YOU would hope Labour MPs, especially ones who have been at Westminster for a fair while, would have a grasp on the devolution settlement. You would hope that.
Unfortunately, one such elected representative seemed a little clueless as to how reserved and devolved policies actually work during the Westminster debate on the King’s Speech on Wednesday.
Luckily, the SNP’s Stephen Flynn was on hand to give a brief lesson.
It all started as Flynn was criticising the Labour UK Government for keeping the Tories’ two-child benefit cap in place – given that it quite literally drives children into poverty (unless you’re Cabinet Secretary Pat McFadden, then it’s all up for debate).
Labour have smartly convened a task force, which will cost who knows how much money and eventually conclude what we all know: that scrapping the cap will drive down child poverty.
After calling this out, Flynn proceeded to tell MPs: “Surely it should be the bare minimum expectation of a Labour government to seek to do everything it possibly can immediately to lift children out of poverty.
“I am particularly interested in the views of Scottish members of parliament from the Labour Party.”
At this point, Barry Gardiner, a former government minister who has been an MP since 1997, interrupted.
Gardiner asked if Flynn could “explain to the house why the SNP government in Scotland who have the power to do so have not”.
You would think that someone who has been in parliament for 27 years might understand why the devolved Scottish Government is unable to change reserved Westminster policy, such as the two-child cap.
If he truly didn’t know, he does now.
Flynn told him: “I would be more than happy to enlighten the honourable gentleman in that regard, because, as he knows, in the UK we have reserved policies and we have devolved policies.
🗣️'Quite frankly, I find it absurd' Stephen Flynn was forced to explain devolution to a Labour MP after an interruption at Westminster 🔥 pic.twitter.com/CHYyuFKGEK
— The National (@ScotNational) July 17, 2024
“Some 70% of welfare policies are reserved to this parliament. Now, what the Scottish Government has sought to do over recent years is to mitigate the worst excesses of the Conservatives. Some £800 million worth of money that we could spend on other things, we choose to mitigate Tory policies.”
Flynn went on: “But we do that within the confines of the financial remit set, in a large part, by this place.
“If the honourable gentleman is suggesting, as indeed I'm sure some of his Scottish colleagues would agree with, that the Scottish Government should mitigate this place, then he should outline, as they should, where that money should come from.
“Should it come from Scotland's NHS? Should it come from our schools? Should it come from our police? Should it come from our young people's budget?
“The reality is the constraints placed upon Scotland by this place do not afford us the opportunity to mitigate – and quite frankly, I find it absurd and deeply disingenuous to suggest that the remit of Scotland's parliament should be to mitigate Westminster. Our horizons should be so much greater than that.”
Amen. If only all MPs at Westminster could learn that lesson.
