Patricia Ferguson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 26 February I raised with the Leader of the House my fears that the unreliability of the postal service might affect constituents in Glasgow West who wish to vote by post in the Scottish Parliament elections. Since then, I have been advised of a situation where a proxy vote application was received some days after the deadline, although the envelope was very clearly postmarked several days before the deadline. Will my right hon. Friend assist me in arranging a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss a simple amendment to the Representation of the People Bill that would grant returning officers limited discretion in such cases?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is well aware of the ongoing issues with Royal Mail and the concerns of many Members and constituents about the delayed delivery of hospital appointment letters and other important correspondence. The Communication Workers Union advises that the problem of delivery office staff turnover is worse in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Does he share my concern that the imminent Scottish Parliament elections bring a fresh cause for concern? Voters anxiously awaiting their polling cards and postal ballots will be understandably concerned about the possibility of being disenfranchised by any delay. Does he agree that Members of the House should be reassured by Royal Mail that it has adequate staffing to discharge its responsibilities regarding the smooth running of May’s election?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Instruments such as this draft order alter Scotland’s devolution settlement and require inter-governmental co-operation: areas that fall squarely within the remit of the Scottish Affairs Committee. For that reason, as members of this Committee will know, the Scottish Affairs Committee has scrutinised the draft order and published a report to aid Parliament’s consideration of the instrument. I should put on record that I am grateful to the Scotland Office for its engagement with us, and that our correspondence is of course published on the Committee’s website. I wish to make it clear that the Committee remains neutral on the issue of assisted dying. Our report does not comment on the substance of that sensitive matter, but it does draw Parliament’s attention to some unusual features of the draft order. Given the relative rarity of section 30 orders, our interest is in the legal and constitutional implications of the order. I will give an overview of those issues in my remarks, but I will first take the opportunity to express my gratitude to my fellow Committee members, some of whom are here today, for their thoughtful consideration of the issues. This statutory instrument would use powers under the Scotland Act to extend, in a narrow and time-limited way, the Scottish Parliament’s law-making powers. It would do that to enable the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill to become law if the Scottish Parliament so decides. During the Bill’s scrutiny stages in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government identified three areas that relate to reserved matters under the Scotland Act. If the UK Parliament does not take legislative action, the Bill as it currently stands would be outside the Scottish Parliament’s competence. The specific way in which those issues are being resolved through this order gives rise to three observations that I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to. The Governments have adopted a two-stage, bifurcated approach to address the three competence issues. The draft section 30 order will only resolve the issues related to the “regulation of medicines and medical devices”. The other two outstanding competence issues, relating to the “regulation of medical professions” and “employment and industrial relations”, are expected to be resolved via a section 104 order. A section 104 order would make consequential provision after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That requires the relevant provisions to be removed from the Bill before it is passed by MSPs. The Scottish Affairs Committee asked the UK Government why they adopted the two-stage approach, rather than addressing all the competence issues in one go. In response, the Government said that their approach would allow the Scottish Parliament to debate “with clarity” how the Bill’s “core” issues will be handled, rather than issues that might arise as a consequence. They also said that section 104 cannot be used to confer powers to make subordinate legislation, which the Bill’s provision on substances and devices for assisted dying would require. That explains why not all issues were dealt with using a section 104 order, but it does not explain why some issues are being dealt with by a section 104 order rather than this section 30 order. Our report highlighted that this approach has implications for effective scrutiny. In particular, it means that while the Scottish Parliament will have clarity over how issues relating to substances and devices will be handled, there will be no such clarity in respect of the other two competence issues. The Scottish Government have already indicated that some provisions will need to be removed from the Bill before the final stage 3 vote. It would not be possible for MSPs to assess the section 104 order, which will be used to fill the legislative gaps, before the Bill is passed. Our report suggested that any uncertainty could be remedied by the UK Government publishing their section 104 order in draft, before the Scottish Parliament’s stage 3 consideration. Given the draft order’s constitutional significance, we also recommended that the instrument should be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee; I note that that the approach has been taken in the other place. However, Members will know that this recommendation was not adopted by the Government, which is disappointing. On that point, I will take this opportunity to gently highlight to the Minister that it might have been courteous and helpful for the Department to have written to the Scottish Affairs Committee before this Delegated Legislation Committee was scheduled to respond to that specific and time-sensitive recommendation. Our report also casts light on the ongoing role retained by UK Ministers within this draft order. The manner in which the draft order confers powers relating to medicines and devices means that these powers are only nominally transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State will retain the ultimate say over how those powers are used. It is clear that the approach has been agreed by both Governments. However, our report highlighted that it is a novel, though perhaps not unprecedented, approach. The default approach is that, when a matter has been devolved, the Scottish Parliament confers powers on Scottish Ministers, who are then answerable to the Scottish Parliament. However, this section 30 order envisages that some regulations resulting from the Act could be made by a UK Government Minister acting alone. Those regulations would not be subject to scrutiny by MSPs. This approach is unusual, as the Scottish Parliament does not normally confer powers on UK Ministers. Will the Minister clarify in her response how the remaining competence issues will be resolved and what consideration the Government have given to implications for effective scrutiny? Finally, our report draws special attention to the time-limited nature of the draft order. While time limiting a section 30 order is not in itself new, this one is slightly different. The powers that the draft order confers would effectively expire if the current Bill does not complete its final stages before the Scottish Parliament elections this year. When questioned on this approach, the UK Government confirmed that they are willing to devolve competence only in respect to the specific Bill currently under consideration. However, what is less clear is how the time limit would affect subsequent amendments to the primary legislation further down the line—for example, if the Scottish Parliament wish to change the regulation-making powers of the Act. For the benefit of the Committee, I hope that the Minister will outline in her response whether the Scottish Parliament would be able to amend or repeal the Act’s regulation-making powers in a future Scottish parliamentary Session. The draft order has important constitutional implications. It is right that these issues have been properly scrutinised, and I hope that the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report will be useful to the Committee and to the wider House. The Department has responded to the Committee’s report, and that response will be considered by the Committee at our meeting tomorrow. We will make every effort to ensure that the response is published before the House votes on this instrument. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points I have highlighted, particularly regarding the need for clarity on any forthcoming section 104 orders, the novel role for UK Ministers and the implications of the proposed time limit.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he tell the House how the Prime Minister is considering strengthening the role of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, given his commitment to improving standards in public life?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her strong words. Like many hon. Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are very concerned about not being able to contact friends and family who are still in Iran. I join my right hon. Friend in applauding and congratulating the female activists in Iran, who have been relentlessly targeted by this oppressive regime, on fighting very bravely for their freedom this week. When the time comes—I sincerely hope it comes very quickly—will she ensure that their voices and their actions can be part of building a new democracy in Iran?

• 11 Dec 2025 · St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful. As the hon. Member knows—or at least I hope he does—I care deeply about these issues too, and in fact spent some six years on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in Holyrood, which was referred to earlier. Would the hon. Member be content if the Scottish Government were to seek a Sewel motion on the proposal he is suggesting, so that this could be a cross-UK initiative, rather than just one that focuses on this place?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member may or may not be aware that in order for those sections to apply across the UK, the Scottish Government would have to agree to a Sewel motion—a legislative consent motion—that would allow this place to legislate for Scotland. Justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—it has been since the Act of Union and before. That is something that is valued, so there would have to be that agreement. It is not something that can be laid at the feet of this Minister.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member was a Member in Stormont. I was a Member of the Holyrood Parliament, where I was also the Minister for Parliamentary Business for three and a half years. It was my responsibility to take through legislation in that Parliament and to oversee the Sewel convention, and I can assure him that that is not how it happened.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that my experience of being elected under three electoral systems—additional member system, single transferable vote and first past the post—suggests that none of them are perfect? However, there are advantages to first past the post that we should be very careful about doing away with. The other two systems that I have been elected with served my constituents far worse than first past the post does. Voting for 16 and 17-year-olds was passed by the Scottish Parliament a number of years ago and enabled young people to vote in elections as of 2016 in Scotland. I was delighted to vote for that measure, as were all members of the Scottish Parliament, so will the Scottish Conservatives give a lesson to their colleagues at Westminster about why they voted for it in 2016?