St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs
Debate between Stephen Gethins and Patricia Ferguson(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Devolution in Scotland
Debate between Stephen Gethins and Patricia Ferguson(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
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.