Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

No. The Government’s changes to welfare policies have contributed towards a significant growth in employment, which is at record levels. That includes a big increase in the number of disabled people in work. They are now gaining the dignity and self-respect they want to have through their participation in the labour market. At the same time, we have increased and protected the benefits received by the most disabled people in the United Kingdom.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

May I first echo the comments of the convenor of the Backbench Business Committee and ask for clarity on whether there will be debates in Westminster Hall next Thursday? If not, will the business be carried over? The Leader of the House said a few moments ago that we are all elected with an equal mandate. Well, even Margaret Thatcher recognised that the return of a majority of Scottish National party MPs from Scotland would be a mandate to take forward our policies on independence, yet the current Prime Minister does not seem to respect the mandate of the Scottish Parliament to give Scotland a choice. May we have a debate on which Prime Minister was right?

[Mr Lidington]

The mandate given by the people of Scotland in 2014 was for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. I wish the hon. Gentleman and his party would respect that.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I point the hon. Gentleman to the success of the police both in and outside London in reducing crime, despite their having to make some difficult choices about budgetary management. The police have done that by reorganising their operations and priorities to ensure that cutting crime successfully comes first, and by implementing and spreading best practice.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The issue is barely mentioned in the Leader of the House’s EVEL technical review, so will he finally admit that, contrary to what his predecessor told us, it is simply not possible for Scottish MPs to debate or vote on Barnett consequentials through the estimates process?

[Mr Lidington]

A Procedure Committee report on the estimates procedure is due later this year; I will want to consider that, and the Government will of course reply to it in detail in due course. The basic problem is that it is in the nature of devolution that a budgetary decision taken here that has Barnett consequentials for Scotland does not ring-fence that Scottish funding for the same subject on which it might be spent here. It is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament how that money is spent. There is not a direct read-across.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I did, indeed, read the newspaper reports about what seems to have been a pretty appalling case of mismanagement and the ill treatment of a large number of animals at that zoo. There will be questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday 20 April, but the hon. Gentleman will probably want to seek an Adjournment debate in the Chamber or a debate in Westminster Hall.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House keeps suggesting that people apply for debates in Westminster Hall, but what is the point when Ministers’ responses are so woefully short? There seems to be a particular problem with the 11 am slot on a Wednesday. Library research shows that the average ministerial response to such debates since January has lasted 10 minutes and that the debates are finishing early. I understand that Ministers need to rush up here to fill the Back Benches for Prime Minister’s questions, but surely those debates, which are important to our constituents, should have the courtesy of a decent response from Ministers.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

It seems to me that SNP Members agree with English votes for English laws and do not want to defend the principle that we are against them, or they want to vote with the Government this evening, or they want to abstain. I am not quite sure what they are doing. However, if I heard the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire correctly, he is going to vote with the Labour party against the motion. I am not sure where the hon. Lady stands on that argument, but the point I am trying to make is simply about division and unnecessary complication in the House. The Government’s majority will see any Finance Bill that they wish to present before the next general election—whenever that may be—through the House, because that is the way in which Governments and majorities work. If the Government have a problem with their own Back Benchers when they are trying to change income tax rates, that is entirely fine.

The hon. Lady was right to raise the point that she has just made, but let me gently say to her that we wanted to debate this matter today because it is the first opportunity that we have had to return to the EVEL regulations. It does not make sense for it to be possible to invoke this procedure in the context of income tax.

That brings us to the great repeal Bill and what will come back from the European Union. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised that issue on a number of occasions. What will happen then? Will more technical changes be made by means of statutory instruments and Standing Orders to determine whether provisions are subject to English votes for English laws? We do not even know where some of the powers will lie when they are repatriated. It is important to note that none of these issues were examined in depth at the time of the McKay commission’s proposals. There was no consideration of the impact and the knock-on effect of the provisions on the way in which the House operates.

On four separate occasions, under the premiership of Gordon Brown, the Scottish National party asked for English votes for English laws. In fact, they used the term “EVEL”. Then, after 2015—I do not know what happened in 2015; they must have won more seats—SNP Members became opposed to English votes for English laws. Now they are reluctantly voting against this measure. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire just said that he profoundly disagreed with it as a matter of principle, but was not sure whether he would vote against it. He seemed to be saying that these were merely technical changes.

On top of all that, the greatest anomaly in all the regulations, including the one that is before us now, is that even when the hon. Gentleman has sprung up in that strange Committee where the Mace goes down, Madam Deputy Speaker moves to the Chair to take the proceedings and no one speaks, and when he has—invariably, and quite rightly—railed against English votes for English laws, SNP Members do not vote when they are allowed to do so, on Third Reading. They are, in practice, demonstrating English votes for English laws in any event.

I remember the circumstances surrounding the housing Bill where the EVEL provisions were put in place for the first time in this House. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly railed against EVEL, and we supported him on that, but then the SNP Members did not vote on the Third Reading of the Bill in any case, when they were entitled to, so I am not quite sure where the principles of that lie, or whether or not the hon. Gentleman should have been voting on the housing Bill.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Of course we support the principle of English votes for English laws and its ultimate logical conclusion of independence, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a difference between supporting that concept in principle and this dog’s breakfast of Standing Orders that were brought forward in such a rush after 2015? It is these procedures that we have an issue with, not the principle of English votes for English laws.

[Ian Murray]

And that is quite right: it is a dog’s breakfast, which is why I am so surprised that the hon. Gentleman’s spokesperson on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not rail against this particular dog’s breakfast, but instead welcomed this technical change and is not quite sure whether he will vote for it or against it or abstain on it this evening. If it is a dog’s breakfast and a matter of principle, let us try to fight these changes at every possible turn, of which this is a great and ideal opportunity in this House this evening.

I will conclude by saying what the alternative is for the Government. Let us take away all these changes to Standing Orders—the mess that the Leader of the House is making of the constitution—and get to a point whereby we have a set of constitutional arrangements in this House that work for the UK. We have called for a constitutional convention that would look at all these issues—the House of Lords and everything we do in terms of the constitution—and do it through a sensible and pragmatic approach, where we can look at everything in the round and come out with something the public want. It is time we started bringing the country together: no more division, no more separating different classes of MPs, no more bringing Standing Orders to this House that merely set one MP off against another. Let us work together to try and find a set of circumstances that work for the entirety of this House. It seems to me that when this Conservative Government talk about taking back control, they are not talking about taking back control to the people of this country; they are talking about taking back control for themselves, and that is the principle behind all these English votes for English laws.

This is a dog’s breakfast and it does not work, as has been highlighted time and again in this House. It is a waste of this House’s time to have to go through the process of a Committee to address whether or not we have English votes for English laws. It is inelegant and we will be voting against this this evening, to send a strong message that we as Members of Parliament are all one in this House, and the Government must go back and think again about what they are doing to the procedures in this famous House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I first saw these proposed changes to Standing Orders on the Order Paper last Tuesday and, as any competent, capable parliamentarian would do, I decided to find out what they meant. I spoke to the Clerks and to the more senior members in my group. I also went to the Leader of the House’s office and asked his officials to produce an explanatory memorandum, so that we could understand the changes that were being made and the reasons behind them. Having spoken to the Clerks, I realised that these were in fact fairly innocuous changes that were intended to tighten up the language.

I am against English votes for English laws. I do not like the way the arrangements have been implemented through Standing Orders. I do not think that that was the right way to bring forward such a significant constitutional change in this House. It has shown up at least one technical problem with the drafting. That is a concern, and it would not have arisen had we had proper scrutiny and primary legislation to make the change. I am against EVEL because of how it has been implemented. I am against the fact that significant decisions can be taken on things that have a major impact on Scotland’s public finances and on Barnett consequentials without Scottish Members being able to take a full part in the debate and have a full say in the votes. That is not right, and the change was not an appropriate way to implement EVEL.

We were reassured by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), that Scottish Members would be able to have a full say in the financial processes and the departmental budgets in the estimates process, but the estimates process is utterly rubbish. It does not allow MPs in this House, whether Back-Bench Conservatives or anybody in the Opposition, to scrutinise departmental budgets. The only people who have a say over departmental budgets are those in the Treasury. The Treasury puts them forward in the form of estimates, which we are not allowed to debate. We were promised that we would still have our say under EVEL on all the financial implications through the estimates process. If the Government are to change EVEL, instead of the change they are making today they should make meaningful changes to allow Scottish MPs to have a say on things that have a financial impact on Scotland’s public finances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that income tax has been “properly devolved”, which is an interesting phrase, particularly in this context. The Standing Order allows for decisions around the main rates of income tax, which are wholly devolved, to be classed under EVEL. I do not like EVEL at all and I do not think that we should have EVEL, but if we are going to have it, it is probably sensible to have it on something that does not have direct impact on Scotland’s public finances.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned the great repeal Bill, which is important in this context. The great repeal Bill cannot be subject to EVEL, and the Leader of the House should bring a further amendment to the Standing Orders or commit to suspend the Standing Order when we discuss the great repeal Bill, because it is not appropriate for Standing Orders relating to EVEL to apply during the great repeal Bill. Scottish Members should absolutely have a say at all its stages. We are being dragged out of the European Union against our will, and we should have a say in the great repeal Bill.

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. We have always been worried about the EVEL Standing Orders placing the Chair in an invidious position. Will that not increase if the Scotland Office, and the Government as a whole, cannot be clear about what powers will be devolved to Scotland in the event of Brexit? The Scotland Act sets out that if something it not reserved, it is devolved, but if the UK Government start to legislate, how on earth will the Chair know whether something should be subject to the EVEL process?

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly clever point. The waters are muddy, because the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been clear about what will actually be devolved. He keeps saying that more things will be devolved, but he has been utterly unclear about whether agriculture and fishing will be devolved. The Chair will be in an even worse position when making decisions about the great repeal Bill due to the mud in the water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the shadow Leader of the House said that this is a matter of principle. I get that. I am against EVEL and do not think it should have been implemented in this way. We should not have a constitutional convention; we should have independence. If the Labour party is so concerned about voting against the Government on matters of principle, I suggest that the one to have started with would have been the article 50 Brexit vote.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

That might be a good topic for a Westminster Hall debate. The hon. Gentleman has identified what I think is going to be an increasing challenge for our society. Insurance companies have a business model that is based on the assessment of risk, and more genetic information will allow that risk to be calculated much more precisely than in the past. That starts to get us into a situation in which certain people find it very difficult indeed to get insurance, so that is certainly an issue that is well worth highlighting.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

May we have a debate on the definition of new money? On Wednesday, the Department for International Development issued a press release announcing £100 million of “new support” for South Sudan in the wake of the famine declaration. It turns out that that is not in fact new money, but money that was already budgeted for in the 2017-18 spending round. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for International Development to urgently clarify what new and additional funding the Government are prepared to provide to assist people who are literally starving to death in South Sudan?

[Mr Lidington]

Nobody in any part of the House would wish to underplay the gravity of the crisis in South Sudan. The declaration of famine was shocking but, frankly, not unexpected. It derives from the prolonged political crisis and civil war in that country, and the situation has been steadily worsening since the conflict began back in 2013. The Government have provided more than £500 million of humanitarian, health and education support over the past three years, and that support has helped to prevent famine in previous years. That was on top of the £100 million that we have given to help refugees who have fled South Sudan. As I understand it, the £100 million for 2017-18 is on top of the £500 million that has already been spent over the past three years. Clearly, DFID Ministers always keep under review allocations within their budget, particularly with regard to the need for urgent humanitarian relief. We also need to ensure that the money that we spend is going to help those who are in genuine need and will be effective in bringing about the results that we want to see.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

That might well be a good subject for either a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate, if the hon. Lady is fortunate in the ballot.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Not only did the Scottish Parliament vote against article 50, but it managed to deal with all its votes and amendments in less than five minutes. Yesterday, it took us two hours to deal with 10 votes. Does the Leader of the House agree that if we had electronic voting, we would have more time for debate—even if it did mean that we had less time to sing “Ode to Joy”?

[Mr Lidington]

Call me old-fashioned, but it is quite a good idea that people are present in Parliament in order to vote. If we move to electronic and remote voting, that disconnects the voting decisions from the debate itself.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

I will seek to close shortly and keep away from the theoretical. However, these are the options that we are left with. I am a Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish constituency, and since we have arrived here we have sought to share the positive and constructive experiences that we had in Scotland during the referendum. Unfortunately, at every turn, on matters such as 16 and 17-year-olds, this Government have sought to ignore them.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

This is a procedural motion. This debate is suddenly taking place, even though the Order Paper says that there would have been no debate if the motion had been moved after 5 pm. Does that not speak to something else we have tried to do since we were elected here, which is to reform the procedures and make them more transparent? There is much that can be learned from the Scottish Parliament experience in that regard.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We would welcome the possibility of a debate, perhaps through the Backbench Business Committee. The forward deployment of UK forces as part of NATO contingents in Estonia and in Poland is all about deterrence and solidarity with a NATO ally. NATO is an organisation that Clem Attlee and Ernie Bevin helped to create. I look forward to the day when we have a Labour leadership that again gives full-hearted support to NATO.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Government have talked out three out of four SNP private Members’ Bills, their treatment of the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) is completely appalling, and their response to the Procedure Committee’s report is as inadequate as the system itself. They did accept, however, that there should be a change to Standing Orders to require private Members’ Bills to be published slightly earlier than currently. When will they give us time to debate that proposal?

[Mr Lidington]

We are looking at a number of proposed changes to Standing Orders, many of which have come from the Procedure Committee and some from other Committees of the House. It will probably be for the convenience of the House if we can find an opportunity to deal with all those as a block rather than considering them piecemeal, so that is the kind of arrangement I am hoping to secure.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of this issue. I am sure that he would want to join me in saluting the work of the Alzheimer’s Society, in particular, and the creation of a network of more than 1 million dementia friends throughout the United Kingdom. The blue badge scheme already allows carers to use a blue badge when accompanying the badge holder, so the carer in those circumstances does not need a badge in his or her own right. It is then up to local authorities to decide whether to have an additional local permit parking scheme for carers on their own. Given the very different constraints on car park capacity and patterns of travel between one local authority and another, it is right that those decisions should be taken locally.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Now that the Leader of the House has had a bit of time to think about it, may we have a statement or a debate on jobcentre closures, with particular reference to the part of the Smith agreement that says that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should work together to

“establish more formal mechanisms to govern the Jobcentre Plus network in Scotland”?

Perhaps in that debate the Government can explain to Glasgow’s MPs and the Scottish Government why they had to read in the press that our jobcentres were going to be closed.

[Mr Lidington]

My understanding is that the existing pattern of provision in Glasgow means that it has significantly more small, separate jobcentres than other large Scottish cities. The Department for Work and Pensions is proposing—the consultation is now under way—to reduce the overall number so that services can be concentrated in locations that are still accessible to everybody in the city and provide a better quality of service to people who need access to jobcentres in person. One of the reasons why fewer people have been using individual jobcentres in Glasgow is of course that unemployment in that city has been falling significantly. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would sometimes acknowledge that in his questions.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The right fiscal approach is to ensure that we can continue to command the confidence of the international markets from which we borrow money to fund our deficit and our national debt, while paying down the deficit that we inherited in 2010—we are now two thirds of the way through the task—and at the same time, following tax and structural reform policies that will make our economy more productive. Many challenges still face us, but we should all welcome the following facts: that we have more people in the United Kingdom in work now than ever before; that UK living standards are at an all-time high; and that the statistics for both inequality and poverty are on a downward trend.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). The Department for International Development has published substantial policy documents today about which we need Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and answer questions. However, I also noticed in today’s written statements that the Prime Minister has moved responsibility for the Britain is GREAT campaign from the Cabinet Office to the International Trade Department. Will a Minister from that Department come to the House and explain how it manages its Twitter policy and how it will advise the Foreign Office on the difference between the Queensferry crossing and the Forth road bridge?