Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I do not think it would be true to say that clinical commissioning groups are not subject to public scrutiny—they most certainly are—but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has a particular concern about a CCG, Ministers will respond to it.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

May we have a debate on the Home Office’s shambolic visa system, with case after case throughout the summer of artists and academics, especially from Africa and the middle east, being denied entry to the United Kingdom, affecting festivals, research tours and business? Will a Home Office Minister come to this House and answer the concerns of some of my constituents, who are trying to arrange these visas and are beginning to believe a covert travel ban is in place?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are millions of visitors to this country every year; the Home Office manages those processes extremely effectively. If he has specific concerns about individuals, he might wish to take that up with Ministers, but there is no sense in which there are any travel bans operating in the United Kingdom, and nor is the system unjust or inefficient.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I know that that matter has been of great concern to my hon. Friend, and I commend her for raising it. I believe that, recently, she met the senior responsible officers of NHS Future Fit to discuss progress and a revised timetable. I understand that the Future Fit programme board will meet on 31 July to hear the outcome of the independent review and the work relating to the women and children’s impact assessment. The Joint Committee will then meet on 10 August to consider the recommendations made by the board and the next steps, including public consultation. She is absolutely right to keep raising this matter.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Can we have a debate on nuclear disarmament? My constituent, Brian Quail, is currently being held at HMP Low Moss, and his colleague, Angie Zelter, in HMP Cornton Vale after they took part in a peaceful protest against the nuclear weapons store at Coulport. Does the Leader of the House recognise the moral outrage against weapons of mass destruction that drives campaigners to these lengths? Can this House be given the opportunity urgently to reconsider the immoral and unjustified renewal of Trident?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in this place, we absolutely do not interfere with matters of criminal justice. If someone is involved in breaking the law, it is very important that it is the police who decide what happens to them. On the substantive point about nuclear disarmament, I do not share his view. My personal view, and the view on the Government Benches, is that a nuclear deterrent is exactly that—a deterrent. It is an ultimate insurance that protects our people, and the security of the people is the first duty of any responsible Government.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I, too, recognise the important role of the Commissioner for Standards in building and maintaining public confidence in the House and in Members’ conduct. The public sometimes understand the phrase, “an hon. Member” to be some sort of honorific or title that Members enjoy, but I often reflect to constituents or visitors to this place that it is an injunction to us as Members to conduct ourselves honourably and to live up to the highest standards in public life. Kathryn Hudson certainly impressed that responsibility on me and my colleagues on our election in 2015. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I pay tribute to her work over the years. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned some of the effective innovations, such as training. I thank Kathryn Hudson for all the help and support that she has provided to colleagues in her time as Commissioner and wish her all the very best for the future.

Kathryn Hudson’s successor is recommended by the House of Commons Commission. I thank our outgoing Member of the Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), for his work in recent years. This may be my best chance in the Chamber to pay tribute to my predecessor as SNP Chief Whip, Mike Weir. I thank him for all his wisdom, support, advice and friendship before and since the general election. I am conscious of having big shoes to fill and I am glad to have my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and for Glasgow East (David Linden) to help me.

I join other Members in warmly welcoming the appointment of Kathryn Stone, who was clearly a very well qualified and highly respected candidate. She met with the approval of the interview panel and the House of Commons Commission, and we wish her all the very best for her term of office. I hope that, if we as Members live up to the standards that are expected of us, her case load will be appropriately light.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Kathryn Stone be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 294, dated 19 July 2017.

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, of course it is a matter of 100 Members turning up, but we have had 100 Members here and private Members’ Bills have been thwarted not by the hon. Gentleman, to be fair to him, but by the Government. There is something wrong and rotten in the way we deal with private Members’ Bills in this House. We waste our time coming down from Scotland to participate in these debates, only for him to drone on, sometimes for two hours, to ensure that they do not proceed.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Procedure Committee has produced dozens of reports over the years—at least two in the last couple of years—outlining sensible reforms to the private Members’ Bill system, many of which reflect the eminently sensible system in the Scottish Parliament, where a Bill that has cross-party support can continue to make progress. Should not that system be adopted here?

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is utterly right. The Procedure Committee has looked at the issue on several occasions—four that I can remember—and each time has made strong and sensible proposals, suggestions and recommendations on how we should address it.

The time is right, given that we have the two-year Session. Let us vow to resolve the outstanding issues in our private Members’ Bill system and ensure that we get something that is fit for purpose, something that ensures we have the respect of our constituents and something that enables us to work across the parties. I would love to work with the hon. Member for Shipley on horse-racing issues or on another interest that he and I share, but we cannot do that because he would probably filibuster a Bill so that I could not get it through. I am most surprised that he is a sponsor of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Perhaps that suggests a change in attitude and approach—a mellowing over the years. He might actually be constructively engaged in some of these issues. [Interruption.] I hear, “Don’t hold your breath,” from one of his colleagues and I will not do so.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point for his constituency, and he will be pleased to know that there will be Transport questions on Thursday 13 July, when I am sure he will be able to raise that with Ministers.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

May we have a debate on Home Office intransigence? Will a Minister come to this House to explain why, despite following all Home Office advice when submitting his application for extension of leave to remain, my constituent Akakpo Dosse Kangni-Soukpe and his wife have been stripped of their status and forced to quit their jobs, leaving their children, two of whom are British citizens, destitute? May we have an urgent debate on and review of Home Office procedures that leave so many people in such vulnerable situations?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a worrying case in his constituency, and I am sure he will want to raise it either at oral questions to the Home Office or through writing to Ministers. As we all know, the UK Border Force does have an MPs’ hotline and deals as a matter of priority with MPs’ cases, so he may he wish to take this up directly with that body.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

No. The Government’s changes to welfare policies have contributed towards a significant growth in employment, which is at record levels. That includes a big increase in the number of disabled people in work. They are now gaining the dignity and self-respect they want to have through their participation in the labour market. At the same time, we have increased and protected the benefits received by the most disabled people in the United Kingdom.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

May I first echo the comments of the convenor of the Backbench Business Committee and ask for clarity on whether there will be debates in Westminster Hall next Thursday? If not, will the business be carried over? The Leader of the House said a few moments ago that we are all elected with an equal mandate. Well, even Margaret Thatcher recognised that the return of a majority of Scottish National party MPs from Scotland would be a mandate to take forward our policies on independence, yet the current Prime Minister does not seem to respect the mandate of the Scottish Parliament to give Scotland a choice. May we have a debate on which Prime Minister was right?

[Mr Lidington]

The mandate given by the people of Scotland in 2014 was for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. I wish the hon. Gentleman and his party would respect that.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I point the hon. Gentleman to the success of the police both in and outside London in reducing crime, despite their having to make some difficult choices about budgetary management. The police have done that by reorganising their operations and priorities to ensure that cutting crime successfully comes first, and by implementing and spreading best practice.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The issue is barely mentioned in the Leader of the House’s EVEL technical review, so will he finally admit that, contrary to what his predecessor told us, it is simply not possible for Scottish MPs to debate or vote on Barnett consequentials through the estimates process?

[Mr Lidington]

A Procedure Committee report on the estimates procedure is due later this year; I will want to consider that, and the Government will of course reply to it in detail in due course. The basic problem is that it is in the nature of devolution that a budgetary decision taken here that has Barnett consequentials for Scotland does not ring-fence that Scottish funding for the same subject on which it might be spent here. It is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament how that money is spent. There is not a direct read-across.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I did, indeed, read the newspaper reports about what seems to have been a pretty appalling case of mismanagement and the ill treatment of a large number of animals at that zoo. There will be questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday 20 April, but the hon. Gentleman will probably want to seek an Adjournment debate in the Chamber or a debate in Westminster Hall.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House keeps suggesting that people apply for debates in Westminster Hall, but what is the point when Ministers’ responses are so woefully short? There seems to be a particular problem with the 11 am slot on a Wednesday. Library research shows that the average ministerial response to such debates since January has lasted 10 minutes and that the debates are finishing early. I understand that Ministers need to rush up here to fill the Back Benches for Prime Minister’s questions, but surely those debates, which are important to our constituents, should have the courtesy of a decent response from Ministers.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

It seems to me that SNP Members agree with English votes for English laws and do not want to defend the principle that we are against them, or they want to vote with the Government this evening, or they want to abstain. I am not quite sure what they are doing. However, if I heard the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire correctly, he is going to vote with the Labour party against the motion. I am not sure where the hon. Lady stands on that argument, but the point I am trying to make is simply about division and unnecessary complication in the House. The Government’s majority will see any Finance Bill that they wish to present before the next general election—whenever that may be—through the House, because that is the way in which Governments and majorities work. If the Government have a problem with their own Back Benchers when they are trying to change income tax rates, that is entirely fine.

The hon. Lady was right to raise the point that she has just made, but let me gently say to her that we wanted to debate this matter today because it is the first opportunity that we have had to return to the EVEL regulations. It does not make sense for it to be possible to invoke this procedure in the context of income tax.

That brings us to the great repeal Bill and what will come back from the European Union. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised that issue on a number of occasions. What will happen then? Will more technical changes be made by means of statutory instruments and Standing Orders to determine whether provisions are subject to English votes for English laws? We do not even know where some of the powers will lie when they are repatriated. It is important to note that none of these issues were examined in depth at the time of the McKay commission’s proposals. There was no consideration of the impact and the knock-on effect of the provisions on the way in which the House operates.

On four separate occasions, under the premiership of Gordon Brown, the Scottish National party asked for English votes for English laws. In fact, they used the term “EVEL”. Then, after 2015—I do not know what happened in 2015; they must have won more seats—SNP Members became opposed to English votes for English laws. Now they are reluctantly voting against this measure. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire just said that he profoundly disagreed with it as a matter of principle, but was not sure whether he would vote against it. He seemed to be saying that these were merely technical changes.

On top of all that, the greatest anomaly in all the regulations, including the one that is before us now, is that even when the hon. Gentleman has sprung up in that strange Committee where the Mace goes down, Madam Deputy Speaker moves to the Chair to take the proceedings and no one speaks, and when he has—invariably, and quite rightly—railed against English votes for English laws, SNP Members do not vote when they are allowed to do so, on Third Reading. They are, in practice, demonstrating English votes for English laws in any event.

I remember the circumstances surrounding the housing Bill where the EVEL provisions were put in place for the first time in this House. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly railed against EVEL, and we supported him on that, but then the SNP Members did not vote on the Third Reading of the Bill in any case, when they were entitled to, so I am not quite sure where the principles of that lie, or whether or not the hon. Gentleman should have been voting on the housing Bill.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Of course we support the principle of English votes for English laws and its ultimate logical conclusion of independence, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a difference between supporting that concept in principle and this dog’s breakfast of Standing Orders that were brought forward in such a rush after 2015? It is these procedures that we have an issue with, not the principle of English votes for English laws.

[Ian Murray]

And that is quite right: it is a dog’s breakfast, which is why I am so surprised that the hon. Gentleman’s spokesperson on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not rail against this particular dog’s breakfast, but instead welcomed this technical change and is not quite sure whether he will vote for it or against it or abstain on it this evening. If it is a dog’s breakfast and a matter of principle, let us try to fight these changes at every possible turn, of which this is a great and ideal opportunity in this House this evening.

I will conclude by saying what the alternative is for the Government. Let us take away all these changes to Standing Orders—the mess that the Leader of the House is making of the constitution—and get to a point whereby we have a set of constitutional arrangements in this House that work for the UK. We have called for a constitutional convention that would look at all these issues—the House of Lords and everything we do in terms of the constitution—and do it through a sensible and pragmatic approach, where we can look at everything in the round and come out with something the public want. It is time we started bringing the country together: no more division, no more separating different classes of MPs, no more bringing Standing Orders to this House that merely set one MP off against another. Let us work together to try and find a set of circumstances that work for the entirety of this House. It seems to me that when this Conservative Government talk about taking back control, they are not talking about taking back control to the people of this country; they are talking about taking back control for themselves, and that is the principle behind all these English votes for English laws.

This is a dog’s breakfast and it does not work, as has been highlighted time and again in this House. It is a waste of this House’s time to have to go through the process of a Committee to address whether or not we have English votes for English laws. It is inelegant and we will be voting against this this evening, to send a strong message that we as Members of Parliament are all one in this House, and the Government must go back and think again about what they are doing to the procedures in this famous House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I first saw these proposed changes to Standing Orders on the Order Paper last Tuesday and, as any competent, capable parliamentarian would do, I decided to find out what they meant. I spoke to the Clerks and to the more senior members in my group. I also went to the Leader of the House’s office and asked his officials to produce an explanatory memorandum, so that we could understand the changes that were being made and the reasons behind them. Having spoken to the Clerks, I realised that these were in fact fairly innocuous changes that were intended to tighten up the language.

I am against English votes for English laws. I do not like the way the arrangements have been implemented through Standing Orders. I do not think that that was the right way to bring forward such a significant constitutional change in this House. It has shown up at least one technical problem with the drafting. That is a concern, and it would not have arisen had we had proper scrutiny and primary legislation to make the change. I am against EVEL because of how it has been implemented. I am against the fact that significant decisions can be taken on things that have a major impact on Scotland’s public finances and on Barnett consequentials without Scottish Members being able to take a full part in the debate and have a full say in the votes. That is not right, and the change was not an appropriate way to implement EVEL.

We were reassured by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), that Scottish Members would be able to have a full say in the financial processes and the departmental budgets in the estimates process, but the estimates process is utterly rubbish. It does not allow MPs in this House, whether Back-Bench Conservatives or anybody in the Opposition, to scrutinise departmental budgets. The only people who have a say over departmental budgets are those in the Treasury. The Treasury puts them forward in the form of estimates, which we are not allowed to debate. We were promised that we would still have our say under EVEL on all the financial implications through the estimates process. If the Government are to change EVEL, instead of the change they are making today they should make meaningful changes to allow Scottish MPs to have a say on things that have a financial impact on Scotland’s public finances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that income tax has been “properly devolved”, which is an interesting phrase, particularly in this context. The Standing Order allows for decisions around the main rates of income tax, which are wholly devolved, to be classed under EVEL. I do not like EVEL at all and I do not think that we should have EVEL, but if we are going to have it, it is probably sensible to have it on something that does not have direct impact on Scotland’s public finances.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned the great repeal Bill, which is important in this context. The great repeal Bill cannot be subject to EVEL, and the Leader of the House should bring a further amendment to the Standing Orders or commit to suspend the Standing Order when we discuss the great repeal Bill, because it is not appropriate for Standing Orders relating to EVEL to apply during the great repeal Bill. Scottish Members should absolutely have a say at all its stages. We are being dragged out of the European Union against our will, and we should have a say in the great repeal Bill.

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. We have always been worried about the EVEL Standing Orders placing the Chair in an invidious position. Will that not increase if the Scotland Office, and the Government as a whole, cannot be clear about what powers will be devolved to Scotland in the event of Brexit? The Scotland Act sets out that if something it not reserved, it is devolved, but if the UK Government start to legislate, how on earth will the Chair know whether something should be subject to the EVEL process?

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly clever point. The waters are muddy, because the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been clear about what will actually be devolved. He keeps saying that more things will be devolved, but he has been utterly unclear about whether agriculture and fishing will be devolved. The Chair will be in an even worse position when making decisions about the great repeal Bill due to the mud in the water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the shadow Leader of the House said that this is a matter of principle. I get that. I am against EVEL and do not think it should have been implemented in this way. We should not have a constitutional convention; we should have independence. If the Labour party is so concerned about voting against the Government on matters of principle, I suggest that the one to have started with would have been the article 50 Brexit vote.

Business of the House

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

That might be a good topic for a Westminster Hall debate. The hon. Gentleman has identified what I think is going to be an increasing challenge for our society. Insurance companies have a business model that is based on the assessment of risk, and more genetic information will allow that risk to be calculated much more precisely than in the past. That starts to get us into a situation in which certain people find it very difficult indeed to get insurance, so that is certainly an issue that is well worth highlighting.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

May we have a debate on the definition of new money? On Wednesday, the Department for International Development issued a press release announcing £100 million of “new support” for South Sudan in the wake of the famine declaration. It turns out that that is not in fact new money, but money that was already budgeted for in the 2017-18 spending round. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for International Development to urgently clarify what new and additional funding the Government are prepared to provide to assist people who are literally starving to death in South Sudan?

[Mr Lidington]

Nobody in any part of the House would wish to underplay the gravity of the crisis in South Sudan. The declaration of famine was shocking but, frankly, not unexpected. It derives from the prolonged political crisis and civil war in that country, and the situation has been steadily worsening since the conflict began back in 2013. The Government have provided more than £500 million of humanitarian, health and education support over the past three years, and that support has helped to prevent famine in previous years. That was on top of the £100 million that we have given to help refugees who have fled South Sudan. As I understand it, the £100 million for 2017-18 is on top of the £500 million that has already been spent over the past three years. Clearly, DFID Ministers always keep under review allocations within their budget, particularly with regard to the need for urgent humanitarian relief. We also need to ensure that the money that we spend is going to help those who are in genuine need and will be effective in bringing about the results that we want to see.