Spending Review 2025: Scotland
Debate between John Hayes and Stephen Gethins(5 days, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. This debate is not really about welfare in Scotland; it is about the spending review. [Interruption.] I take the point, but I would like the remarks to be tailored to the subject at hand.
Stephen Gethins
You are quite right, Sir John. It surprises me that the Labour party does not want to talk about a Labour Government, but then the fact that they lost, or nearly lost, that kind of vote after less than a year gives us some idea of the impact of what has happened over the past year.
This is my appeal to the Labour party: why not do some of the things it actually believes in and try to bring about real change, be that on Brexit or the fiscal rules, rather than just being a continuation of the Conservative party? The Government cannot continue to ask the Scottish Government to offset the damage done by Westminster on Women Against State Pension Inequality, as was called for, winter fuel, the two-child cap, the bedroom tax and so on. The Scottish Labour leader said that he would not bring in any of last night’s welfare changes, once again expecting Scotland to offset the damage that has been done here.
Whether I like it or not, this place still matters to what goes on in Scotland. I ask the Minister to look at these areas. Can she give us answers on the Acorn project, which I will chuck in as well—we know how much money is going south of the border, so does she know how much will go north of the border, and in particular on the welfare changes, given the significant impact on the Scottish Government’s budget?
UK-EU Summit
Debate between John Hayes and Stephen Gethins(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is good to contribute to the debate. On the matter of Churchill, I am of course one of his successors in Dundee, where he was defeated by the only prohibitionist ever elected. It was after his defeat that he went on to make his speeches about Europe, after he had joined the Conservative party.
I suspect that I will in a moment slip into the same levels of exasperation expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—I hope that she does not mind my saying that we agree on so much—but before I do, let me thank the Conservative party for bringing this motion. I have to say, I salute their—how should one put it—courage in securing the debate. Nobody is saying that the Conservatives’ Brexit has been a success. In that context, I feel that they are leading with their chin today. Nobody is arguing that it is something that has gone well. Nobody is arguing that it has become a triumph. Rather, we are debating and discussing today how to tackle a problem that has been well set out by the Government. I am sorry to say that Brexit continues to cast a spell over the political classes at Westminster.
We have heard a rerun of some of the arguments and some of the falsehoods about the European Union, but let us talk about the evidence—I will be brief, as it has been well covered. There is the 4% drop in GDP that the Treasury has outlined, and the 15% drop in trade that was part of the Budget documents. The UK has now lost more than it ever contributed financially, with absolutely nothing in return. There is the loss of jobs, the loss of regional structural funds that were never replaced despite the promises, the loss of opportunities for SMEs and, critically, the loss of opportunities for our young people. I can remember when the Brexiteers told us that lots of countries would follow the UK out the door. Nobody has followed the UK, and I wonder why. It leans into the sense of British exceptionalism that we hear time and again. The UK has been left impoverished as a direct consequence of those arguments.
I have heard the warm words from Labour Members about wanting to be closer to Europe, but they are fundamentally grabbing hold of a hard Tory Brexit. I fail to see why a Labour Government do not stand up for Europe more. Rather than try to imitate failed Conservative policies and failed Reform policies—let us not forget that Reform has a track record, and it is not a good one—Labour should take them on, on that track record.
Stephen Gethins
Before I move on to the Treasury and some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I will give way to him.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman was pointing to an empty Bench when he talked about Reform, by the way, because its Members have not turned up.
On the structural funds, I know the hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to say something misleading. After Brexit, my constituency attracted Government funding of something like £60 million or £70 million for roads, a new leisure centre and the regeneration of our town centre. In the last year we were in the EU, does he know that it cost us £17 billion to be a member? What sort of price is that?