Oral Answers to Questions
Drew Hendry Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Mr Jack
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the fiscal framework is due to be reviewed in 2021. In the interim, we have given huge support to Scotland from the British Exchequer, with £3.8 billion in business support for the covid crisis, and the furlough scheme, which has supported almost 800,000 jobs. There is a capital budget for Scotland this year of £5.4 billion, and there is no shortage of projects that need to be done, so I ask him to encourage the Scottish Government to get on with them.
Drew Hendry [V]
Some people are facing much more than just a financial meltdown as we emerge from this crisis. A year ago tomorrow, the all-party parliamentary group on terminal illness published a report on heartless Department for Work and Pensions rules that mean terminally ill people can only access fast-track benefits if they can prove that they have six months or less to live. Under pressure from the APPG, Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and others, this Government launched their own review, yet we have had only silence since. In the meantime, thousands of people have died waiting for support. The Scottish Government have already committed to scrap the arbitrary six-month rule when they take over the personal independence payment, but universal credit and employment and support allowance are reserved. Will the Secretary of State urge his colleagues to finally end this pernicious policy?
Mr Jack
As the hon. Gentleman knows, universal credit support has been increased during the covid crisis, but the point he makes about the last six months of life is one that I would like to raise with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If he writes to me on the subject, I would be pleased to push the case for him.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Drew Hendry ExcerptsTuesday 2nd June 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am glad to see that the Lord President of the Council is back in his place, because I want to put this on the record in relation to this afternoon’s conduct. We were told we were coming back to the House so that we would have more time for parliamentary and legislative scrutiny, but rather ironically the time we have for this debate has been curtailed by chewing up the best part of two hours to vote. I want to let the Leader of the House reflect on that.
Coming into the Chamber today gave me a sense of déjà vu. That is not because it is the first time I have been back in Parliament since lockdown started, but because I feel that we have been debating boundaries for many years now.
It is genuinely a delight to be Front-Benching today alongside the Minister and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), because in the last Parliament the three of us spent what felt like a huge portion of our lives on the Public Bill Committee that considered the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, which was brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). I would be willing to wager that it is the only Bill in parliamentary history where all three Front Benchers went away and had children during the consideration of the Bill. However, little Rosamund, Eli and Jessica now have the dubious title of being children of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill.
While the Bill of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton fell during not one, but two Prorogations—one of which was deemed unlawful—it was certainly helpful in setting down a marker for where we are at today. His Bill sought valiantly to fight off plans from the Government to reduce the number of seats in this House from 650 to 600. As many of us argued back then, reducing the number of MPs, particularly with new legislative powers coming back from Brussels, would have been a bonkers proposal and flies in the face of the argument about cutting the cost of politics, particularly given the ever-expanding House of peers along the corridor.
I genuinely welcome the U-turn made by the Government to stick to 650 seats, although I say again to the Government that if they are genuinely interested in constitutional reform and want to slim down the size of the UK legislature, some of us would be very glad to see 59 fewer seats in the House when Scotland becomes independent.
I am glad that the Government have seen sense and abandoned the proposal to cut the number of MPs with the implementation of new boundaries. The boundaries do need reviewing and on that the Minister will find cross-party support. Indeed, my current constituency boundaries have been in place since I was 15 years old, and the constituency has seen significant house building since then. One street in my constituency—Sword Street—has three Members of Parliament. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I disagree profusely with elements of the Bill, and for that reason the SNP will support the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).
My first and immediate concern with the Bill relates to Scottish representation in the House. As I alluded to earlier, Scotland currently is entitled to 59 seats in Parliament. Although many of us would not wish to see Scotland being governed from London at all, that is the current constitutional reality for now. Based on the proposed electoral quotas, we would probably see Scotland going down by two or three seats to the advantage of England, which strikes me as being wholly unfair.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the electoral quotas proposed in the Bill risk reducing representation in rural Scotland even further, particularly in the highlands? I already face a 110-mile round trip to conduct my advice surgeries. My colleagues have to travel on small boats and go to overnight stays to conduct their duties in their constituencies. The quota proposals are a real risk for the representation of people in Scotland, particularly in rural areas.
David Linden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He has put that on record, and it rather serves to reinforce the view that when legislation is drafted up in the Cabinet Office by Ministers, they take no cognizance at all of the situation in rural Scotland, from where Members of Parliament, such as him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), have had to travel for probably the best part of a day to get here—some of that just within their own constituencies. It is a point well made and something that the Government would do well to reflect upon.
David Linden
The one flaw in that argument is that in the last Parliament the Government started with a majority, and the majority disappeared. I do not think it happens to be a bad thing that we put things in front of Parliament, and if Parliament does not want them, it rejects them. I think all of us who served in the last Parliament remember the inconvenience of that and the stress that it caused the Government. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, who I understand is a Brexiteer, cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot say that Parliament is sovereign and Parliament should be taking back control, and then bring forward legislation that removes the role of Parliament. That, I am afraid, is a massive contradiction.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. Under these proposals, the reviews will only be carried out every eight years. That would take no account of cities such as Inverness, which I represent, where we have had exponential growth in the estimated total of population. It is now sitting at 64,000, and only today it has been highlighted in The Inverness Courier as the fastest growing city in Scotland. If that is given away, there is no ability to adjust those things.
David Linden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Again, the Government must go back and look at this matter.
I want to come back to that point about the size of constituencies, because the Bill does not address the fact that it still allows for constituencies of up to 12,000 square kilometres. That is about eight times the size of Greater London, which has 73 MPs, with much more challenging transport links. We will seek to amend that in Committee. I hope the Government will not just use their majority to ram the Bill through, because a majority in Parliament does not mean a monopoly on wisdom.
This Second Reading debate provides an opportunity to comment on the principles of the Bill, which I have now dealt with, but, while we are on this topic, I want to speak more broadly about electoral reform. We have the opportunity now to look again at some of the injustices within our political and electoral system—perhaps we could even call it levelling things up. A new Parliament means another opportunity to test the will of the House on votes at 16, leaving behind the broken first-past-the-post voting system, which, although it has benefited me, is morally wrong and something that we need to look at again. We also need to look at abolishing the tainted House of Lords. These are issues that fall within the remit of the Minister at the Dispatch Box, for whom I have great personal respect. Although we have had disagreements about the merits of reducing the number of seats from 650 to 600, I genuinely believe that she is someone who listens and considers an argument on merit. When she had clearly done that, she came back to the House with a revised number of 650 seats.
Although I accept that the Bill will probably pass Second Reading, I very much hope that, when it goes upstairs to Committee, we can make the necessary changes to ensure that Scotland has proper representation and sensible, up-to-date boundaries that are fit for purpose for so long as we need to be here.
Covid-19: Strategy
Drew Hendry Excerpts(3 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I congratulate him, by the way, on the birth of his daughter, Persephone—an appropriate names, perhaps, for a country beginning to take steps out from the darkness. As we take these steps, we will of course be flexible. As I said just now to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we will make sure that, where there are local flare-ups, where we see the disease taking off again, we will not hesitate to put on the brakes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, however, that to have a strong NHS, as we must, we do and we will, we need a strong economy as well.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
Reports in the press say that the Prime Minister’s Government are preparing to cut the rate of support under the furlough scheme by a quarter. Can he assure us that this is not the case and that his advice for people to return to work is not an excuse for reduced spending on public health?
The Prime Minister
I have. I have considerable respect for the press, but I would advise the hon. Member not to believe everything he reads about that matter until he has heard from the Chancellor, who, as I say, will be speaking to the House tomorrow about it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Drew Hendry Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Wendy Morton)
Climate action is a priority for the UK Government and the Department for International Development. We have recently doubled our commitment to international climate finance and will spend £11.6 billion over the next five-year period on helping poorer countries tackle climate change. Since 2011, ICF has helped 57 million people cope with the effects of climate change and provided 26 million with improved access to clean energy.
Drew Hendry
Drawing climate finance solely from the 0.7% will not be sustainable as climate change takes its toll, and drawing from the aid budget will mean cuts for health, education and life-saving measures, so what plans does the Minister have to establish new and additional sources of climate finance?
Wendy Morton
I absolutely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Finance is critical, but this is about more than just finance. The UK will be hosting COP26 this year in partnership with Italy and, as I am sure he is aware, this will be happening in Glasgow. Tackling climate change is about so much more than just finance; it cuts right across the work that we do in the Department for International Development.
Oral Answers to Questions
Drew Hendry Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Mr Jack
Some 45% of Scots voted for the SNP in the 2019 election, and 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014. The numbers simply have not changed. Further, in 2014 the independence referendum came on the back of something called the Edinburgh agreement, which was signed by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, the then deputy leader. The Edinburgh agreement stated that both parties would respect the outcome of the referendum, and that has not happened.
Drew Hendry
A good new year to you, Mr Speaker. The Scottish Secretary has anticipated that the Scottish Parliament will refuse legislative consent for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. He said:
“that’s something we understand and respect because their position is that they don’t support Brexit.”
When consent is refused today, how will the UK Government demonstrate that respect?
Mr Jack
What we are respecting is the democratic outcome of referendums, which the SNP does not respect. The referendum in 2016 was a United Kingdom referendum, and we voted to leave the European Union. We are respecting that. Under the Sewel convention, we have provision for what is known as “not normal”. This is a constitutional matter. Constitutional matters are reserved, and they are not normally under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. We are delivering what the 2016 referendum requested us to deliver.
Debate on the Address
Drew Hendry Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
There was absolutely nothing for the people of Scotland in that address from the Prime Minister, and I hope that, for those who were watching and listening back home, it was preceded by an announcement that it was not for viewers and listeners in Scotland.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) on their addresses. I listened to all the stories about “A Christmas Carol”, but we did not hear which Conservative Front Bencher would be playing Scrooge. The hon. Member for Walsall North is a great football fan, and I thought that he would perhaps mention Aston Villa. They are not having the best of times, but I hope that he is enjoying watching John McGinn, whom we gifted to him from Hibernian last year.
This morning, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, wrote to the Prime Minister demanding the transfer to the Scottish Government of legal powers to hold a second independence referendum under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. As the First Minister outlined, there has been a material change in the circumstances since the independence referendum of 2014, based on the prospect of Scotland‘s leaving the European Union against its will.
It is for the Prime Minister to explain to the people of Scotland why he is denying Scotland the right to choose our own future. Why did democracy stop, in the Prime Minister’s world, with the independence referendum in 2014? And may I say to the Prime Minister that it is not a good look to be playing with his phone rather than listening to the legitimate demands of the Scottish National party? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister says, “Say something more interesting.” Well, Prime Minister, this is about democracy. This is about the Scottish National party, which stood in the election on a manifesto about Scotland’s right to choose, and it is about the Conservatives, who said no to indyref2—and what happened? Well, the Conservatives lost more than half their Members of Parliament.
Prime Minister, you got your answer from the people of Scotland. The SNP got 45% of the vote, a 20 percentage point difference from the Government. We got 80% of the Members of Parliament who sit on these Benches. Some time, some day, the Prime Minister is going to have to respect democracy. The Prime Minister cannot and will not continue to say no.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister says that looking at his phone is more interesting than hearing what Scotland needs. Does that not tell us everything about this Prime Minister and his view of Scotland?
Ian Blackford
Indeed it does. There is not much that can be added to that, because the image of the Prime Minister playing with his phone and not listening to the Scottish National party says it all.
The people of Scotland did not vote for this Prime Minister. Scotland did not vote for this Conservative Government, and we certainly did not vote for the con of a Tory plan that has been set out today.
In December 1967, my old friend Winnie Ewing proclaimed that
“the march of time can bring anomalies between elections, so that sometimes a Government may have a majority in this House but be in a minority in the country.”—[Official Report, 6 December 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1551.]
In Scotland, that is certainly the case. Here in this place, we face a Tory Government we have rejected, implementing a manifesto that Scotland rejected. For too many years, Scotland has been held back by successive Tory Governments we did not vote for.
Scottish National party MPs have today set out an alternative Queen’s Speech to deliver for the people of Scotland. With a renewed and strengthened mandate, our expanded SNP team will focus on our priorities—on Scotland’s priorities: stopping Brexit and protecting Scotland’s NHS from any grubby Trump trade deal; dealing with the climate emergency; and, once and for all, putting an end to Tory austerity. Instead, the Government’s Queen’s Speech sets out another Tory programme that the people of Scotland rejected. Despite the fact that Scotland voted to remain a member of the European Union, we now face being dragged out against our will.
We often hear about losers’ consent, but the fact is that Scotland voted to stay in the EU to maintain our rights as EU citizens. This Conservative Government do not have the consent of the people of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament or our Government to take Scotland out of the EU. We ask that the solemn right, claimed by the people of Scotland, to determine the form of government best suited to our needs be exercised. This House accepted that claim of right as a principle, on a motion that I moved in July 2018. It is the Scottish people who are sovereign.
In that context, it is right for the House to respect our Scottish Parliament and last week’s election result. But of course, in the last Parliament, the Tories ignored our interests and sidelined the will of the Scottish Government, intent on bringing forward a deal that will destroy our economy and risk jobs and livelihoods. As the former EU permanent representative to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, said, that pledge will create
“the biggest crisis of Brexit to date”
in late 2020. He said that “get Brexit done” was
“diplomatic amateurism, dressed up domestically as boldness and decisiveness.”
From selling off our NHS to selling out Scotland’s fishing communities, the Prime Minister will inflict hardship on our communities as the cost of delivering his damaging Brexit.
The voices of the people of Scotland are being silenced—80% of their representatives in this House are not listened to by a Tory Government showing contempt. That is why we stand up for Scotland and against cruel, punishing policies and narrow, backward-gazing politics. Instead, we are determined that Scotland’s right to choose our own future will be delivered, not simply because we in the SNP want that, but because the people of Scotland demand it. We stood on a mandate to give Scotland the right to choose its own future. I put the Prime Minister on notice that SNP Members will never stop fighting this Government for that case and for our mandate—for a fresh independence referendum—to be respected.