Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jake Berry and Patrick Grady

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

Of course. I will happily meet my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work he is doing in driving forward the hopes and dreams of those involved in the Mansfield bid for the future high streets fund. Many areas across the country will not have succeeded in going through to the business case of the first round of the fund. I remind them that the fund will open again to applications very shortly—[Interruption.] That includes the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is complaining from a sedentary position on the Labour Front Bench. We will see what we can do.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T3. Matthew’s Foods, which has served the Asian community in Glasgow North for nearly 20 years, is being threatened with electrical disconnection because it is disputing a £400,000 bill on an emergency tariff from British Gas. Jobs are at risk, even though the company tells me that it simply wants to pay a fair price for the utilities it has used. What powers does the Department or the regulator have to encourage both sides to come to an amicable solution?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jake Berry and Patrick Grady

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T6. Given the importance of European Union regional development funding to communities in Scotland and across the UK, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Treasury about replacement funding after Brexit?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

We are having wide discussions with all Departments across Government consulting on the UK’s shared prosperity fund, which, crucially, in a post-Brexit world, will deliver on Britain’s priorities when it comes to local growth funding.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Jake Berry and Patrick Grady

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I agree that every piece of legislation brought before this House should be examined to determine whether it affects voters in Scotland. However, with the greatest respect, that should be a decision not for whoever occupies your office, Mr Speaker, but for the people who represent the voters of Scotland: Scottish Members of Parliament, either individually or collectively through the party system. We are the ones with the mandate from our constituents to represent their interests, and elements of that right are being taken away from us today.

I pay tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee, of which I am member. It was placed in an invidious position, with far too short a period of time for reflection, and with no indication from the Government that they were prepared to entertain any significant number of amendments or, better yet, to put the whole process on pause. The fact that the Committee was unable to reach a consensus should be a warning to the House about the longer-term consequences of these changes, because it is not just the Committee that was in a difficult position; you, Mr Speaker, are now holding an office that risks being politicised and subjected to much greater scrutiny and question and, as the Committee reports, is one to which eventual legal challenge cannot be ruled out.

The Government may be setting up a chain of events that quickly escalates out of its control. That is why I welcome the Procedure Committee’s decision to investigate the Estimates and Supply process in this House. The Leader of the House says that there are no Barnett consequentials, and I hope that his Treasury colleagues were listening, because I look forward to questioning them about their receptiveness to scrutiny of the Estimates and Supply process and tabling all kinds of exciting amendments in due course.

Then there is the question of perception. No matter how the Leader of the House tries to dress it up, and whatever assurances he tries to give, the fact remains that during the legislative consent stages, my SNP colleagues and I will be sat here on these Benches while other hon. Members walk through the Lobby to vote.

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that the decision about whether something is an England-only matter should be made by Scottish MPs. Does he accept that the SNP’s decision to drop its self-denying ordinance on the foxhunting proposals—I supported that; I do not think we should bring foxhunting back—means that they cannot be trusted not to drop that convention, because they will take short-term political gain over principle—