are worried about the total bill, which will not necessarily go down even if more people pass away, because they will have families who are entitled to compensation. Perhaps they are worried about setting a precedent for future scandals, or perhaps they just do not see this as a political priority. Today’s debate should make it clear that this is a priority. The price that our constituents have paid is higher than any financial price that the Government might have to pay. The best way to avoid this being a precedent is to avoid future scandals. The use of contaminated blood was totally avoidable. This scandal should never have happened, and the inquiries have made it clear, and will continue to make it clear, that plenty of lessons are to be learned so that something similar does not happen again. The key lesson from this debate is that people have waited long enough. It is time for compensation and justice to be delivered.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patrick Grady Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
We take infrastructure challenges seriously. It is incredibly important to bear down on inflation for a whole range of reasons, including the impact on our capital projects. Clearly, inflation has had a dramatic impact over the last 18 months. The IPA is a force for challenge in Government projects. It supports HS2 delivery through advice and assurance, particularly through the annual assurance updates, which help to provide external challenge to the Department when it makes its regular reports to Parliament, which it will do this month.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Of course, no one knows what the cost to the public purse of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Bill will be, because the Government are refusing to publish their economic impact assessment. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Home Office to get that economic impact assessment published, not least because if it will not do that, it will face freedom of information requests and complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which themselves are going to cost the taxpayer more money?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his normal way and I am certain it will be picked up by my colleagues in the Home Office.
Jeremy Quin
The benefit of having a long set of topicals is that we cover many Departments through the course of it. I am not totally aware of any answer to that question without consulting my colleagues in, I suspect, the Department of Health and Social Care. I am afraid that I am not able to give an answer to my right hon. Friend on that point.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Last year, the then Prime Minister, now the Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Chiltern Hundreds, announced the creation of the Office of the Prime Minister. It was going to be very exciting—like something out of “The West Wing”, which, of course, was a work of fiction, much like a lot of Boris Johnson’s premiership. In the words of a character from “The West Wing”, is the Office of the Prime Minister still “a thing”?
Oliver Dowden
Within the hierarchy of Whitehall, Downing Street sits within the Cabinet Office. I have found that the way it works best—I think that this is the Prime Minister’s view as well—is that the Cabinet Office supports Downing Street in the performance of its functions, so I do not think there is a need to create a separate Office of the Prime Minister beyond the existing Downing Street capabilities.