Points of order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and the point she makes is not a point of order for the Chair—not at all. She is making a very serious point about a tragic incident among many thousands of tragic incidents that have occurred over the past few months, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

The hon. Lady is raising a point that she wants to raise with Ministers. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), was recently at the Dispatch Box making a statement on Gaza, and I anticipate it is very likely that a Foreign Office Minister or a Minister from the Ministry of Defence will be here again within a few days to make a further statement. If not, Opposition Front Benchers and others have been most assiduous in asking urgent questions to ensure that Ministers come to the House to answer these important questions.

The hon. Lady is not asking a question that I can deal with from the Chair; she is asking a question that she wants to ask of a Minister. If she wants to ask a question of a Minister, there are various ways she can do that: she can put down an urgent question; she can ask for an Adjournment debate; she can speak to Members on her own Front Bench about having an extended debate in Opposition time—I will not list them all. There are many, many ways in which the hon. Lady can do that, but I cannot answer her question from the Chair. It is not a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have on two previous occasions asked the Leader of the House to correct the record after she told this House on 11 January that people in England pay

“lower tax than people in Scotland and we have managed…a balanced budget”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 455-456.]

At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister incorrectly referred to people in Scotland paying higher taxes than people in England. I have notified the Prime Minister that I would be referring to him. The House of Commons Library, via the Office for Budget Responsibility, has confirmed that the statements made by the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister are both untrue. The majority of people in Scotland pay lower taxes—including council tax—than people in England. No UK Government have delivered a balanced budget since 2000-2001, and the current UK Government pay the equivalent of £300 million a day in debt interest, while the Scottish Government must, by law, balance their budget every year.

Given that hon. Members must correct inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance and advice as to how to ensure that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister do indeed correct the record, and your advice as to what measures can be taken if hon. Members repeat factually incorrect information in this place and appear to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I thank the hon. Lady. Once again, I appreciate that Members want to use the opportunity of a point of order to make the point that they want to make, but there is a big difference between—[Interruption.] Do not shout while I am speaking. There is a difference between a point of order on procedure in this House and a matter of opinion in the interpretation of statistics. There are also—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady just be quiet and allow me to answer her question?

There are inevitably differences of opinion on the interpretation of statistics. There are also, as the hon. Lady says, facts, as opposed to opinions. If facts are stated wrongly in this House, they should be corrected. However, it is not for the Chair to make a judgment as to who correctly interprets the facts put before the House. That is why we have debates and questions. We are not meant to come here and all agree with one another. That is why we have this Chamber, where proper debates can take place.

If the hon. Lady is saying that facts were stated wrongly, I am quite sure that a Minister will take the first opportunity to correct those facts. I think, perhaps, the Leader of the House will take that opportunity right now.

Baby Loss Awareness Week

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. The frustration, and the piling of trauma on tragedy, comes from the inability to engage at any level when things go wrong. Everybody knows that things can go wrong. People are human and they will make mistakes. It is what happens afterwards that matters. That is what matters to bereaved parents.

Some people talk about workforce pressure, and it has been mentioned today. However, to go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for me and, I think, many of the parents who have gone through this, the fundamental problem is the wilful refusal to admit when mistakes have happened and to identify what lessons can be learned in order to prevent something similar happening again. To seek to evade responsibility, to make parents feel that the stillbirth of their child is somehow their own fault or, even worse, that everyone should just move on and get on with their lives after the event because these things happen—that is how I was treated, and I know from the testimony I have heard from other parents that that is how parents are often treated—compounds grief that already threatens to overwhelm those affected by such a tragedy. I do not want to hear of another health board or NHS trust that has been found following an independent investigation to have failed parents and babies promising to learn lessons. Those are just words.

When expectant mums present at hospitals, they should be listened to, not made to feel that they are in the way or do not matter. How hospitals engage with parents during pregnancy and after tragedy really matters. I have been banging on about this since I secured my first debate about stillbirth in 2016, and I will not stop banging on about it. I am fearful that things will never truly change in the way that they need to, and that simply piles agony on top of tragedy. I thank Donna Ockenden for her important work, and I know she will continue to be assiduous in these matters in relation to other work that she is currently undertaking, but the health boards and health trusts need to be much more transparent and open with parents when mistakes happen. For all the recommendations of the Ockenden report—there are many, and they are all important—we will continue to see preventable stillbirths unless the culture of cover-ups is ended. When the tragedy of stillbirth strikes, parents need to know why it happened and how it can be prevented from happening again. That is all; a baby cannot be brought back to life, but parents can be given those kinds of reassurances and answers. That is really important to moving on and looking to some kind of future.

It upsets me to say this, but I have absolutely no confidence that lessons were learned in my case, and I know that many parents feel exactly the same. However, I am very pleased to participate again in this annual debate, because these things need to be said, and they need to keep being said until health boards and NHS trusts stop covering up mistakes and have honest conversations when tragedies happen, as sometimes they will. Parents who are bereaved do not want to litigate; they want answers. It is time that NHS trusts and health boards were big enough, smart enough and sensitive enough to understand that. Until mistakes stop being covered up, babies will continue to die, because failures that lead to tragedies will not be remedied or addressed. That is the true scandal of stillbirth, and it is one of the many reasons why Baby Loss Awareness Week is so very important, to shine a light on these awful, preventable deaths for which no one seems to want to be held accountable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The problem the Minister has is that there is a pattern with the Prime Minister: he has already been fined for not wearing a seatbelt and for breaching covid rules, and he is currently being investigated over allegations about his registering of interests. Now, in an unprecedented move, it has been reported that the investigation has been widened because of allegations that it was discussed in public. Can the Minister explain why this Prime Minister, sadly much like his predecessor but one, seems to be—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I made it very, very clear in the past five minutes that questions were to be general and not refer to the investigation. I said it loudly and clearly. If the hon. Lady wants to ask a very brief general question, she may do so.

[Patricia Gibson]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I tried to make my comments general by simply talking about allegations. I was talking about allegations, not about any investigation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us make this absolutely clear. An allegation made in public in this House is a very serious matter and it has consequences. I will give the hon. Lady one more chance to ask a brief general question.

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply going to ask the Minister if he can explain why he thinks the Prime Minister seems so accident prone when it comes to running his Government?

Business of the House

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I have given her the opportunity to do so. We will find another way of doing it.

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

With soaring energy prices and the abandonment of the triple lock, Age UK has warned of older people’s not being able to afford to keep their homes adequately heated this winter. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the winter fuel payment, which has been frozen since 2011, and whether he agrees that that support should be linked to the actual cost of energy in order to tackle preventable deaths, which are expected to rise this winter?

Covid-19: Hospitality Industry

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

This pandemic has posed challenges for all of us and for every business, not least the hospitality sector. This very important but beleaguered industry—the third largest employer across the UK—will take some time to recover from this health pandemic. Parts of the industry are on the verge of collapse and it was a mistake for the UK Government not to provide the kind of sector-specific support that it so desperately needed. The VAT cut is welcome, but the industry faces a cliff-edge in September, which could prove a death-knell to those barely hanging on. The importance of extending the VAT cut until at least the end of the year must not be overlooked if we want to save as many businesses and jobs in the sector as possible. Many hospitality businesses operate on a seasonal basis, and therefore may have to wait until next year before their balance sheet starts to begin to look healthy again.

Despite my repeated representations, no consideration has been given to the unique challenges facing operators of hospitality businesses in island communities—such as Arran in my constituency, which has at times during this pandemic been subject to higher restriction levels than mainland communities—which are concerned that islands may not necessarily be able to exit the pandemic at the same time as mainland communities.

The Scottish Government are doing all they can with the limited powers they have, and their year-long hospitality rates relief remains more generous than the three-month relief offered in England. Indeed, Scotland has the most generous non-domestic rates regime in the UK, but we also need business interruption loan schemes to be converted into grants, something I called for last April, in order to save businesses and jobs. The pressing need for that grows by the day. From April the hospitality sector, already on its knees, will be expected to repay these loans, however gradually, and it is clear that many businesses in the sector will be unable to do so and will only add to the debt and job crisis that we face. So I ask the Minister: extend the VAT cut until at least the end of the year. Look at what additional support can be given to our island communities, given their unique circumstances. Convert business interruption loans to grants and continue furlough for as long as restrictions remain in place. The UK Government surely understand the need to avoid business failures across the sector, as well as mass job losses. That does not need to happen, and I urge the Minister to do all he can to help us avoid that outcome.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. How we wish we could really go to Ayrshire—well, at least I do. But now we go to Cheadle, and Mary Robinson.

Business of the House

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Amen.

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

On World Cancer Day, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware that terminally ill people can only access fast-track benefits if they can prove that they have six months or less to live. In Scotland, a change in the law on benefits for terminally ill people is due to take place later this year, and in early 2022 will provide fast-track access to disability benefits. Will the Leader of the House make a statement, setting out his views as to whether he believes that this change should also apply to universal credit to avoid a two-tier system for those who struggle with a terminal illness, so that they can access the support they need from a more compassionate welfare system?

Points of Order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Minister does not wish to expand on it; she has given her answer. The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) is not satisfied, but c’est la vie—that’s life.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a very important matter for my constituents. Two in five pensioners do not claim the pension credit that they are due. My elderly constituents are now contacting me to tell me that the telephone line provided by the UK Government through the Department for Work and Pensions to apply for pension credit over the phone is not properly staffed. Some people are kept on hold for over 30 minutes to speak to an adviser, before giving up. I tried to find online application forms to download in order to allow my constituents to apply for this benefit by post, but it turns out that no application forms are available, except for those living in Northern Ireland. That means that many of my elderly and financially challenged constituents are facing considerable obstacles to claiming the support for which they are eligible, which would go some way to explaining why two in five pensioners do not claim pension credit. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your advice and guidance as to what action I can take to ensure that the Government make it as easy as possible for pensioners in my constituency and across the UK who are eligible for pension credit, and who need this important support, to claim it without encountering these obstacles.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me notice that she intended to raise that point of order. She raises a very important and serious matter about which the House has shown its concern on at least two occasions in the past few weeks—that I can recall—in the form of an urgent question and a debate. It is a matter of significant importance. I cannot give her any further advice from the Chair today, except to say that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and I am quite sure that the appropriate Minister will be informed of her concerns. Of course, there are various ways in which the hon. Lady can bring this matter to the Floor of the House once again. If she cares to visit the Table Office, I am sure that she will be given the appropriate advice. I look forward to hearing her raise the matter with the Minister on the Floor of the House in due course.

Points of Order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she intended to raise such an important point of order. [Interruption.] I hope I can have some silence from the Government side of the House. The hon. Lady raises an extremely important matter and, again, one literally of life and death.

The hon. Lady knows this is not a matter on which I can give advice or any ruling from the Chair, but she has used the vehicle of a point of order to make sure that the Treasury Bench is aware of the issue, which I am sure will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate Minister. I would hope that any Minister with responsibility for these matters will wish to take steps to ensure that what she has asked for is properly fulfilled. If that does not occur, the proper advice I can give her is that she should seek the advice of the Table Office as to other ways in which she can bring this matter once again to the Floor of the House.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituent Lizanne Zietsman is a wife, a businesswoman, an employer and a valued and respected community member on the Isle of Arran. She has been ordered by the Home Office to leave the UK by 12 July. I have taken up this most urgent matter with the immigration service and the Minister for Immigration. To further highlight this case, I have tabled an early-day motion and will present a petition to Parliament to show the strength of feeling on the matter.

Given the urgency of this case, Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise on what other avenues are open to me to do all I can to have this appalling decision reversed and to prevent Lizanne from having to leave her husband, her business and her community in nine days’ time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Once again, she is well aware that I cannot give her an answer on the substantive point she raises, as it is not a matter of responsibility for the Chair, but it is the responsibility of the Chair to make sure that the Floor of the House is properly used to draw any such serious matter to the attention of the appropriate Minister.

I am sure the hon. Lady, having taken the opportunity to raise this matter on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] Forgive me, but my voice is not working very well today, and I would be really grateful if the Government Whips would not speak in a loud voice while I am trying to address the House. I appreciate that it is very unusual for the occupant of the Chair not to be properly heard, but perhaps just a little bit of courtesy would be appropriate.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raises a very important point, and I am sure it will be conveyed to the appropriate Minister, and that the Minister will take appropriate action.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It appears that the gentleman who is speaking is not paying any attention to the motion before the House. Could I have your guidance on whether his rambling remarks are actually in order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making; several of her colleagues have been gesticulating to similar effect. I have been paying careful attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I have every confidence that having introduced various other topics about which this debate is not, he is now going to come to the motion before us and the substance of the debate, which is the claim of right.

Autism Community: Mental Health and Suicide

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s excellent point. Should such a tragedy occur and a suicide take place, it is important that the family is supported through that as much as possible.

Some 70% of autistic people are reported to have mental health disorders, such as anxiety or depression. As we have heard, suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the autism community, and that alone tells us that this issue demands our attention. As the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) pointed out, diagnosis is important because it should be the foundation on which effective support for autistic individuals and their families is built. Similarly, a delay in diagnosis can hinder effective support and prevent intervention strategies from being put in place.

The National Autistic Society Scotland reported in 2013 that 61% of those it had surveyed said they felt relieved when they received a diagnosis, because such a diagnosis can end years of feeling misunderstood and isolated. We have talked a lot about this as a UK issue, but as a Scottish MP, I want to mention the Scottish Government’s strategy for autism. The strategy, which is based on research, is working to improve waiting times for diagnosis and assessment to create consistent service standards across Scotland, and is providing training opportunities. The entire autism spectrum needs to be addressed, as well as the whole lifespan of people living with autism in Scotland. This is the logic behind this autism strategy, so it is a very positive step.

We have heard about initiatives such as autism hours in supermarkets and special autism-friendly cinematic screenings, and these are all very important and positive steps. There is a greater awareness and understanding of autism in this country but, as we have recognised today, we still have a long way to go. I will end by saying that we often think of those with autism as finding it difficult to see the world as we see it, but the truth is that we need to see the world as they see it, because if we do so we may then be able to start to make real progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call David Linden.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

That is what I said—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is no need for hon. Members to contradict the hon. Lady, although I know that they are trying to be helpful. She made a slip of the tongue in referring to me as a Chair rather than as a Deputy Speaker, but I know what she meant.

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate. Once again, we are in a debate where we are all promised a post-Brexit world that is shinier, better and newer than anything we have witnessed up to this point. Whether we are talking about nuclear safeguards, food safety standards, consumer rights, trade with the EU, the strength of the pound, UK nationals living abroad, EU nationals living in the UK, or 30% being wiped off the bond yields leaving a £1.8 trillion black hole in our public sector pensions bill, we are told that it will be all right on the night and that everything will be wonderful.

The fact is that no state has ever left Euratom before. Despite what we have heard in the Chamber today, some legal experts—I know that we do not always like listening to experts—believe that it would be perfectly possible for the United Kingdom to leave the EU and remain a member of Euratom because, despite sharing the institutions, the two treaties are distinct and have separate legal instruments. I urge the Minister to explore that. The nuclear industry certainly believes that the UK should pursue some form of continuing membership of Euratom. We do not know what form that will take. We have no details or certainty. I think I probably speak for a large chunk of the public across the United Kingdom when I say that the UK Government’s negotiating skills have not inspired confidence.

I remember sitting in a Committee and being told by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is now the Leader of the House, that it was necessary and, indeed, essential for us to fly nuclear materials across UK skies so that they could be used in a range of medical treatments at the height of their efficacy. Experts now tell us that leaving Europe’s nuclear regulator will put patients in the UK at risk of losing access to vital medical treatments, but those concerns have been dismissed by Conservative Members,. Despite what we have heard tonight, withdrawal from Euratom as part of Brexit would make it harder for the UK to access the nuclear isotopes used in cancer treatments and medical imaging. It is not me who is saying this—I confess that I do not have the medical or scientific expertise to do so—but the Royal College of Radiologists has told us that this is the case, as has Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

I could give the House 20 other examples of people at the top of their game who have told us this, but I fear that I lack the time to do so. Despite all that, those concerns were utterly dismissed by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, and the Secretary of State told us that these matters are not within the scope of the Bill. I fear that such a response is not reassuring. I am also alarmed, as I am sure many others will be, that someone who is qualified as an economist sees fit to contradict medical experts.

Euratom is responsible for co-ordinating and regulating the transport, use and disposal of nuclear materials in Europe, including many of the isotopes used in radiotherapy and some kinds of body scans. It seems that some of the most widely used medical isotopes can be produced only in specialised reactors, none of which is located in the United Kingdom. The materials currently used in Britain are mostly manufactured in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Experts have told us that there is “no excuse” for Government Ministers failing to foresee the problems that leaving Euratom would cause. They have also indicated, given that all these matters are subject to negotiation, that although it might be possible for the UK to remain within the existing arrangements, it would be “exceptionally complicated” and that the UK’s position would “inevitably be weakened”. Those are the words of medical experts at the top of their field. Crucially, no real clarity on how any agreement might be achieved by the UK Government has been forthcoming. The Government’s position paper on Euratom published in July contained little detail even on nuclear power and it did not mention medical isotopes. Perhaps the Minister would care to mention them today. Can he also tell us whether the Secretary of State for Health has been consulted on this matter?

Ministers have absolutely no excuse for failing to anticipate this controversy. The problems were clearly highlighted in an article in the Financial Times way back in February and in briefings by nuclear industry experts. I know that we do not like experts, but occasionally it is useful to listen to them. As with all aspects of Brexit, there is little evidence of any serious planning.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point: this is nothing to do with a justice agenda; it is about an ideologically driven motivation towards austerity that effectively hits people who cannot raise the funds for justice. Surely no one can defend that.

Research undertaken by Citizens Advice, which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, has demonstrated that an eye-watering 82% of those surveyed who were experiencing problems at work said they would be deterred from bringing a claim due to the fees; and only 29% of respondents were aware that they could apply for a fee remission. We have heard a similar chorus of concern from the Law Society of Scotland and other experts, which shows that genuine cases are not reaching tribunals as a result of the prohibitive fees. The impact on women is particularly damaging and, as a result, unlawful employment practices are undeterred and are going unpunished.

Let us look at still further evidence that such fees are a barrier to justice. On 20 June, the Justice Committee published its review into court and tribunal fees and found that the introduction of fees for claimants in employment tribunals had led to a drop of almost 70%, as we have heard, in the number of cases. It found further that changes are urgently needed to restore an acceptable level of access to the employment tribunal system. That by definition shows that the Justice Committee, after its investigations and deliberations, found that the current level of access to the employment tribunal system is not acceptable. That is why when these powers are devolved to Scotland these fees will be abolished.

Access to justice cannot and must not be limited to those who can afford it. That is not acceptable in any country that seeks to see itself as enlightened and democratic. Despite talk of austerity, politics is about choices, and these choices are based on the shared values of the society in question; it is as simple as that.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who chairs the Justice Committee, says in its report on tribunal fees:

“Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving cost-recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter objective must prevail.”

I could not agree more.

Worryingly, as has been pointed out, there has been a lengthy delay in the publication of the Government’s post-implementation review on the impact of employment tribunal fees, which aims to assess their effect against the three main objectives of transferring some of the cost from the taxpayer and towards those who can afford to pay and encouraging parties to seek alternative ways to resolve disputes while maintaining access to justice. Like the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I am deeply concerned that such an implementation review has not taken place.

I crave your indulgence for a few moments, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like the House to bear it in mind that it is an estimates day debate. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said the only certainties in life are death and taxation. He was certainly right about the first, but recent events may suggest he is a wee bit off the mark on the second. However, there is another certainty in life that Mr Franklin overlooked: the one thing we may be sure will not be debated during a Westminster debate on estimates are the actual estimates. This issue may not exercise the minds of the general public, but that is because it is not well known outside this place just how little scrutiny there is of the spending plans of Departments. The scrutiny is negligible and it has suited successive Governments of all persuasions that it should be so. If the public knew just how inscrutable this process was, they would rightly be alarmed.

The estimates process is a very technical process by which spending is approved by Parliament. I further crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, for just a few minutes more and ask you to allow me to recall that during the EVEL—English votes for English laws—debates the Leader of the House noted the possibility of a review of this process while seeming to be completely adamant that estimates already allow for affecting the Barnett consequentials. The Procedure Committee, on which I sit, is continuing to review the estimates process and many very distinguished and learned experts—far more distinguished than I am—from all sides have argued while discussing EVEL that the estimates process is simply not fit for purpose.

The way in which this House deals with the supply and estimates process is not sustainable. We need to have proper debate around supply procedure to achieve clarity on Barnett consequentials. The scrutiny of the estimates process is not robust and this Parliament has the least scrutinised spending arrangements in the western world—in this, the so-called “mother of Parliaments.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence for one minute more. Adam Tomkins, who is now a Conservative MSP, told the Procedure Committee on 8 September last year that—I quote him for fear of misrepresenting him—

“whatever we do with English votes for English laws has to be made practicable and operational in the light of and through using the Barnett formula. I think that can happen, but I think it can happen only if there is a clear opportunity for MPs representing constituencies from across the whole of the UK effectively and robustly to engage in deliberation and debate in the supply or Estimates process. At the moment, it seems that there is no such opportunity because…Estimates debates tend to be very wide-ranging—about everything other than the Estimates”.

He concluded:

“The fly in the ointment is to have this current inability or unwillingness to debate robustly and effectively parliamentary Estimates.”

The process is such that these procedures simply do not give MPs the full opportunity to scrutinise any Barnett consequentials of England only or England and Wales only legislation, and that is required in a healthy and mature parliamentary democracy. We need not take my word for it; we have the opinion of an eminent Conservative MSP—an expert in the field, or so I have been told. It should be a consequence of EVEL that the supply process be reformed in the interests of this being a “process of development”, as promised and envisaged by the Leader of the House on 22 October 2015.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for satisfying my craving for your indulgence, and I will return momentarily to employment tribunal fees.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For clarity, I should tell the House and the hon. Lady that she is perfectly in order. She is talking about estimates and this is an estimates day and, whatever anyone else says, in my judgment the points she is making are perfectly reasonable and ought to be debated.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank you enormously, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that supportive comment.

Regarding employment tribunal fees, the SNP Government in Scotland understand, as I fear the UK Government do not yet seem to, that the introduction of these fees is a significant barrier to justice, not least for women facing maternity discrimination who cannot afford to take a rogue employer to a tribunal. Last year a report for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that unlawful maternity and paternity discrimination is now more common in the UK workplace than ever before, with as many as 54,000 pregnant women and new mothers—one in nine—being forced out of their jobs each year.

We in Scotland will listen to the experts. We will abolish these prohibitive and punitive fees. It is the right thing to do and justice must be the guiding principle of all we do. When any state puts a price on justice for its citizens, that is a state in peril. I urge the Minister to reflect on this and reconsider the pernicious effects of such fees on ordinary working people.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Patricia Gibson

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

George Osborne’s Budget yesterday was nothing more than an attempt to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has to say “the Chancellor of the Exchequer” or “the right hon. Gentleman”.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Chancellor’s Budget yesterday was nothing more than an attempt to confirm that austerity is king for this Government. Ideology has blocked the path of any attempt to ease the burden on the backs of the less well-off. Even setting aside the cuts to welfare and capital spending, the OBR estimates that between 2009-10 and 2019-20 Westminster funding for day-to-day public services is forecast to fall by the equivalent of about £1,800 per head. Chillingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that the scale of the cuts to departmental budgets and local government will reduce the role of the state to a point where it will have “changed beyond recognition”, with £3.5 billion of new cuts in this Budget. That is an additional £3.5 billion of cuts for 2019-20 that will once again hit unprotected Departments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not specified where that money will come from, either. Scotland faces a £1.5 billion cut in its funding for public services, which means that between 2010-11 and 2019-20 Scotland’s fiscal departmental expenditure limit budget has been reduced by an eye-watering 12.5% in real terms.

I listened earlier to this Government lauding their support for young people, but we have already witnessed the slashing of student maintenance grants for some of the poorest students and their being converted into loans. Housing benefit for unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds has been scrapped, which will create enormous hardship for young people. Student fees will continue to rise. Student nurses will no longer receive grants, but loans instead. All calls for the reintroduction of the post-study work visa in Scotland have gone unheeded.

Of course we welcome the support for the oil and gas industry—as far as it goes—but what is really required is a strategic review of the whole tax regime for oil and gas. The SNP called for a such a review ahead of the Budget, but again that went unheeded. The freeze on fuel duty is to be welcomed. This is a victory for small businesses and rural communities such as Arran in my constituency, and it will also be welcomed by families with stretched budgets across the UK.

More than anything, this Budget bolsters and consolidates inequality across the United Kingdom. Increasing the personal tax allowance is a very expensive approach and it badly targets help for the low paid. That is the view of the Child Poverty Action Group, and the Government should take note. It is not a social justice measure when 85% of the £2 billion that the Treasury spends goes to the top half and a third goes to the top 10%. For every £1,000 by which the personal tax allowance goes up, basic tax rate payers gain £200, but universal credit rules will claw back 65% of that gain from the low paid, leaving them gaining only a maximum of £70 a year. Child poverty campaigners have concluded that this Budget sets the next generation up to be the poorest for decades. Yet there is still money—between £15 billion and £100 billion—to be found to renew Trident. Disability rights groups have warned that these changes will be a devastating blow to disabled people. This is a Budget of missed opportunities.