Finance Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Antoinette Sandbach

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to speak for very long. We have discussed this matter a number of times before. It is important to note that this measure is a revenue-raising one; the aim is to make £430 million for the Government. However we paint it, these workers are facing redundancy. They are receiving the pay-out at the same time as losing their jobs, so they are vulnerable by their very nature, and are having to think carefully and reassess how they go forward. This additional money will go to the Government, rather than to these workers who are being made redundant. For that reason, the Scottish National party will support the Labour party’s calls, particularly those regarding termination payments.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Lady put in that category, for example, Fred Goodwin, who received a £2.7 million advance on his pension as part of the package he received when he left the Royal Bank of Scotland?

English Votes for English Laws and North Wales

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Antoinette Sandbach

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this Westminster Hall debate on English votes for English laws and North Wales. The Government have managed to get themselves in a right guddle over this. Despite much conversation and much posturing, there is still a total lack of clarity about what will be classed as English only and what will be considered by the whole House. The SNP is clear that Scottish or Welsh MPs should not be given second-class status in the House of Commons. We face the prospect of MPs being barred from votes, reducing our ability to help our constituents.

The process of certification as “England only” will be highly contentious and no doubt debated as the matter goes forward. Although I have much respect for both the office of Speaker and the Speaker himself, I cannot say that I envy the task he may be presented with. If the decision is taken to give the role to the Speaker, it is clear that provision needs to be written in for devolved legislatures to be consulted in advance of the Speaker’s decision. That happens in Scottish situations when neither Government have indicated a need for a Sewel motion in draft legislation, so the procedures are there. I am sure that none of us wants such issues to be decided in the courts, but it is surely of concern that the process of change through Standing Orders, rather than legislation, would mean that a contentious certification decision could not be challenged in any way, including through the courts. That is not right if people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are disadvantaged by legislation that their democratically elected MPs have been excluded from considering.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The problem with going through the courts is the endless delays. We saw that in Wales with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, which fundamentally altered the Act and moved Wales on to a reserved powers model. That is undemocratic because it is judicial decision making.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The point is that the core process is there. We need a process of legal challenge. We need to allow people to challenge decisions that are taken here. Making the change through the Standing Orders removes that right.

The key point is this: it would be ridiculous and undemocratic for Scottish or Welsh MPs to be excluded from any decision that could have a detrimental impact on the budgets of the devolved Administrations. Forty-five per cent of the Scottish people voted for independence and 55% voted to stay in the Union. Not one of them voted to cede to others the ability to legislate. It would be utterly bizarre for such a significant constitutional change to be made by a change to the Standing Orders.