Elgin Marbles

Debate between Margaret Ferrier and Patrick Grady

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier]

I am sorry, but I need to make some progress.

As I said, this would enable the marbles to be appreciated in the original context in which they were sculpted. That is perhaps best summed up in the poetry of Constantine Cavafy:

“It is not dignified in a great nation to reap profit from half-truths and half-rights;

Honesty is the best policy, and honesty in the case of the Elgin Marbles means restitution.”

Campaigns to return the Elgin marbles to Greece have been a feature of the cultural landscape for many years, with many celebrities backing the campaign. Most memorably, the original host of “Fifteen to One”, the late William G. Stewart, delivered a speech in favour of their return in a 2001 episode, after all the contestants were eliminated in the first round of the competition. Although a popular teatime quiz show might not have been the best place to air his views, William G. Stewart’s actions highlighted people’s strength of feeling towards the acquisition of these incredible sculptures.

When public opinion on the return of the marbles has been tested, there has been consistent support for returning them to Greece. The most recent opinion poll by YouGov showed that more people in Britain favoured the return of the marbles than opposed it—by a margin of 37% to 23%. Proponents of the reunification of the marbles have rightly pointed out that there is a moral case for their return. In an Intelligence Squared television debate, which is available on YouTube for any hon. Members interested in the subject, both sides of the debate acknowledged that the circumstances in which the Elgin marbles were returned to Greece would be emblematic of Britain’s status in the world.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

This is ever so slightly tangential, but my hon. Friend mentioned Intelligence Squared, and it famously hosted a debate between Professor Mary Beard and the man who is now Prime Minister. Is she as perturbed as I am, given the important role that the British Museum has in this debate, by reports at the weekend that the Government are trying to keep Professor Beard off the board of the British Museum, perhaps because of her remain views? Does she agree that the Minister might want to respond to that in her closing remarks?

[Margaret Ferrier]

It is very disappointing to hear of the treatment of Professor Mary Beard. It reveals a crucial flaw in the argument against the return of the marbles, but it would be entirely within the UK Government’s power to appoint trustees who supported repatriation. However, I understand that the British Museum is going to take matters into its own hands and appoint her anyway.

Those in favour of repatriation of the marbles suggested that returning the marbles to Greece would portray Britain as a benign influence in the world, keen to do right by others. Those in favour of retention said that their return would mark the decline of Britain’s status as a global power. Either way, repatriating them would mark a sea change in how Britain was viewed in the world, but handled correctly, it could demonstrate that Britain was willing to ditch the colonial mindset for good. For me, the most prescient comment in the debate came from the former Liberal Democrat Member for St Ives, Andrew George, who remarked:

“We can persist in clinging on to the Greek marbles, as excuses wear thin, until we’re forced in some kind of cringe-making and rather shameful climbdown to hand them over in some decades to come.”

That brings us to the twin questions, why hold this debate and why raise this issue now? Last week, the UK Government published their much-awaited mandate for trade negotiations with the EU. Like many of my colleagues on the SNP Benches, I fear the economic impact on my constituents of a future trade deal with the EU.

Brexit also reveals this Tory Government’s delusions of grandeur, as it will expose the power imbalance that we face in negotiations with the EU27. The EU’s negotiating mandate contains an additional clause that calls on both parties in the negotiations to

“address issues relating to the return or restitution of unlawfully removed cultural objects to their country of origin”.

It is utterly apparent to me that Brexit will fuel demands for Britain to return the Elgin marbles to Greece. Greece’s Culture Minister has left us in no doubt about their position on the marbles, saying that the

“right conditions have been created for their permanent return”.

Next year marks 200 years since the Greek uprising against Ottoman rule, so it should be of no surprise to Ministers that Athens will be stepping up its demands for the return of the marbles. No doubt the Minister will boast of the strength of the UK’s negotiating position in the talks to come with the EU. I also expect her to repeat the same intransigent rhetoric that has been a hallmark of the Government’s position on the status of the Parthenon sculptures. As we have seen from this Tory Government throughout the Brexit process, however, that novel imperialist mindset is akin to the emperor’s new clothes.

I fear that the UK Government are in for a nasty surprise when we get down to the nitty-gritty of trade talks, and calls for the Elgin marbles to return to Greece may prove irresistible as negotiations drag on throughout this year. Whether by intention or by accident, the UK Government might well lose their marbles much sooner than any of us anticipated.

Scottish Devolution and Article 50

Debate between Margaret Ferrier and Patrick Grady

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady]

My apologies, Mr Gray; nevertheless, the pleasure remains. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said, the circumstances in which we are having the debate have changed somewhat, following the First Minister’s announcement on Monday about the Scottish Government’s decision to seek a section 30 order. I pay tribute to the ever-ready House of Commons Library, which nevertheless managed to capture that announcement in its briefing note just before it went to press.

I will look briefly at the principles behind the debate and some of the practical implications for us in the House and beyond. For me, there are two key principles behind the devolution settlement. The first is the claim of right for Scotland, which we have discussed in this Chamber before. It is the concept of popular sovereignty. The 1989 claim of right was the basis of the constitutional convention and the current devolution settlement. It said:

“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.

That claim still stands today, and it was asserted on 23 June 2016, when the people of Scotland said that they wanted to remain in the European Union. That claim was passed by the constitutional convention in 1989 and was again agreed by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, but is the principle of the claim now under threat from the Conservative Government? The Tories have never been clear about whether they endorsed that principle in the first place, and it appears even more under threat now, especially if the Prime Minister tries to block or delay the requested potential independence referendum in Scotland.

The second key principle, enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, is that whatever is not reserved is devolved. As we all know, schedule 5 to the Act is clear about what is reserved: defence, foreign affairs, social security and aspects of trade and energy. There have been some derogations in those areas over the years, but anything that is not mentioned in schedule 5 to the 1998 Act is therefore devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Climate change is a very good precedent for that. When the UK Parliament decided it wanted to legislate on climate change emissions, responsibility fell to the Scottish Parliament to make legislative provision in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament took it upon itself in 2009 to pass some world-leading climate change legislation, which was some of the most ambitious anywhere in the world. It seems now that the principle of what is not reserved being therefore devolved is also under threat. We have certainly had ambiguous answers from Ministers to date.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely crucial that the UK Government provide clarity of their intent regarding the transfer of powers? The Scottish Government can then plan ahead and ensure that they have sufficient capacity and resource to take on any additional responsibilities.

[Patrick Grady]

Planning is of absolute importance, and I have to say, I probably have more confidence in the Scottish Government’s ability to plan ahead, irrespective of what the UK Government is doing. The First Minister has demonstrated at every turn, before, during and since the EU referendum, that the Scottish Government are actually thinking ahead about the consequences of various decisions might be. We have seen that demonstrated again this week.

My hon. Friend leads me on to the important practicalities of how the implications of triggering article 50 will be felt in Scotland and their implications for devolution. The first—I hope we will have an opportunity to find out a little bit more about this—will be when we finally get to see and hear more about the Government’s thinking on the great repeal Bill, or, as it is increasingly known in some circles, the great power grab. It is a serious concern for Members from all parties, not least the hardcore Brexiteers who wanted to restore sovereignty to the House of Commons, that what will in fact happen is a power transfer—a power grab—by the Executive in the United Kingdom.

We read in The Times the other day that it will perhaps not just be a great repeal Bill, but that up to seven or more pieces of individual legislation will be needed just to deal with the complexities of taking us out of the European Union. The Government have to start answering questions, precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, so that we can make plans.

The consequences for devolution are profound. Which will come first, the chicken or the egg? Are we going to see an amendment to the Scotland Act to reserve powers as a result of Brexit, or will individual pieces of legislation come forward that reserve different powers? What exactly is going to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

The principle that is very clear is that if something is not reserved to the UK Government, it is therefore devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I have not read the words “reservation of agriculture” in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. Some of my hon. Friends might want to clarify or expand on the practicalities of that.

Let us take fisheries as an example, which was one of the potential Bills listed in The Times the other day. There are potential consequences for that. If the Government bring forward a fisheries Bill and have not clarified whether that is devolved or reserved, it seems to me that, under the English votes for English laws Standing Orders, it will fall to the Speaker of the House of Commons to decide whether or not that hugely profound, massive area of policy needs to be certified under the EVEL procedures. That could therefore deny a say to Members from Scotland on something that the Scottish Parliament equally has no power over, because we have been left in a legislative limbo. The Government have to start making clear exactly what their thoughts are on these issues.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the case of fisheries, the most appropriate people to administer are the Scottish Government? We have witnessed in the past inexperienced members of the UK Cabinet representing the UK at EU talks, with much more knowledgeable and seasoned Scottish Ministers being snubbed.

[Patrick Grady]

Indeed. That goes right back to the very process of the UK joining the European Community in the first place, when the fishing communities of Scotland were sold down the river as a bargaining chip in those original negotiations. There is a fear that that will happen again.

The final area that needs to be clarified is the Sewel convention, particularly as it relates to secondary legislation. One fear about the power grab that will come in the great repeal Bill is that the Government will take much power for themselves, through Henry VIII powers, to deal with European regulations by secondary legislation. However, secondary or delegated legislation is not subject to the Sewel convention. Concerns about that were raised by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament in written evidence to the Procedure Committee, which was published this afternoon. He says:

“Looking beyond the Great Repeal Bill, I would also observe that the current deadlines under which subordinate legislation is introduced in the UK Parliament would already constrict the timescale for any consequent scrutiny at the Scottish Parliament. There is a worry that any suggestion of foreshortening those deadlines may not be conducive to allowing proper oversight of any instruments that may include devolved matters.”

The consequences are profound, let alone the fact that the Supreme Court has already said that the Sewel convention is a political decision and therefore not worth the vellum it is inscribed upon.

The implications of triggering article 50 for devolution are profound. The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions today that she is listening and discussing, but now is the time for agreement and action. Perhaps the Minister could start by answering some of the questions we are raising today.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Margaret Ferrier and Patrick Grady

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. I do recognise that.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an impact assessment on the justice system is crucial because our membership of Europol, Eurojust, the European arrest warrant and other key areas of co-operation on security matters remains at risk following a hard Tory Brexit?

[Patrick Grady]

That is exactly what amendment 67 calls for. Members can see that my hon. Friend has read all our amendments and is prepared to debate them on the Floor of the House. Justice issues are particularly important. Where will the Government be on the European convention on human rights? Where will their Bill of Rights be? How will all of that interact with the instruments of justice in the European Union that my hon. Friend speaks of?

Amendment 68 calls for the Home Secretary to publish an impact assessment on her Department’s responsibilities. We heard about immigration earlier. Is that responsibility going to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, as the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath called for during the campaign? Our membership of Europol, our participation in the European arrest warrant and other key areas of co-operation on security remain at serious risk following Brexit, and that is why we need an impact assessment on the role of the Home Office.

Likewise, amendment 69 calls for the Secretary of State for Defence to publish an impact assessment on his Department’s responsibilities. As I said on Second Reading, we are at risk of being left with Trump, Trident and a transatlantic tax treaty. At this rate, Trump and Trident will be the beginning and end of the UK’s security policy.

DWP Estate

Debate between Margaret Ferrier and Patrick Grady

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the DWP estate.

It is an honour to serve under your Chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and a pleasure to see so many Members here to discuss this important issue. I am sure there will be plenty of excellent contributions and that the Minister will be given plenty of food for thought.

The Minister will be aware that this is a major issue in the Glasgow area, particularly at the moment owing to the announcement by the Department for Work and Pensions of the closure next year of half the jobcentres in the city, which is a morally outrageous plan. I hope that today’s debate is an opportunity for Members not only to discuss this serious matter, but to engage in a frank discussion about the DWP estate across the UK. I also hope the Department will listen intently to what is said here today.

This debate is not about cost considerations, spreadsheet figures or departmental proposals drawn up by people who are likely never to have visited the centres earmarked for closure. In essence, it is about how changes to the DWP estate will impact on lives, not in some abstract way but in a real sense. What might seem entirely rational and reasonable on a sheet of paper will have a profound impact on people’s lives, including those of my constituents in Cambuslang who use the jobcentre there, which unfortunately is one of the eight set to close.

My immediate concern is Cambuslang and the seven other jobcentres in Glasgow that are set to shut their doors. However, it is clear that the city is being used as a guinea pig for the reduction of DWP offices elsewhere. This matter is not just for me and my hon. Friends who represent Glasgow constituencies to worry about: all Members should be concerned. The closure of half of Glasgow’s jobcentres will be a troubling precursor to a brutal round of cuts in jobcentres across the UK. The Government will implement them without any consideration of the far-reaching and in some cases devastating implications for low-income families. In Glasgow alone, about 68,000 people who are in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance, employment support allowance and universal credit will be impacted by the closures. The cuts are so harsh and so brutal that they have achieved something that does not happen as often as it should: political consensus and almost cross-party condemnation.

At the weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) co-ordinated a letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland calling on him to take action on the jobcentre closures. I signed that letter with every other Glasgow MP; Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon; Scottish National party Members of the Scottish Parliament; Scottish Labour Members and Scottish Green party Members, as well as Labour and SNP leaders on Glasgow City Council. Despite voicing concerns on social media when the closures were first announced, Glasgow’s two Tory MSPs decided not to sign the letter.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon Friend on securing this debate and apologise for not being able to stay owing to commitments in the Procedure Committee. Will she join me in hoping that tomorrow Glasgow’s Conservative MSPs will have an opportunity to put on the record their opposition to the closures, especially that of Maryhill jobcentre, which is not far from their office and is in my constituency, when our colleague Bob Doris MSP leads a debate on the issue in the Scottish Parliament?

[Margaret Ferrier]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We hope that there is consensus across all parties, including the Tory party in Scotland. I congratulate our colleague in the Scottish Parliament on again bringing forward this important debate in the Holyrood Chamber tomorrow. The decision is for Tory MSPs to make, but it is regrettable that they seem to have chosen to adopt an ideological party line rather than to lend their voice and support to the people they were elected to represent.

The Public and Commercial Services Union has also condemned the closure proposals, saying they represent a slash and burn policy by DWP. I want to put on the record my appreciation for the Evening Times, which has diligently reported the jobcentre closure story from the start and deserves recognition for its “Hands off our jobcentres” campaign. The cuts are so worrying that the Church of Scotland has intervened, condemning the effect they will have on people as fundamentally wrong and unjust, while our Catholic Archbishop, Philip Tartaglia, has expressed his concern and called on the Department to reconsider the proposals in a way that respects the dignity of claimants and meets their needs.

The concern of Members, which is demonstrably shared by civic society, is not political bluster or point scoring; it is born of genuine and legitimate concern for some of our most vulnerable constituents. I hope the Minister will listen properly today. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here. His absence from today’s debate reflects his handling of the issue so far. I have asked him a series of written questions about when he learned of the proposed cuts to Glasgow’s jobcentres. Yesterday, in response to one of them, he was forced to admit that the DWP did not discuss the specific plans with him in advance of its announcement. This was no doubt an embarrassing confession by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it raises an important question: why did the DWP keep the Scotland Office in the dark about the plans?

The Scottish Secretary has admitted that he met DWP representatives in July, but they provided only an overview of the Department’s estates process in general without detailing specific plans. The Minister must address this matter in her response today. Why were proposals of such huge significance kept secret from the Scotland Office, and why was a decision made to keep a Cabinet colleague uninformed, particularly given the embarrassment that would cause him when the truth came out? I can empathise with the Scottish Secretary because it seems that none of us was deemed important enough to be consulted or even informed by the DWP prior to the story breaking in the press. Indeed, it took the Department another seven hours thereafter to get round to sending affected MPs correspondence about the plans.

It is completely outrageous that the Scottish Government were not consulted on the proposals. That point specifically raises serious concerns about the UK Government’s commitment to paragraph 58 of the Smith commission’s report, which recognised that Jobcentre Plus will remain reserved, but called on the UK and Scottish Governments to

“identify ways to further link services through methods such as co-location wherever possible and establish more formal mechanisms to govern the Jobcentre Plus network in Scotland.”

The Scottish Minister for Employability and Training has written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking how the change will reduce access to services and perhaps increase the risk of sanctions that may be applied in relation to the need to attend such facilities.

The Scottish Minister has also asked for urgent advice on the future of Jobcentre Plus facilities across the rest of the country. I want to ask the same question today. Tens of thousands of people in the Glasgow area will, unacceptably, have to travel further and incur additional costs to access their social security entitlement and support. They deserve full and frank answers to these questions.

The PCS has said the closures will have an adverse impact, particularly on women, vulnerable children and people with disabilities, who are already hardest hit by Government cuts. The Government must be mindful that people travelling to jobcentres are seeking work or employment support and are doing so on very low incomes. One in three children in Glasgow last year were living in poverty—that is consistently the highest rate in Scotland according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Making it more difficult for people to reach jobcentres will surely further exacerbate the problem. Indeed, the Tory Government continue to peddle the line that they want to help people into work, but continued cuts to benefits, and now these planned closures, only serve to push people further into hardship.

The Poverty Alliance has raised concerns that this reduction in face-to-face support could put people off claiming support that they need. The current sanctions regime has made accessing social security almost impossible for many people, particularly the young, and this move is likely to put people off claiming the support that they are actually entitled to. The Minister must realise that the jobcentre closures are seen as yet another callous attack on the disadvantaged and the vulnerable. They will create more hoops to jump through and increase the risk of sanctioning as a result.

I appreciate that the Minister’s response will probably seek to justify the rationale behind the closures, and I would therefore be obliged if she could also address my next points. We have been told that fewer jobcentres are needed because more people are in employment. The Fraser of Allander Institute has estimated that a hard Brexit could cost as many as 80,000 Scottish jobs. Following the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, it now appears that we are facing not only a hard Brexit but, indeed, the hardest Brexit. Given that fact, and the significant potential for economic volatility ahead of us, what sense does it make to close the doors of jobcentres, let alone half of all the Glasgow jobcentres? Surely we should be cautious in our approach. The approach that the DWP is taking is like leaving the house in the morning wearing shorts and a T-shirt when snow is forecast later in the day. There is a shocking lack of foresight here, and I ask that the potential impact of Brexit be given proper consideration as a reason to halt these plans.

The other point that I would like to make regarding the rationale for closing the centres concerns savings. We are told that the financial benefit to the taxpayer is sufficient reason to close these centres. What we have not seen is any proof that other avenues were explored. Closure seems to have been the desired and only option on the table, rather than the one of last resort. Is the Minister able to tell us today what other options were considered for each of the eight centres marked for closure? Were alternative premises sought? Was the option of co-location fully explored for each of them?

The Minister must understand the lack of faith that we have in this process. This is particularly the case because of the shambolic manner in which another Government Department recently handled the closure of offices in Scotland. In total, 137 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices across the UK are closing, with potentially thousands of job losses in Scotland. The Government say they are prioritising closing the tax gap and getting people back into work, but the closure of HMRC offices and jobcentres could seriously compromise both. The National Audit Office recently released a report on HMRC’s estate changes, showing that up to 38,000 staff will be expected to move large distances as part of a reorganisation, with some having to relocate by up to 174 miles if they want to keep their jobs. Now, although the Government have said that no jobcentre staff are expected to lose their jobs as a result of DWP estate changes, the HMRC changes have set a worrying precedent. We need to be clear about how many staff will be affected, and whether there will be a guarantee of no redundancies—I repeat, no redundancies.

We in the SNP are concerned that this is a slippery slope—a move to downsize with a view to making savings that will ultimately lead to job losses as well as having a negative impact on service delivery. We are calling for progress on plans to close the sites to be halted immediately until a full equality impact assessment is carried out. We remain concerned that the proposed exercise will not consider the vast impact that these closures will have across Glasgow. Only three of the eight proposed closures are going to consultation, while the others will not be consulted on. That is completely inadequate; the consultation must look at the entire package of closures. Will the Minister, in her response, undertake to widen the scope of the consultation to look at the broader picture right across Glasgow? We are disappointed and worried that only carrying out an equality analysis post the consultation period will fail to identify the devastating hardships that these closures could cause our communities in Glasgow. We must have a proper guarantee that the results of any equality analysis will be considered in the eventual decision, and assurance that the Government will amend their plans accordingly. It is vital that a full equality impact assessment is conducted by the DWP urgently; I seek assurance from the Minister today that she will give that very serious consideration.

In summary, I would like the Minister to tell me why the Secretary of State for Scotland was kept in the dark about the planned closures in Glasgow. How might these changes reduce access to services and possibly increase the risk of sanctions, which are applied around the need to attend these facilities? What future changes are being discussed within the DWP for Jobcentre Plus facilities across the rest of the country? I would like the Minister to address the points that I made regarding our uncertain economic future due to Brexit, and the wisdom of closing the centres at this time. Also, what other options were considered for each of the eight centres that are marked for closure? Finally, will the Minister commit to widening the scope of the consultation and carrying out a full equality impact assessment?

UK Exit from the European Union

Debate between Margaret Ferrier and Patrick Grady

Monday 17th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady]

Indeed. I am sure the Brexit Minister will feed back to his colleagues in the Treasury how keen Back Benchers are to liberate us from punitive VAT. The point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), and also mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle, is about where the powers will lie once the great repeal Bill becomes law. Will they be held by this Parliament, or will the Government take more powers to make decisions by regulation?

Once that Bill has passed, that will be the so-called independence day. Of the 21,292 signatories to the petition that states that

“23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually”,

two were residents of my constituency. I therefore do not feel any particular need to speak strongly in favour of that petition. I suspect that in years to come, 23 June will not be a day for celebration. It may indeed end up as a day of deep regret, even for those who voted, earlier this year, to leave.

I sometimes wonder if I have woken up in a parallel universe and the independence day referred to is the day of Scotland becoming independent, because look at what has happened: the currency is plummeting; there is uncertainty for universities and industry; and we cannot even get our favourite brands from supermarket websites. That is what we were told would happen if Scotland became an independent country. That is why we had to vote no and stay in the United Kingdom. Perhaps I have completely misread the political situation.

[Margaret Ferrier]

On 18 April, the then Chancellor cited Treasury analysis that stated that the effect of Brexit would be to make every household £4,300 worse off, and to make Britain and its families permanently poorer. How much poorer does the Conservative party believe people in Scotland will be if we are pulled out of the EU? Is there an ongoing total?

[Patrick Grady]

That is a fair point. Again, we were told of all the doom, destruction, plagues and apocalypse that would come upon us if we became independent, much of which would be a result of us coming out of the European Union, and then it turns out that it has all happened as a result of us staying in the United Kingdom. The process is very contradictory. That is why Scotland reserves the right to look forward to its own independence day, should we choose that route.

We in the Scottish National party have always understood our independence to be defined by our inter-dependence. Independence in Europe is not a contradiction; it ought to be the definition of a modern, outward-looking country that wants to play its part in building a fairer society, at home and around the world. That—I have said this several times in this Chamber and elsewhere—is the difference between Scotland’s position in the Brexit debate, and the position of counties in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in England in particular. The previous Prime Minister gave his example of Oxfordshire, and we heard the example of Yorkshire mentioned, but as far as I am aware, neither Oxfordshire or Yorkshire has recently sought independence, neither has had a referendum, and neither has an Edinburgh agreement that says that it will be a valued, respected and equal part of the United Kingdom.

Scotland retains a right in principle to choose its own future, and indeed that was the subject of my debate here on the claim of right for Scotland. Instead, Brexit Britain risks becoming insular, inward-looking and closed in on itself, putting up barriers to people and seeing barriers to trade being put up against it. That is why the Scottish Government will do everything in their power to protect Scotland’s place in Europe.

We know that in the coming weeks serious proposals will emerge to show how Scotland could stay in the single market even if the rest of the United Kingdom leaves. The First Minister’s Standing Council on Europe continues to provide expert advice and work through the options. That is why the Scottish Government and all the devolved Assemblies’ genuine involvement in the Brexit process is so important. The question about it seeming to have been downgraded from some kind of involvement to some kind of consultation has come up time and again. If the Minister can respond on those points, I look forward to hearing what he says. The same goes for the question of the Scottish Parliament’s right to give or withhold its consent to a great reform Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, the exclusion of the Secretaries of State for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom from the Cabinet Committee on Brexit is yet another slap in the face. The one Conservative MP for Scotland is invested with responsibility as Secretary of State for Scotland, yet he is still excluded. That heaps insult on insult on the voters of Scotland.

A lot of the petitions were signed in the heat of the aftermath of 23 June. They are unlikely to be the last to be brought to us in Westminster Hall, but eventually we will have to stop debating and decide. The UK Government should not stand in the way of giving MPs a say, on behalf of their constituents, on the Brexit process. Waiting for the great repeal Bill—the great incorporation Bill is a more accurate name—is not enough.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), in his opening remarks, which were a helpful introduction to the debate, mentioned the “Independence Day” movie released the day after the European Union referendum. I am not sure how many hon. Members saw that movie, but I inform them that London, and the Palace of Westminster in particular, do not come off well. I suspect that the independence day the Brexiteers think they achieved on 23 June may end up proving to be similar.

Supply and Estimates Procedure

Debate between Margaret Ferrier and Patrick Grady

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reform of the supply and estimates procedure.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am delighted to have secured this brief but important debate. It has taken some time for me as a new Member to become acquainted with some of the workings of the House. Some procedures are fairly straightforward, others completely bewildering, and some rather insufficient. I do not feel that it is entirely unfair to say that the supply and estimates process—the way in which Parliament approves spending—is both bewildering and insufficient. That view is shared by many hon. Members across the House. Both the current and previous Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee have been scathing of the estimates process. Several academics have also raised serious concerns about it, and some have given evidence to that effect to Committees of the House.

Dealing with complex spending plans is never likely to be a straightforward matter, but the Supply and estimates process is in dire need of reform if we are to ensure that Parliament can exercise real scrutiny of the Government’s finances. I welcome the current inquiry being held by the Procedure Committee on the Government’s Supply estimates, and I hope that the Leader of the House will engage with the Committee on the recommendations that are likely to be made.

I will speak about the wider matter of Supply estimates today, but I want to focus particularly on the implications of devolution. In reality, the estimates process is an outdated system, designed before devolution, that does not function as an effective scrutiny of Government finances. There is no real opportunity for MPs to give expenditure the scrutiny it deserves, unlike nearly every other Parliament in the world; the Parliaments of the UK and Chile are the only two that do not have the freedom to examine and adjust spending. That is yet another example of why Westminster needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

At present, we are offered blunt tools to amend estimates. We can vote to reduce expenditures for the entire Department for which we are debating a Select Committee report. However, we can vote down all Government spending—something that has not happened in 111 years. The estimates process is not fit for purpose. It allows the scrutiny of Select Committee reports but not the scrutiny of estimates. Topics to be debated are decided by the Liaison Committee. It is unreasonable to expect that Committee alone to represent all the interests of the House in debatable estimates motions within the confines of three days each Session. If we want to scrutinise Barnett consequentials fully, we need a lot more than the estimates days allowed by Standing Order No. 54.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. I am a member of the Procedure Committee and I am taking part in the inquiry she referred to. In that inquiry, Professor David Heald from the University of Glasgow, which is in my constituency, gave his view that the estimates process is completely irrelevant to the Barnett process. That view is borne out in other evidence we received and stands in complete contradiction to what the House, the Scottish National party and Scottish Members in particular were told during the English votes for English laws process, which was that our opportunity to scrutinise the consequences of EVEL legislation would be through the estimates process.

[Margaret Ferrier]

It is good to see a member of the Procedure Committee here today. He will be fully up to speed with everything that is happening there. We look forward to the report—we hope that it will be published in November this year—and I hope the Government listen to its recommendations and respond constructively.

As I said, three days is completely inadequate. Furthermore, it is an oddity that more time is given to supplementary estimates than main estimates. After all, main estimates are where the vast majority of the decision making occurs. It seems eminently logical to switch the number of days available at the very least, so that two are set aside for consideration of main estimates and one for supplementary estimates. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the SNP shadow Leader of the House, who has joined us in this debate, has submitted written evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the estimates procedure in which he makes a common-sense proposal to allow both Opposition days and Backbench Business Committee days during the estimates windows, which should take the form of amendable or debatable motions to approve estimates or parts of estimates.

My hon. Friend also advocated the case advanced by the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Southport (John Pugh) back in 2012 for the establishment of a separate Budget Committee to examine Government expenditure plans and to make recommendations to the House. I, too, think that has great merit and warrants serious consideration. It is currently all too easy for the Treasury to bury important changes within hundreds of pages of information. We owe it to the taxpayer to ensure both transparency and effective scrutiny, neither of which are possible in the current system. A Budget Committee would allow for a much more thorough inspection of spending proposals and could complement a heavily reformed Supply and estimates process. Such a Committee should also play a vital role in the scrutiny of Barnett consequentials to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, Westminster should introduce a proper Budget expenditure debate, such as those held in the United States or the Scottish Parliament. That sensible measure would allow a much closer assessment of spending. The compelling case for the inclusion of Barnett consequentials in estimates has been further compounded by the introduction of English votes for English laws. The complicated EVEL process reduces the ability of Scottish MPs to influence matters with funding implications for Scotland. The Leader of the House has repeatedly claimed that the estimates process provides a suitable avenue for us to affect those matters of great financial importance. However, in reality, it does not.

The Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), said during an oral evidence session of that Committee last September:

“the way we execute Estimates and appropriations is less than satisfactory in the House of Commons, and for those colleagues who are concerned about Barnett consequentials, perhaps the concerns could be alleviated if we had proper debates around supply procedure.”

Legislation that might be considered to fall within the rules for the exclusion of non-English MPs might have important expenditure implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The previous Leader of the House showed reticence in accepting that fact. I urge the new Leader of the House to give proper consideration to the argument being put forward. Will he agree to review the interaction between the Supply and estimates procedure and EVEL arrangements as part of the review of the latter?

Legislation passes through the House that could have a significant impact on the block grant available to the devolved legislators. Members who represent constituencies in the devolved nations are now denied a right to vote at crucial stages of that legislation. Many other Members and I have raised serious concerns regarding Barnett consequentials and the effect that such legislation could have upon them. The Government contend that the estimates process provides ample opportunity for all Members to address that. However, there exists a complete lack of relevant information available to Members regarding amounts derived from each Department’s spending, which makes up elements of the block grants. That is wholly inadequate.

Pursuant to Budgets and autumn statements each year, the Treasury provides information to the devolved Administrations of the amount within the block grant derived from the spending of each Department. However, Members of this Parliament are not given access to that information when they are asked to give formal approval to Government spending. It seems incomprehensible that absolutely no consideration is possible of the full implications of Government spending, including the effect on the budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House engage with the Treasury specifically on that issue?

The current measures for the estimates day debates were put in place before the process of establishing separate legislatures for the devolved nations commenced, so there is a fundamental inadequacy in how we examine Barnett consequentials under the current process. As a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, I heard evidence last September from Sir William McKay, who said:

“There is neither possibility nor opportunity”

to do so, and that

“estimates opportunities are limited in both time and matter.”

In fact, he commented that EVEL is “a dog’s breakfast”—a phrase my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire loves to use in the Chamber.

In evidence recently given to the Procedure Committee, Dr Joachim Wehner, associate professor of public policy at the London School of Economics, said:

“The UK generally does extremely well in terms of macro fiscal disclosure, but it does less well when you look at the details of public spending. That is a weak spot in the overall transparency assessment of the UK. So the quality of the estimates is below par compared to the UK’s own high standards in this area, but also compared to its peers and other OECD countries.”

The mother of Parliaments, like many mothers, is not as in touch with the modern world as its younger descendants. The OECD wrote that we have some of the worst levels of scrutiny of estimates of any country in the developed democratic world. The House does not formally consider, debate, amend and vote on expenditure in the same way as with the Budget and taxation. There simply must be more opportunity to consider, debate and make amendments. MPs should have some measures to amend or affect estimates short of attempting to vote down all Government spending. There must be a way for Members to amend spending without having to defeat the Government on a major money motion. If nothing else, such a system makes minority Budgets much harder and, in doing so, cements a tendency in this place to move towards a two-party system with power pooling with the Executive. That is not a healthy way for a democratic country to operate.

Before I summarise, I would like to quote Adam Tomkins MSP, professor of public law at the University of Glasgow and the Scottish Conservative spokesperson on the constitution. In his written evidence to the Procedure Committee, he said:

“Whether these procedures give MPs the means fully to scrutinise any Barnett consequentials of England-only or England and Wales-only legislation may be doubted. If they prove to be inadequate, it may be that one unintended consequence of EVEL will be to reform the House of Commons’ supply process. From the perspective of parliamentary openness and effective parliamentary scrutiny, that would be no bad thing. The Treasury, however, may take a different view.”

I urge the Leader of the House to engage specifically with the Treasury about reforms to the timing and presentation of estimates, including the case for draft estimates, and the need for clear information on Barnett consequentials, including a statement of change from the previous year. Will he agree to examine specifically any lessons that can be learned from the Scottish Parliament’s procedures on the consideration of spending? Will he agree to engage with the Procedure Committee about the likely recommendations of its current inquiry on this matter?

Will the Leader of the House agree to look at the arrangement for estimates days, with a view to increasing the number available and making more time for main estimates than supplementary ones? Will he have discussions with the Treasury, with a view to making estimates motions more easily amendable? Will he seek to engage with relevant parties to explore the merits of establishing a Budget Committee? Lastly, will he agree to review the interaction between Supply and estimates procedure and the arrangements for English votes for English laws as part of the review of the latter?

Visitor Visas: Sub-Saharan Africa

Debate between Margaret Ferrier and Patrick Grady

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered visas for visitors from sub-Saharan Africa.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The word “visa” for a document that permits a visitor entry to or exit from a foreign country is believed to be derived from the Latin “charta visa”, meaning a verified paper or a paper that has been seen. Sadly, for too many people from sub-Saharan Africa, UK visitor visas are documents that are not seen, because of the massive logistical barriers that stand in the way of applying for them and the opaque and often apparently arbitrary decision-making process for their granting.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise those concerns directly with the Minister, and I am grateful to him for making time to meet me and a representative from the Scotland Malawi Partnership yesterday to discuss some of them in advance. The issues will not be new to him or his Department, because they have been raised repeatedly in recent years both by MPs and in the House of Lords through questions and debates and through the channels of the all-party parliamentary group on Africa, of which I am secretary. However, I believe that this is the first occasion since the 2015 election on which time has been made available for a debate on the issue. The timing is opportune, because despite parliamentarians’ best efforts in recent years, it seems that little has been done to resolve the many challenges facing visa applicants in sub-Saharan Africa, and reports of major frustrations and disappointments with the system appear to be on the increase.

The debate is about visas for visitors from sub-Saharan Africa, but I want to look particularly at experiences in Malawi, as that is the country with which I have the most familiarity. The Scotland Malawi Partnership has helpfully provided a detailed briefing. I declare something of an interest: until the election, I worked for the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which is a member of the Scotland Malawi Partnership, and was vice-chair of the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland, which shares several members with the SMP.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I understand that Malawians are expected to pay for visas to visit the UK by credit card, which very few of them have. Does my hon. Friend agree that alternative payment methods should be accepted so that Malawians do not face an often insurmountable barrier?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, exactly. I will touch on some of those issues, and I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who represents Blantyre in Scotland, which was the hometown of David Livingstone and is commemorated in Blantyre, the commercial capital of Malawi. The situation she describes is a problem not just in Malawi. The all-party group on Africa’s experience is that the situation in Malawi is symptomatic of challenges experienced across the region. It is a region where, as my hon. Friend alluded to, very small proportions of the population have access to electricity, let alone the internet, yet prospective visitors to the UK are expected to apply online for a visa. It is a region where public transport as we know it in the UK is practically non-existent, yet people are sometimes required to travel hundreds of miles to a visa application centre—sometimes on numerous occasions to progress the same application. It is a region where trade is mostly conducted in cash, yet payment for a visa can only be made online by credit card.

Those points on their own should be enough to give the Government pause for thought and cause them to ask whether their visa application system is genuinely fit for purpose in the region. Those are often only the first hurdles that applicants face, and they are sometimes high enough to prevent an application from being made in the first place. The Scotland Malawi Partnership reports that many of its member organisations—those are often churches, schools or small community groups—that consider the possibility of bringing partners to Scotland and the UK for a visit simply give up at their first browse of the visa application requirements. I understand from the SMP that NHS Lothian, NHS Tayside, Kingussie High School and Aberdeen presbytery have all recently had to cancel visits because of visa complications. They all have their own powerful stories to tell, which I am sure we could make known to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady, and I was going to make exactly that point. A speaking tour that gives witness to the impacts of poverty or the success of projects that help to overcome poverty may help to change Government policy and improve the lives of even more people. Ironically, speakers on such a tour might find themselves running up against the Government’s anti-advocacy clause, but that is perhaps a debate for another day. It is not just ironic but a key concern of mine that visas are denied to, or barriers are put in the way of, visitors who could help to transform our understanding of poverty in global campaigns against injustice. Last year my former organisation, SCIAF, wanted to bring visitors over from Malawi to help to promote its Lent fundraising and awareness campaign—a campaign supported by the Department for International Development’s UK Aid Match scheme—but the first visa application was denied.

One of the first events that I helped to facilitate in Parliament after the election was a major seminar organised by ActionAid to launch its “Fearless” campaign against violence against women. The UK Government have repeatedly and rightly spoken out against all forms of violence and discrimination against women, yet a visa was denied—not once but twice—to Tiwonge Gondwe, a women’s rights campaigner from Rumphi district in Malawi. In response, she said:

“Women in Malawi face violence every day. I experienced violence but now I work as a volunteer to campaign for women and to help realise my children’s rights. I wanted to come to the UK to build international support for women’s rights, but because I’m a volunteer I was told I did not earn enough money. That does not make sense.”

In such situations, disappointment and frustration is felt by not just the individuals but the sponsoring organisations. Long-established, credible organisations, often with worldwide presence and public support, can feel that judgment is being passed on their bona fides when visa applications that they support are rejected. I ask the Minister to consider as a result of the debate what further or different consideration can be given to visa applications that are supported or sponsored by established, credible and suitably registered UK charities, businesses or other institutions.

Visa barriers or refusals not only damage the relationship between the individual and the sponsoring organisation but send a signal about the kind of welcome this country and the Government want to offer. That signal often contradicts the message that the UK is open for business, and that we welcome tourists and visitors who can contribute to our economy, culture and society. They can also send a message that one arm of Government does not know what the other arm is doing, and they undermine the civil society links that the UN has identified as crucial to the achievement of the sustainable development goals. Indeed, I understand from the Scotland Malawi Partnership that there have recently been instances when even applications sponsored by the British Council have run into difficulties.

I will come back to some of the practical difficulties. The Minister yesterday received a copy of the Scotland Malawi Partnership briefing on the issue, which outlines 10 areas of concern about the visa application process. I will not go through all of them, but I will highlight a couple of key themes. A major one is the lack of clarity about how to apply and what to include, with the online application system being a particular barrier. I understand that when SMP representatives visited the visa application centre in Lilongwe earlier this year, they were told that the centre was not allowed to give information or advice about what to include in an application, but only to encourage applicants to look online.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Patrick Grady]

I am a wee bit short of time, I am afraid, and I have a funny feeling there is a Division in the House.