Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

We inherited a Tory welfare system that is the worst of all worlds: it has the wrong incentives; it discourages people from working; the people who really need a safety net are still not getting the dignity and support that they need; and the taxpayer is funding an ever-spiralling bill. It is unsustainable, indefensible and unfair. Our principles for reform are clear: supporting those who need support, restoring trust and fairness in the system, fixing that broken assessment process and the disincentives and supporting people to start, stay and success in work. The right hon. Lady should support that.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on devolving the Crown Estate.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)]

I recently met the Deputy First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues, including the Crown Estate. The UK and Welsh Governments are focused on taking maximum advantage of the opportunities that floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents for Wales, which could create over 5,000 jobs and £1.4 billion of investment to the UK economy in the coming years.

[Stephen Gethins]

In the 2011 Scottish National party manifesto, we committed to have the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s electricity generated from renewables. The SNP met that target and then some, thanks to the devolution of the Crown Estate and to working with industry. It is now delivering jobs and clean, green energy to Scotland and throughout the UK. Why should Wales not have the same opportunity?

[Jo Stevens]

I will not take any lectures on the Crown Estate from the hon. Member, whose party’s mismanagement of the Scottish seabed resulted in Scottish assets being sold off on the cheap. We are focused on doing whatever it takes to secure more than 5,000 jobs in Wales and the billions of pounds of investment that the Crown Estate can unlock for Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Scottish universities punch above their weight internationally. They are one of the jewels in the crown of the Scottish economy, and of the Scottish and UK education system. Of course, Edinburgh University is the best university in the world—the House would expect me to say that as the MP in Edinburgh and as an alumnus. Let us not hide from the fact—I say this gently to the hon. Lady—that part of the big funding challenges for the universities is the lack of funding from the Scottish Government, because higher education is devolved. I will follow that up by very gently saying again that she says she does not want anything in the Budget that raises funds, but she wants to spend it.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I join others in congratulating the Secretary of State on the birth of his daughter. That is one gain from Labour that even the SNP can endorse!

One of the most important areas that business has identified for growth is a more Scotland-specific approach to migration. That was touted by Scottish Labour in its manifesto and by its leader, but it was shot down by the UK Government in no time at all, going the same way as the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, child poverty commitments and the winter fuel payment commitment. If the UK Government will not listen to Scotland’s Labour leader, why should anybody else?

[Ian Murray]

I am very surprised the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to apologise for his Twitter rantings at the weekend on foreign policy with regards to the Prime Minister. He said:

“The UK has left itself in an utterly isolated position.”

I think the hon. Gentleman left himself in an utterly isolated position.

This Government are completely committed to economic growth and to transforming lives in Scotland. We are already seeing the fruits of that in the Scottish context. I ask the SNP either to get behind that, or to give Scotland a new direction and get out of the way.

[Stephen Gethins]

If the Secretary of State had bothered to read in more depth, he would have seen that I was saying something that he once agreed with: leaving the EU has left us more isolated. He once agreed with me about that, before he went into government—but then, he agreed with me on other things before he went into government, such as tackling fuel poverty and tackling child poverty. Is the Secretary of State no longer worried about those issues and more worried about league tables? Is he more worried about being in the relegation zone? Do you know what is really interesting, Mr Speaker? Throughout all of this, not once has he stood up for his leader. That makes me think that we should not listen to his leader—because Labour Members are not listening to their leader any more.

[Ian Murray]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I lost the thread of that question about halfway through, but one thing I did take from it is that it was absolutely identical to the question from the Tory shadow Secretary of State. That tells you all you need to know.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

One in six Scots is on a waiting list today, and we face a housing emergency and a very stubborn attainment gap. Nobody could look around Scotland and say that it is going in the right direction. That is the choice that people will have to make in 2026: is Scotland going in the right or wrong direction? Canny Scots will, I am sure, make choices in the interest of their families and say that it is time to replace a failing SNP Government.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

Hurray!

[Stephen Gethins]

I welcome that welcome from the Labour Benches.

The Minister campaigned on compensation for WASPI women, as the Secretary of State for Scotland did, so will she tell me, if she will not listen to the women and if she will not listen to the ombudsman, will she listen to Scottish Labour MSPs who called for compensation?

[Kirsty McNeill]

There is a third Member in a dreadful fankle. We said at the election that we would wait for the ombudsman’s report, we would examine it and we would take a view. We have a taken view: we have taken a view that up to £10 billion of public money should not be spent providing compensation on a decision that was legal and of which it has been concluded that the vast majority of 1950s-born women were aware.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Secretary of State recently reacted to Labour’s dip in the polls in Scotland by saying that the voters “don’t like honesty”. I wonder if it was more to do with Labour not keeping its commitment to women pensioners, or saying that it would decrease fuel bills—and they went up—or saying that it would tackle child poverty and then taking on some of the most regressive Tory policies on the two-child cap? As we approach Burns night, I wonder if the bard was right when he said:

“Dare to be honest and fear no labour.”

Nowadays, would he say, “Dare to be honest and fear the voters”?

[Kirsty McNeill]

Polls come, polls go. The fact remains that this Labour Government have provided record investment for Scottish public services. I suggest the hon. Member invests in a notepad so that he can keep track.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Again, I will confess to my lack of knowledge on the detail around the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I would defer to the House to select an appropriate working model that best represented the people of our country.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point about listening and having the best system. However, does he agree that having all the power located in one Chamber and not having a division of powers—as exists in other countries—is an idea with merit, which should be looked at? The principle of sovereignty, of course, differs between English law and Scots law, and therefore we need to have a good and proper look at our governance mechanisms.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

That is a very important point. I agree that representation across the four nations is key, and that the balance between the two Houses and how they work together is also very important.

We have seen what happens when people feel alienated from their political system: they can gravitate to those with divisive answers. Unaddressed political grievances combined with a lack of faith in political institutions can be a toxic combination. Reforming the House of Lords so that it is fit and proper is not the sole solution to that problem, but is a key part of the solution. We in this House, as elected officials, have a duty to do the right thing at the right time in the right way to deliver the right outcome for our constituents and our country, and the right thing is to adopt the sensible and democratic amendments that have been tabled, and the right time to do that is now.

[Ellie Reeves]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for taking the time to debate these issues in Committee, and I have listened to their contributions with interest. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), as well as to other Labour Members, for providing a powerful voice in support of this important legislation.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who demonstrated on Second Reading that there is strong cross-party support for this first step in reforming the upper Chamber. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who has taken a surprising interest in these issues, and to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I stress that we are grateful to all peers, including hereditary peers, who have committed themselves to valuable public service. I reiterate that there is no block to hereditary peers coming back as life peers if their party wishes to nominate them.

What has become clear during the course of this debate is that the Conservatives do not have a coherent position on House of Lords reform. It is not clear whether the Opposition Front Benchers want to retain hereditary peers; it is not clear whether they want faster and further reform; and it is not clear whether they agree with the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. But what is clear is that they cannot agree among themselves about the Bill—more division and chaos.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Minister will be aware that it has been over 100 years since Keir Hardie committed to abolishing the House of Lords so, to be clear, will we have to wait another 100 years for the Labour party to get around to it?

[Ellie Reeves]

We have taken an immediate first step, as set out in our manifesto, to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The hon. Member will know well that there were a number of other commitments in our manifesto, and we are considering the best way to implement them. It is right that we take the time to do that properly.

I will address the amendments. New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. The Government cannot accept his new clause. His explanatory statement says:

“This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.”

For his benefit, I am happy to clarify the purpose of the Bill, which should be self-evident to anyone who has taken the time to read it. The Bill is designed to remove the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper Chamber. In 2024, no place in our legislature should be reserved for individuals who are born into certain families. I add that his new clause fails to take into account the presence of the Law Lords. Several such peers sit in the other place, and make a valuable contribution to its proceedings, as Members of the Lords Temporal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. His new clause therefore falls at the first hurdle, and I respectfully ask him not to press it to a Division.

Amendment 25, also tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, seeks to delay the Bill’s implementation. Delaying its implementation goes against the Government’s manifesto commitments. We were clear that we would implement immediate reform to the second Chamber by removing the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of other commitments to reforming the other place, and it is right that we take the time to consider how best to implement them. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press the new clause to a Division.

Amendments 8 and 9, and new clause 7, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, seek to impose a statutory duty on the Government to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords via the introduction of democratically elected Members. Although the Government agree with the hon. Member that the second Chamber needs reforming, we cannot accept this amendment. This is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

The Government have committed to more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals in order to provide the public with an opportunity to give their views on how to ensure this alternative Chamber best serves them. Details of the process will be set out in due course, and the House will no doubt take a close interest in that process as it is taken forward. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement the other manifesto commitments, including our commitment to consult on an alternative second chamber, engaging with parliamentarians and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament. With that in mind, I ask the hon. Member to not press her amendments to a Division.

I now turn to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and new clauses 9, 10 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, regarding the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in advising the Prime Minister on appointments to the other place. I thank the hon. Members for their interest in reform of the House of Lords’ appointment process. I think we are all in agreement that it is vital that peers meet the high standard that the public expect of them, for the good functioning and reputation of the second Chamber and of Parliament more broadly.

Constitutionally, it is for the Prime Minister—accountable to Parliament and the electorate—to make recommendations to the sovereign on new peers. As part of its role, the House of Lords Appointments Commission advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of nominations to the House. In that role, HOLAC considers whether a person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular, and whether the past conduct of that person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. The Prime Minister of course respects and values the commission’s advice, and will place great weight on it when making decisions on peerage recommendations. The hon. Members will be pleased to know that the Government’s manifesto committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments, and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country it serves. The Government are actively considering how this can be achieved.

New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would remove the Prime Minister’s role in advising the sovereign on new appointments and hand it completely to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. That would be a significant change to the commission’s role, one that would require very careful consideration. This, however, is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. I therefore respectfully request that the hon. Members not press their new clauses to a Division.

New clauses 11 and 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, relate to Members or prospective Members of the other place who have made registered political loans or donations of over £11,180 since 2001. The Government believe that the second Chamber is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience in support of the House of Lords’ core functions of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for vetting all candidates for propriety, and considers party donations as part of that vetting. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member not to press his new clause to a Division.

Amendment 15 and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would prevent individuals who were Members of the House of Commons in the current or previous Parliament or in the previous five years from being appointed as, or remaining as, Members of the House of Lords. I should declare an interest: my husband, until recently the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, is now a Member of the other place and is also a Government Whip. This is recorded in the list of Ministers’ interests that was published last week.

I thank the hon. Member for tabling those amendments; however, the Government cannot accept them. As I said, the Government are supportive of the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds, and believe that the other place is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience. That of course includes former Members of this place. Former Members can bring valuable insights to the other place, particularly with their experience of the scrutiny of legislation. Denying such eligibility for a specific time period would be unnecessary and prevent valuable contributions being made. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very pleased to hear that, and to be able to make that clear commitment. But I want to emphasise that this is the continuation of the work of the previous Government, which we fully supported before and fully support now. What is also important for our communities, and certainly important for the international community, is to see the unity that we have been able to maintain here in this Chamber. The world watches in relation to our unity and it is important therefore that we maintain it as we go forward.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

May I also add my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister on his election win?

The international rules-based system is the cornerstone of peace and security. The Prime Minister talks of a ceasefire in Gaza and the application of the rule of law. What measures is he willing to take to make sure that is implemented? Furthermore, being outside the EU makes us less safe. The populists who want us to turn away from the EU and towards Trump-style isolationism are playing straight into Putin’s hands, so what are we doing to get closer to the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to a ceasefire, obviously talks are under way at quite an advanced stage and we have already urged all sides in the international discussions that I have had to move forward on a ceasefire, because without a ceasefire it is very difficult to envisage the circumstances in which further hostages can come out safely and aid can go in at the scale that is desperately needed. Also, a ceasefire can be a foot in the door for the beginning of a process, however remote it may seem at the moment, to a two-state solution. In relation to the EU, we have a shared interest in safety and security with our EU allies and that was very much the topic of discussion we had at the EPC summit last week.