St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
Patricia Ferguson Excerpts(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we talk of Scotland, I am afraid my mind does sometimes wander to that other place at Holyrood.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate about St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing it and on an excellent opening speech. May I also add my thoughts for the families of the former colleagues we have lost this year to those of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)? They were, without exception, good parliamentarians, good people and good friends. They will be missed.
In a debate on Scottish affairs, it would be remiss of me not to mention the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair. The Committee met for the first time in this Parliament just two days after it was formally re-established, and we have been working non-stop ever since. Although the Committee’s remit covers the Scotland Office, in practice we examine any issues affecting Scotland where the UK Government have a responsibility or interest. That results in a varied programme. In the last year, we undertook five inquiries covering topics that hon. Members might expect such as energy, the Barnett formula and Scotland’s industrial transition.
We also considered less obvious topics where Scotland leads the way or is implementing original approaches. For example, one of our inquiries looked at the impressive potential of Scotland’s space launch sector. We eagerly await the UK’s first rocket launch next year from the SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands. Members of the Committee thoroughly enjoyed the visit and found their experience at SaxaVord enlightening with regard to the potential of that industry for our country. We also examined in detail the establishment of the Thistle in Glasgow’s east end. The Thistle is the UK’s first sanctioned safer drug consumption facility, and reflects a pioneering approach to drugs policy.
So far, the Committee has produced four reports; those hon. Members who have not quite sorted out their Christmas reading might want to pop down to the Vote Office and collect a copy of each, as they do make very interesting reading. We have also launched four new inquiries for 2026, including on digital and fixed-link connectivity, defence skills and jobs, and the future of Scotland’s high streets.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of the Committee’s work is getting out of Westminster and visiting businesses, communities and leaders across Scotland. Just this week, the Committee was on the Isle of Skye hearing at first hand about connectivity issues experienced by some of the most remote communities in the UK. We have also visited Shetland, the Western Isles and key parts of Scotland’s energy industry on the east coast. On no other Committee of this House would Members find themselves visiting community energy projects in the Hebrides one week, and having tea and cake on a nuclear submarine the next.
Seeing operations and engaging with stakeholders at first hand provides unparalleled insight that we bring back to Westminster and use to inform our reports. The aim of this scrutiny is to ensure that the work of the UK Government reflects Scotland’s unique strengths, interests and needs. In each of our reports, we set out how the Government can do that. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow Committee members, whose hard work, commitment and good humour makes our work possible.
This debate is about St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs, so—surprise, surprise—I am now going to talk a little bit about St Andrew. He is the patron saint of Scotland, as well as of Russia and Greece. The New Testament tells us that he was the first of the apostles chosen by Jesus, and that he was ultimately martyred for his beliefs in Patras in Greece. We are told that Andrew asked those who would crucify him not to do so on a traditional upright cross, because he was not worthy to die in the same way as Christ, and that is why his cross is diagonal. That cross, with its blue and white design, forms Scotland’s national flag, the saltire.
We are told that Andrew brought his brother, Simon Peter, to Christ. He did not try to keep his new and inspirational friend to himself, but instead encouraged his brother and others to embrace and follow Christ. We are also told that it was he who found the little boy with the basket of loaves and fishes and brought him to Jesus, so that the crowd that had followed him could eat. He also arranged for some Greek people who wished to meet Jesus to do so. As a result of these stories, he is often spoken of as an intermediary, someone who was open and encouraging of others and who worked hard to bring people to Jesus through his missionary work. I mention that because I believe that those attributes are reflected in the character of Scotland.
We do not have an exclusive right to those values, and we do not always get it right, but we are generally a welcoming, supportive and encouraging place, with a warm welcome for the stranger. We have experienced waves of immigration over the centuries. Irish immigrants sought refuge from the economic difficulties of that island, my own family among them. At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, many Italian families came to Scotland. After the second world war, many Polish people sought refuge with us. And many people from the Indian subcontinent came to our country after partition. I well remember the Chilean refugees, many of whom came to Drumchapel, in my constituency, seeking safety having escaped from the brutal regime of the dictator, Pinochet. In recent years, we have welcomed many Ukrainian refugees. It is always a pleasure to attend the annual event to celebrate Ukraine’s independence day, held in Victoria Park in my constituency, which is an absolute joy, even if my painting skills have not got any better over the years.
All of that is the reason why the comments made last week by the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), were so objectionable. He attempted to sow division in Glasgow, by describing multilingualism in the city’s schools as “cultural smashing.” What he chose to misunderstand—I think he made a choice to misunderstand—is that many languages are spoken by families in our city, including Scots, Gaelic and British sign language, and that for many children in Gaelic-medium education and in BSL education, English is not the language in which they are taught. Such comments by any politician are despicable.
Dave Doogan
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, my colleague and Chair of our Select Committee, for giving way. She is making a powerful point about Scotland’s identity and our values. She is a Unionist and I am a nationalist, but I do not think for one second that I am any more proud of my flag than she is proud of her flag. Does she agree with me that we must do everything that we can to prevent our St Andrew’s flag from being hijacked by those who would seek to use it against the very values that make Scotland the welcoming place that it has always been?
Patricia Ferguson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my colleague and friend, for his comments. I will come on to talk about flag shortly, so I will not answer him directly at this moment.
As I was saying, I think that comments such as those that we heard last week are despicable. I for one will continue to praise and welcome the work of teachers across Glasgow who work to support bilingual families and multiculturalism. There is much good work going on to promote that within the city of Glasgow. In my own area, every year Thriving Places Drumchapel hosts a well-attended Hope not Hate event, which showcases the talents that young people from other countries and traditions have brought to our local area.
I mentioned earlier that the saltire is the flag of St Andrew and the flag of Scotland. It does not belong to any one of us and it does not belong to any political party. Like the man whose death we should remember when we consider that flag, it is a flag of welcome and inclusion—we would all do well to remember that. I have no problem with people celebrating their nationality by flying their flag, whichever flag that happens to be, but when that flag is used to threaten, intimidate or suggest to people that they are not part of that country, then that is bullying, which is despicable.
That is why I found the showing of flags across the country this summer, wherever they happened to be, to be totally reprehensible, because in many instances—perhaps not all—that was being done for entirely the wrong reasons. We have to be proud of our flags as symbols of our identity. Whatever our political differences, we share certain values—values that we will work with anyone to protect. At the end of the day, those values are what make us who we are and they are important; if they are not, they should be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they are going to refer to other hon. Members in the House and criticise them, they should have informed them beforehand.
Stephen Gethins
We focus an awful lot on the Scottish Parliament. I have no problem with that, but Members who sit here choose to be part of a Parliament that has powers that far outweigh those of the Scottish Parliament. I do not like that, but other Members here do.
On the future generations fund, since we are having a biblical debate and there has been biblical reference, I say to the hon. Member—he will not mind—that, to paraphrase Matthew’s gospel, sometimes you talk about the speck in my eye and ignore the plank in yours. Some £1.5 trillion, and 1.5% of every share on earth from the top 5,000 companies, is now in Norwegian hands, and Norway can use that, with transformative effect. If he thinks that Westminster control over oil and gas and other aspects of energy—it still has that responsibility—has been positive, I encourage him to think again. It has not been wholly positive; things have failed. As he has prompted me, it should be reflected that the failings of Holyrood are dwarfed by the gargantuan failings of Westminster. There has been Brexit, austerity—the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale was part of the Cabinet who brought that in—the Truss Budget, which put up all mortgages, and our relationship with the rest of Europe. Those failings have now been brought to bear.
Stephen Gethins
I will give way one more time, out of respect for the Chair of the Committee, if she can tackle the issue of our relationship with the rest of Europe.
Patricia Ferguson
There is something that has always perplexed me about the arguments around Brexit. I remember campaigning very hard to try to stop the UK leaving the European Union, but I do not remember seeing many SNP members out campaigning. Records show that the SNP spent less money campaigning against Brexit than on a local authority by-election. I have always wondered why that was; perhaps the hon. Member can tell us.
Stephen Gethins
I fought hard against Brexit in this place, and I continue to fight hard against it. I worked in the European institutions. I was an Erasmus student whose life was transformed by our membership of the European Union. The hon. Member’s party has removed, or refused to take decisions on, those opportunities for young people, having embraced a hard Tory and Reform Brexit.
Labour could change everything right now, but Labour Members could not even bring themselves to vote with the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and others on entering into a customs union. It speaks to the cautious nature of the Scottish Labour party that whereas 13 Labour MPs managed to rebel, not one Scottish Labour Member rebelled, just as only one Scottish Labour Member—they were chucked out—was able to rebel on the two-child cap.
The EU goes to the heart of what we are about. Labour Members talk about devolution, yet a third of the Labour group in Wales has had to write to the UK Government about the rolling back of devolution. I would be grateful to the Minister for tackling that. It speaks to our place in the world. To go back to St Andrew, I encourage anybody visiting Kyiv—I did so on a constructive visit with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar—to visit the church of St Andrew. It is one of the founding churches, from when Christianity was brought to Kyiv. It is beautiful, and it speaks to my vision about where we sit in the world. Hon. Members have referred to their constituency; let me make my inevitable reference to the declaration of Arbroath at its abbey, an event that has influenced other parts of the world.
I hear gripes, but I rarely hear any sort of positive vision from anybody else. Here is mine, and it speaks to the points raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle. My vision is one of normalcy—of a Scotland that joins a European family of nations. We see all our neighbours outperforming us when it comes to fairness and the economy. Why? Because they have the normal powers of independence. They have the powers that Westminster has, but that Labour refuses to use to make life better for people.
On borders, we can look at Antwerp and Rotterdam, Strasbourg and Baden-Baden, and Nice and Italy. We see borderlands across Europe that thrive because they sit within the European Union; they thrive because of that partnership. It is not for me to tell England what its future should be, but surely the EU provides a 21st-century model for union—one that is embraced across Europe—whereas ours is an 18th-century model of union, with no article 50 to allow us to get out, no equal rights, and no place for the smaller parts. The situation is different for the Åland islands, Greenland and others.
In Central Lobby, we have St David over the door above the Commons, St George above the door to the Lords, and St Patrick above the door to the way out. The old joke goes that St Andrew sits above the door on the way to the bar, but maybe St Andrew is merely taking a slightly longer way out than St Patrick.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Ferguson Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty McNeill
The SNP Government are clearly not doing what is required to drive growth in Scotland, but I say to the hon. Member that we are dealing with the legacy of 14 years of Conservative economic mismanagement, including their catastrophic policy of austerity, their mismanagement of the pandemic, and a failed Brexit deal. Members do not have to take my word for it: the current leader of the Conservative party has been clear that the Conservatives have no plan for growth.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my regret the Scottish Government have been content to keep £1 billion of underspend rather than building 39 new health centres or 30 new primary schools, employing 23,700 nurses in our NHS, or investing money in Scottish public services and having a consequential effect on Scotland’s economy?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more. Since the election, this Government have delivered an extra £5.2 billion in funding for the Scottish Government, so they should be making life easier for Scots, but that money is being completely wasted by the SNP. What do we have to show for this record-breaking settlement? We simply cannot waste another decade with this failing SNP Government. It is long past time for a new direction.
Devolution in Scotland
Patricia Ferguson Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I nearly lapsed into old habits and called you Deputy Presiding Officer, but that is a title for another place some 500 miles up the road. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for procuring this debate, and for arriving when he did; some of us were becoming rather anxious. I do not think I have ever been more pleased to see him enter any room.
On a more serious note, 25 years ago this month, Donald Dewar—MP, MSP and the first First Minister of Scotland—died prematurely. Donald had worked hard, both in our party and beyond, to promote the idea of a Scottish Parliament. It was a huge loss when he passed away only 17 months into the life of that new Parliament, but his legacy—the Parliament he played such an important part in establishing—lives on.
Despite the disappointment of the 1979 referendum, devolution remained firmly on the agenda of the Labour party through the long years of Conservative rule. The idea was kept alive by Donald, his great friend John Smith, Labour party and trade union members across the country, and colleagues in the Liberal Democrats and some other parties. “A Claim of Right for Scotland” in 1988 and the Scottish constitutional convention were significant markers on the long road to the successful 1997 referendum. I am pleased to recount that when Labour was returned to power in 1997, one of its first acts was to pass the Scotland Act, which paved the way for the Scottish Parliament just two years later. It is quite remarkable that a party was returned to power in May 1997, held a referendum just two or three months later on the Scottish Parliament and whether we should have devolution, and delivered that Parliament within two years.
I was proud to campaign, along with many others, for a Scottish Parliament over many years. I believe that such subsidiarity is sensible and is a democratic imperative, and as one of the first MSPs elected in 1999—alongside my colleague, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross—I was privileged to see at first hand the challenges and successes of the Labour-Liberal Executive, which steered our country through the first years of devolution. We did not call ourselves a Government then; “Executive” was good enough for us. As my colleague said, it is my conviction that co-operation between the coalition partners, and sometimes across all parties, was key to the progress of devolution, as was joint working between the Scottish and UK Governments.
Many positive initiatives were implemented during that early period, some of which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I apologise to the House if I repeat one or two, but I would like to list some of the ones that come most easily to mind. They included free personal care for the elderly; free university tuition; the banning of smoking in enclosed public places, which has led to verifiable health benefits—Scotland led the way for the rest of the UK on this issue, and we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ban this year—the repeal of the discriminatory clause 2A; bringing the Golden Jubilee hospital into the NHS; the Fresh Talent initiative; the creation of an international development fund; the creation of the National Theatre of Scotland; and submitting a successful bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games, to name but a very few.
The Scottish Parliament’s approach was modern, with family-friendly hours and a willingness to use technology to the advantage of Members and the public. Our electronic voting system and the public petitions process were seen—I think rightly—as efficient, businesslike and inclusive. I sincerely hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider those examples during its investigation—especially electronic voting, please.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I sometimes find myself watching Holyrood TV, and most of what happens after the electronic voting is endless people checking whether they have voted—wanting to clarify whether the machine has worked. Given that there are 120-odd Members in Holyrood and 650-odd Members in this place, I am not entirely sure that that is the best plan for Westminster voting.
Patricia Ferguson
My recollection of the system is that it worked very well indeed. I do not know whether standards have slipped since the days when I and other hon. Members present were Members of the Scottish Parliament. What the hon. Lady describes did happen—I admit that—but very rarely. I was for some time in the Chair, announcing those decisions, and I genuinely do not remember that happening very often at all.
John Lamont
I think the recollection that the hon. Lady and I will have of our time in the Scottish Parliament was of voting physically, albeit electronically, together in the Scottish Parliament Chamber. The difference now, of course, is that some Members of the Scottish Parliament are voting in the Chamber, while others are voting at home, sitting at their kitchen table, by pressing a button. That is where the connectivity issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) arise, and that is why it is important that we maintain physical voting in this place.
Patricia Ferguson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am not in favour of voting remotely either, except perhaps in very rare and exceptional circumstances. However, please believe me that electronic voting is the way forward. Members would not have to spend some 20 minutes walking through the Lobby. Votes would be cast, and a result declared, within roughly one minute. That is definitely a better use of Members’ time, and a much more efficient way to do things.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I think the hon. Lady has made a good point. She may be up against it if she is trying to talk to those on the Opposition Benches about modernisation in any fashion, but when, during the pandemic, Members were forced to go through the Lobby when they were unwell, that affected Members throughout the House. I think—and I shall say more about this later—that there are always places where legislatures can learn from each other.
Patricia Ferguson
It is undoubtedly true that we have to learn from one another, and from international examples too. If I can give one example that I would like colleagues to learn from, it is that electronic voting has a place, and a place from which I think this House could benefit greatly.
Patricia Ferguson
Before I give way, may I just say that I really did not imagine that that one line would create such a response?
David Davis
I cannot really comment on electronic voting, but I was going to make a comment in the other direction—about learning in both directions. I believe that Donald Dewar, in his heroic struggle to bring about devolution, wanted a strong Scottish Parliament, in terms of privilege, in terms of the right to summon Ministers—
Patricia Ferguson
I think we have to realise that the Parliament in Scotland is very much smaller than this Parliament, which makes a great difference to many of the ways in which it operates. As we heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, it is much easier to speak to a Minister there than it is here. It is a regular occurrence. There is a saying in the Scottish Parliament: you only have to sit in the Garden Lobby for half an hour, and every other parliamentarian will have passed you by at one point or another. That is a huge advantage, and it is one of the aspects of the Scottish Parliament that I personally preferred: we did have that access, not just to Ministers but to other colleagues across parties, and we could develop relationships that enabled us to work in a cross-party way very easily with them. That, I think, was a great thing. I also think that the Scottish Parliament has, perhaps, a better balance of power between Members and the Government, but we have to accept that the scale is an influencing factor at the very least.
I would not suggest for a moment that the years from 2007 onwards—when the SNP first formed a Government through a deal with the Tories, when they then formed a majority Government, and even when they were in coalition with the Greens—have been a complete failure, but there has been a great deal of wasted time and opportunity.
Stephen Gethins
Is the hon. Member aware that in that 2007 Parliament, the Labour party voted with the SNP more often than the Conservatives did?
Patricia Ferguson
The Labour party did not vote with the SNP on the Budget. The SNP needed the Tories to get Budgets through, and that was the basis on which they did a deal. Sadly, those Budgets very much reflected Tory values, and that is why Labour could not vote for them; nor could friends in other parties that are represented in this Chamber.
I have to say, though, that time has been wasted by people obsessing about the constitution and creating grievances with Westminster. We could have been in a very different place if the Scottish Government had continued to focus on the issues that mattered to people in their everyday lives, and also if they had been more constructive in their engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross cited the ill-fated deposit return scheme as an example of when there was not that cross-party working to make legislation appropriate and fit for purpose; I would cite as another example the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act, which was passed in 2012 only to be repealed in 2018. Again, I would not suggest for a minute that Scotland does not sometimes have a problem with football matches, and with some of the sectarian and offensive behaviour that goes on in connection with them, but that Act was badly thought out. People tried to say so at the time, but they were not listened to. I think it is always important for us to listen to one another and hear what others have to say.
Sadly, it has to be said that recent Scottish Governments have been found wanting when it comes to the measurements of success that they have set for themselves on NHS waiting time guarantees, climate targets or educational attainment, and the premise of the Parliament —allowing for the delivery of Scottish solutions to Scottish problems—has fallen some way short. For a Parliament that is devolved, it has had the most centralising agenda in recent years, which has not been to Scotland’s advantage. Scotland is made up of peoples, cities, towns and villages, and what works in my constituency of Glasgow West will not necessarily work in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. It is important that those differences are reflected, and that the agencies and public organisations that support and serve our populations reflect local bias, local need and local interest. Sadly, that is no longer the case in some places.
As the Scottish Parliament progresses into its second quarter-century, we have an opportunity to look back, to mark both the successes and the shortcomings, and to recall the words of Donald Dewar at the Parliament’s opening on 1 July 1999, which are as relevant today as they were then. He said that we will
“never lose sight of what brought us here—the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal.”
In recalling those words, we should look forward to the future, to how the Scottish Parliament can do right by the people of Scotland, and to how we Members of this Parliament can play a constructive part in making that so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Patricia Ferguson
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that it is only because BAE Systems won the contract with Norway that it is able to give work to Ferguson Marine, which is owned by the Scottish Government, to keep it going? At the time, the Scottish Government were saying, “We will not have anything to do with defence procurement.” The irony of that is appalling, given that people’s jobs are at stake.
Dr Arthur
Yes, I do. It is fantastic that the contracts came from Norway to the UK, and they will keep households in jobs for many years to come. It is a fantastic vote of confidence in that workforce and the whole supply chain, but the very, very quiet thank you from the Scottish Government was utterly shameful.
It is time for a new Government who will not just set ambitious targets, but deliver them and improve the lives of people in Scotland. People will not be surprised to hear that I think that new Government should be led by Anas Sarwar.
I want to make one last point. We have spoken about parent and child Parliaments, and about levels of government. There is nothing that we can do here today to improve the relationship between the Scottish Government and councils in Scotland, but when we talk about the issues in Scotland, we have to remember that there is not a hierarchy of councillors, MSPs and MPs. We are all elected by the same people, we are all equal and we are all here to serve those people. If we use that kind of language more in our constituencies, residents will come with us on the argument about empowering our councils to make a real difference in our communities. That is the devolution that Scotland needs.
Kirsty McNeill
We are focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland. We constantly have constitutional questions and questions about second-order concerns from the Opposition Benches, but we will resolutely focus on jobs and pay in Scotland, as we were elected to do.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Falkirk and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) laid at the SNP’s door the charge, which I agree with, that the SNP is much more interested in devolution to Scotland than devolution inside Scotland. I argue that devolution is a habit of mind—one that the SNP is yet to acquire, so interested is it in centralising power in its own hands in Edinburgh.
Devolution in Scotland has always been about ensuring that our distinctive voice is heard in the United Kingdom, and this Government have continued in that vein since taking office. We have reset the relationship with the Scottish Government to be one based on delivery and partnership, but the question now is about how Scotland’s two Governments, together with our local communities, can best seize the opportunities granted by artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, defence and the digital industries. Despite the insistence of Opposition Members, we cannot do that through division or constant constitutional wrangling.
We heard from Opposition Members that they would like to return to the days—the 14 years—when the SNP and the Tories had a symbiotic relationship in which each served the other’s political ends because they were locked in a dance of grievance, rather than having a focus on delivery.
Our approach as a Labour Government is different. We say that we may not agree on everything between different levels of Government, but we can and must agree on more, enough to make a difference to the people we serve. We have already seen results from having a Labour Government with Scots at its beating heart: the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, with a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots; a new industrial strategy to ensure Scotland takes advantage of the jobs of the future; GB Energy, with investment to drive the clean energy revolution; up to 60,000 clean energy jobs in Scotland by 2030, an increase of 40,000 from 2023; £200 million secured for the industrial future of Grangemouth; a historic deal worth £10 billion to supply Norway with Type 26 frigates; a trade deal with India that is set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million a year; the highest settlement for the Scottish Government in the devolution era; and a £292 million Pride in Place investment to regenerate Scottish communities. That is what delivery looks like.
Let us contrast that with the record of the SNP, which was so poignantly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). There is much about Scotland’s economy to be proud of, but we on the Labour Benches are under no illusions: it has underperformed, and has particularly underperformed in the service of working people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) and the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) pointed out so eloquently. If Scotland’s growth in the past decade had even matched the sluggish growth of the UK as a whole, our economy would be nearly £10 billion larger today. That is a decade of lost opportunity, lost jobs and lost potential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was right that we should differentiate failures of devolution from failures that sit squarely at the SNP’s door. We need a new approach, one that involves Scotland’s cities and regions and local government, but the SNP’s desire for highly centralised power instead of responsive and active local government in Scotland has led to the accountability crisis we have already discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) have done a fantastic job of explaining the role and desires of local government.
Patricia Ferguson
It is very interesting to hear my hon. Friend outline so succinctly how Scotland could be better served if the UK Labour Government’s policies were copied elsewhere. I believe that symbols can sometimes be very important, so does she agree that the fact that there are more Labour Scottish Ministers sitting on the Front Bench than there are SNP Members attending this debate says a lot about people’s priorities, and about the priorities of this Government compared with those of the SNP?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. At the last election, we promised to maximise Scotland’s influence, and this is what that looks like.
The calls we have heard from leaders across Scotland are clear. Local government leaders are not just asking for money, but for powers—powers over skills, transport and growth—to unlock the full potential of their regions. They are really asking for genuine accountability to the people they serve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross have both highlighted, there are problems with accountability and scrutiny in how the Committee system in Holyrood has evolved away from the desires of those who founded the Scottish Parliament. They have warned that Committees that were intended to be the backbone of scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament are too often dominated by the governing party, and lack the independence needed to really hold the Executive to account. Their view—which, as founding Members of the Scottish Parliament, carries much weight—is that without stronger and more robust Committees, devolution cannot deliver as the architects of the Scotland Act intended.
As has been said many times this afternoon, devolution was never meant to be an end in itself. It was always supposed to be a means to improve lives, not with division, but through co-operation. If we can focus on our common purpose across this House and between all levels of Government—if we focus on stronger growth and fairer opportunities—Scotland can truly be at the heart of UK prosperity.
Jamie Stone
Looking back to a much younger version of myself going to my first meeting of the Scottish constitutional convention in 1989, I never would have dreamt then that I would lead a debate of this nature in this place, but here we are. I thank from the bottom of my heart all Members who have made contributions, and I hope that from time to time, the present Scottish Government—or any Scottish Government—will look in the mirror and think, “Are we doing things right?” I hope that Hansard is looked at, read and thought about, because there is room for improvement.
I leave you with one last thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, which may take colleagues by surprise. There have been repeated references to someone during this debate. I remember getting into the lift in Holyrood on my first day there after my election in 1999. A tall, gangling figure was in the lift. He looked me up and down and said, “And who exactly—um—are you?” That was Donald Dewar. When I said who I was, he said, “Ah! We had had hopes of that seat, but I am sure we shall work together in a very satisfactory manner.” And we did.
I have had conversations with Labour Members about this, but I am not aware of any image of Donald Dewar in this place. Given that this was a man who made such an extraordinary contribution to the constitution of these islands, that may be something that the Art Committee might want to think about.
Patricia Ferguson
I am sure you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to tell the hon. Member that unfortunately that request has been rejected by the Art Committee. I am not sure that I will necessarily take that lying down, as he would imagine, but it has been rejected as things stand, and I thought it important for him to know that.
Jamie Stone
Well, well, well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the hon. Lady well and I doubt very much that she will take it lying down, and I am sure that she will have the support of others. Whether we see devolution as a means to an end called independence or see it, as I do, as a way of improving services in Scotland, I think we should all honour that particular man.
Oral Answers to Questions
Patricia Ferguson Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not know whether the Chair of the Select Committee is standing or not. Do you want to come in on this question?
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that the Drumchapel levelling-up fund bid and the project that would follow from that would be a good way to promote the economic and social growth of the area?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the Drumchapel project. She will not have long to wait, as the Chancellor will come to the Dispatch Box shortly and announce the Budget. I am hopeful that all these projects, including some of the anti-poverty projects that my hon. Friend has championed for years in her constituency, come to pass.
Points of Order
Patricia Ferguson Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. Like my colleagues the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I served with Alec Salmond in the Scottish Parliament from 1999. Alec did not always stay when we did; sometimes he came back here, but he inevitably came back to Scotland, and he became Scotland’s First Minister. Of course, even before that, as a Scot interested in politics, I was aware of Alec and of his great strength and courage. I seem to remember that at one point he was not a member of the SNP, and it is always difficult to rebel against your own party, so all credit to him for doing so then over a point of principle.
I was interested in the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the Lobby. I have heard stories from new Labour MPs who were encouraged to think about the way Scotland would be after independence— but for a different reason. It was suggested to them that Scotland would always vote in a Labour Government if we were to be independent, which just goes to show how astute—and, I suppose, pragmatic—Alec was as a politician. He was a great performer in whichever Chamber he was in, and he was always worth listening to. Obviously, my politics and his were very different, but I shared platforms with him on a number of occasions, and it was always interesting and an education to listen to what he had to say. My thoughts and prayers go to Moira, of course, and to Gail and the wider family, as well as to all those who knew and loved him.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. I share on behalf of all those at Reform our deepest condolences to Moira and to Alex’s wider family. I met Alex Salmond just over two years ago in the world of media. I had a radio show every Sunday for about two years. It was all going fine until I took a holiday and Alex Salmond kindly stepped in. In over 100 shows, I survived the challenges of investigations and things, but Alex’s enthusiasm, energy and determination in that three-hour show meant that it was the only show of mine that triggered an Ofcom investigation. Although we differed politically, Alex sort of sought me out in the media, and I think he took pity on me, in a strange way, because he understood the challenges—the mad challenge of trying to set up, run and fund a small political party. He was so generous with his words of advice, wisdom and encouragement, and I will never, ever forget that.
None of us likes losing, but I was with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis) last year at the Edinburgh fringe, and we had a hearty, inspired debate—I will not tell the House the topic—hosted by Alex Salmond, and I have to say, it was like the right hon. Gentleman and I were in the lion’s den. It was one of those rare moments when we enjoyed losing, because we lost to a truly great man.