Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I very much applaud the Prime Minister for the stand that he has taken continuously over the past months. He is doing the right thing for the right reason. Furthermore, I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition talking about autocratic, undemocratic decision making. Time and again, we have witnessed undemocratic decisions—on the Benn Act and a series of other enactments and motions—continuously over the same period of months.

The Opposition are a disgrace. They have completely undermined the democracy in this House, and have undermined the referendum—or are trying to do so. At last, they have been dragged kicking and screaming to the Dispatch Box, and it sounds as if today they are effectively going to agree that we will have a general election in December. I therefore have absolutely no compunction whatever in condemning them for their shameless behaviour and for voting against motions for an early general election over the last few months.

I am glad to say that I voted against the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill back in 2010 and 2011 during its passage through the House, and I did so for precisely the reasons that we are now having to overcome. I said at the time—on Second Reading and while discussing various amendments—that the provisions of that Bill, which the Bill we are discussing today is at last putting straight, were

“in defiance of the democratic mandate. This is about Whips and patronage; it has nothing to do with the people outside.”

I said that damage was being done to the people of this country and that there was no mandate

“of any kind for any party, in any manifesto, in any part of the political system.”

I also said that

“a motion can be passed by a simple majority of one, as has been the case from time immemorial—from the very inception of our parliamentary process in what is sometimes described as the ‘mother of Parliaments’. That is now being changed in a manner that will seriously alter the method whereby a Government may fall.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 309-312.]

Furthermore, I added that what mattered was the constitutional principle that underpins the basis of having a simple majority in this House; this two-thirds majority has always been wrong.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

David Linden Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Hugo Swire]

On the last point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), I should declare an interest: St Andrew’s day will also be the day of my 60th birthday.

By 30 November, I shall no longer be a Member of Parliament, because I am not standing at the forthcoming election. I have been here since 2001, and I have to say that the last few years have not been Parliament at its best. It would be difficult to find a rare statement made by any one of us over the past two years. It has been like groundhog day every day, and the public are getting extremely fed up with our behaviour. In fact, I have never known such a disconnect between the body politic and the public, and I believe that any device or attempt to frustrate our having a general election now will be viewed extremely badly by the public, who, as I say, are extremely fed up with our behaviour.

We all understand why the Scottish nationalist party wants to have an election—because it knows that the court case starting in January will lay bare the divisions between those who support Alex Salmond and those who support Nicola Sturgeon. SNP Members know that if the election is delayed until next year, they will suffer at the polls. It is strange for a party that prides itself on looking after one of the devolved parts of the United Kingdom to play party politics with Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) laughs in rather a tinny way.

[David Linden]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Hugo Swire]

No, I will not give way. As a former Minister of State for Northern Ireland, which I do not believe the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is, I care passionately about Northern Ireland, and I am concerned about some aspects of how the proposed legislation affects Northern Ireland. That said, it is my understanding that if the date of the election is brought forward, that will prevent much of the legislation we need to empower the civil service in Northern Ireland to do their job. Why are the Scottish Nats prepared to play politics, and to what end, with the people of Northern Ireland if they care about Northern Ireland, or perhaps they wish to cast them to one side?

I am extremely glad and relieved that the wrecking amendments have not been selected, such as the one giving EU nationals the right to vote in British elections. I ask again: where can British citizens vote in national elections in the EU? The answer is nowhere. In terms of the sudden discovery that votes should be given to 16-year-olds as a matter of course, everybody realises that that cannot be done in the timetable available; it is another wrecking amendment.

The British people are watching our deliberations this evening. They want an election. They understand that the date for the election is partially informed by the desire to have good governance and good government for the people of Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering that the institutions are not up and running there. It would be foolhardy to bring the election forward by a matter of days and frustrate that, and therefore amendment 2 should be resisted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has done nothing to deliver on his 2017 election manifesto since that vote, which was to deliver Brexit. It is a prime example of why this Parliament is so broken. Never mind the £1 million that was funnelled to various remain groups towards the end of the referendum campaign; never mind the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money used to campaign for remain; never mind all the institutions of the state that were used—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Sir Lindsay.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am going to deal with the point myself. We are not broadening the debate. Others wish to speak and we are getting bogged down in something that is not relevant to the clause and the amendment. You have answered the question at least five times already, Mr Percy, and I would love to hear from Michael Tomlinson who is next to you. He is desperate to get in.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, I won’t give way.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope it is a genuine point of order; I hae ma doots.

[David Linden]

It is indeed a genuine point of order concerning the programme motion. The BBC breaking news app is reporting that the Prime Minister has said that if he loses the programme motion he will withdraw the Bill. Given that the Prime Minister is talking about working with the House, has he given you any notice, Mr Speaker, that if the programme motion falls he will pull the Bill tonight?

[Mr Speaker]

The Prime Minister has not given me any indication on that matter, and we must leave him to develop his case.

Draft European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 General Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Sadly, it does not give me pleasure to be debating this particular statutory instrument. On the walk in this morning, I was reminded of a tweet from the Better Together campaign in 2014 that said,

“What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes”,

yet today we find ourselves debating another exiting the European Union statutory instrument. How things have changed over the past five years!

I offer the Committee its regular reminder that Scotland did not vote for this. In the 2016 referendum, we voted to remain a part of the European Union, but once again we find ourselves being dragged out by this British Government. As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, we were told that we would not be having European elections in 2019, yet of course we had European elections because the Government messed things up. I suspect that this week, we will see them mess things up once again when the Prime Minister’s proposal to Michel Barnier is rejected.

When we talk about European elections, we hear these typical arguments from the Conservative Government or Conservative MPs about unelected MEPs and bureaucrats in Brussels. I remind them that in European elections, we directly elect Members of the European Parliament, yet in this place we have the House of Lords, which none of us has elected. In this Committee Room, albeit less frequently now, we also debate the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, whereby we are trying to prevent the Government from reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600. While they are busy putting through legislation like this and saying, “We’re not taking part in the European elections, because all these powers are coming back to the UK Parliament,” the Government are simultaneously trying to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons to scrutinise the Government.

In 2019, Scotland elected 50% of its MEPs from the SNP. I end with a prediction that, come the next round of European elections, Scotland will once again send Members to the European Parliament—but this time as an independent state within the European Union.

Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It turns out that a week is indeed a long time in politics. Let us remember that this time last week, Parliament had been shut down by the Prime Minister, who had forced through an unlawful Prorogation. Then, following a resounding defeat in the Supreme Court, Parliament was ordered to return this week, and the British Government have the brass neck today to table a motion on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate—just days after they shut down the electorate’s ability to be represented in this place by their elected representatives.

We should not really be surprised by that hypocrisy because the British Parliament is a place of limited and diminishing democracy. If the Government want a debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate, let us start with the House of Lords, which is second in size only to the People’s Congress of China, and is bloated with more than 800 Members who are eligible to vote on legislation. Let us not forget that the majority of those along the corridor are life peers and have never been voted in by our electorate. Others include 26 archbishops and bishops and 92 hereditary peers. Other than Iran and the Isle of Man, we are the only country in the world in which clerics have the right to legislate. Other than Lesotho, we are the only country in which 92 hereditary chieftains have the birthright to make law.

The stymieing of British democracy is not confined to our neighbours in ermine. Even in this Chamber, democracy is supressed and stymied at every turn. We have a Government who refuse to respect Opposition day votes. In my party’s case, the Government have even failed to allocate the requisite number of Opposition days for a two-year Session in accordance with the House’s Standing Orders.

We have a British Government who are trying to cut the number of MPs in this House. Not content with that, and despite the House’s voting for it on Second Reading, the Government are withholding a money resolution for the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by democratic majority on the Floor of this Chamber almost two years ago, but is still stuck in purgatory on the Committee corridor. We have a Prime Minister who plays Russian roulette with the constitution and judiciary and openly casts doubt on his willingness to comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. In short, we have a Government who have, at best, a questionable record on honouring democracy and respecting the rights of the electorate. Perhaps that is best demonstrated by their appalling attitude to the Scottish Government, who in 2016 got a mandate from the people to hold an independence referendum, yet the British Government say no. One thing is clear: this Government cannot keep saying no. Very soon the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to reject the British stymieing of democracy and, instead, embrace the normal status of an independent state within the family of European nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I will not take interventions, given that I have given up time to allow more Members to contribute to the debate.

We are also looking at reforming the annual canvass and are working constructively with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The system is great at identifying people who have lived in one location for a long time, but we want to reform it, through the use of databases and other information, so that it targets other communities that we also want on the electoral register. We want a modern system. Fundamentally, the system originated in the 19th century, when heads of household would register to vote on behalf of the whole household, but that does not reflect modern lifestyles. It also means that resources are not targeted to getting the most vulnerable on the roll.

It has been good to hear some of the other speeches. I cannot go through them in detail, but I certainly enjoyed the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), especially when they talked about picking and choosing results. It is interesting to see how referendums described as once in a generation or once in a lifetime, with people told, “You have the power in your hands to make a sovereign choice,” suddenly, a couple of years later, become a matter of, “Actually, we’d like to have a rethink, please, and it was only an opinion poll.” In fact, referendums are different: people are told that they will make the decision and it will be binding.

People know my views on the separation of the Union; I think it would be a hugely retrograde step. However, had that been the decision of the Scottish people in 2014, we would have had to vote through the legislation. We cannot pick and choose which result we respect.

[David Linden]

Is it not true that the Cabinet Office has done polling on Scottish independence? If it has, will it release it?

[Kevin Foster]

The Cabinet Office conducts polling on a range of issues. There is no shortage of opinion polls on Scottish independence. I enjoyed seeing the separatists’ response to a recent poll: they complained that the poll was unfair because the question was about whether people wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. They thought that people being asked to remain in something was unfair, which is interesting, given their views on other topics. It was the Scottish National party itself that described the Scottish independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event; now, only a few years later, the duration of a generation appears to have become extremely brief.

The key principle of our democracy is to give voters a choice. Just over three years ago, this Parliament gave voters a choice on whether this country would remain a member of the European Union. We had a strong debate and campaigns up and down the country. Not one person said, “Well, if you feel like voting, it’s next week, but it won’t make much of a difference.” No one said that; everyone said that whatever the decision, it would be implemented. Here we are, a few years later, having had a general election in which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office pointed out, more than 80% of voters voted for a party that said it would respect the referendum result, and it still has not been implemented. That is where we see the principle: we cannot pick and choose which votes we respect. That is especially true of those who voted for the legislation to hold a referendum, took part in the campaign, argued their case and then, almost from the day after, decided that respecting the result was an optional extra.

This Government will remain focused on our programme not just to deliver Brexit, but to defend our democracy overall. In part, that involves making sure that we protect the ballot by bringing in the long-recommended system of voter identification, replacing an identity check that dates from the 19th century, when only a very small percentage of men could vote, with a modern system similar to ones used in many other democracies, and remarkably similar to the system used in Northern Ireland introduced by the Labour party. We will also seek to improve accessibility and make sure that more people can get to the polling station and cast their vote.

It is welcome that the Government tabled the motion. I expected that those who have spent most of the past two days attacking the Government and running down the Prime Minister, saying they had no great confidence in the Government, would try to test that confidence, but sadly they decided they did not want to do that. Normally in our democracy, the Opposition are itching to replace the Government. This must be one of the first times in history that the main Opposition have not tabled a motion of no confidence in the Government because they think they might win. It has been remarkable to see.

When a general election does come—an election we have already offered, which makes it interesting to hear about constituents being gagged when it is the other side who are blocking the election and we are the ones offering it—people had better consider who reflects their principles and their choices. When they do that, they will inevitably conclude that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is far more likely to deliver what they want than the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate.

Prime Minister's Update

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am not aware of any such muzzling, except, of course, the muzzling of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been tragically forbidden by his colleagues from going for a general election.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

We know that when the Prime Minister was a student in the Bullingdon club, he used to go round smashing up restaurants and vandalising places, but he now seems intent on doing that to our institutions, whether it be the judiciary, the constitution or Parliament. When will he realise that he is no longer in the Bullingdon club, but that he is the Prime Minister of our country and start behaving like it?

[The Prime Minister]

The best thing we can all do for the institutions of our country and the respect in which they are held is to deliver on the mandate of the people and get Brexit done. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Islington North does not like the policy that I am embarked on, he is at liberty, even at this late hour, even at 9 o’clock, to go for a general election.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I am delighted to hear that, and I absolutely acknowledge my right hon. Friend’s support for the withdrawal agreement and for any future deal. It is wonderful to hear that.

Special advisers are caught up in this Humble Address. I do not have a lot of experience of special advisers. I am a junior Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I have had the privilege of working with a few special advisers in the Departments I have been honoured to assist, and I have found them all, without exception, to be dedicated and conscientious individuals who do their job to the best of their ability.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

How many special advisers has the hon. Lady worked with who have been found in contempt of Parliament?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is a hypothetical point, because we have not yet passed this motion. As I said at the start of my remarks, I have not been here long and I have very limited experience, so I have worked with none.

This would be an unprecedented situation for individuals who came into public life and into politics for the best of reasons. They want to perform public service and carry out their offices, and this Humble Address puts them in an extremely difficult position.

Governments of all colours have special advisers, which is an established role. It is not just this Government who have special advisers. The Labour Government had special advisers, too. We need to be extremely careful about tying their hands and constraining their freedom to advise the Ministers with whom they work.

Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your characteristically impartial judgment.

The Leader of the Opposition: there he sits. His party is paid £10 million by the taxpayer and he himself is entitled to more than £140,000 of taxpayers’ money, yet today we see the extraordinary spectacle of the entire Opposition collectively deciding to abrogate their most fundamental responsibility. They have their job. They know what they should be doing. In this era of creative litigation, are there not grounds for legal challenge to compel them to do it? [Interruption.] Hon. Members can have their say in a minute. I am concluding my remarks.

Sometimes the Leader of the Opposition says that we should leave the EU; sometimes he says that we should have another referendum; sometimes he says that we should negotiate a new deal; sometimes he says that he would accept whatever Brussels offers. Over the past few days, the Labour party has said that it wants to delay Brexit, then negotiate a new deal, then have another referendum, then campaign against its own deal in that referendum. Perhaps its next policy will be to have a referendum on whether to have a referendum.

The Leader of the Opposition cannot lead. He cannot make a decision. He cannot work out whether he is for Brexit or against it—for a referendum or against it. The only options that he likes are dither and delay. I say to Opposition Members—[Interruption.]

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am immensely grateful to the Prime Minister for his ready compliance with the procedures of the House. I will take a point of order from Mr David Linden, which I have—[Interruption.] Order. Mr Swire, I do not require any assistance from you. You would not have the foggiest idea where to start. What I am seeking to establish is whether this is a point of order. When I have heard it, I will know, but until I have, I cannot.

[David Linden]

People observing tonight’s proceedings, Mr Speaker, will see that the annunciator shows that this is the second occasion on which the House has been asked to approve the motion. Given that the Prime Minister is displaying something of a contradiction by saying that he wants to ask the House this question again but will not allow the people of Scotland an independence referendum, can you outline, Mr Speaker, whether this is hypocrisy on the Prime Minister’s part?

[Mr Speaker]

That was an ingenious effort, but let me say to the hon. Gentleman that the motion would not be on the Order Paper unless it was orderly. I am happy to conduct a seminar for his benefit outside the Chamber at a later date, but it is, at this time, given the context, orderly. The hon. Gentleman has made his own point, but it is a different one, and it does not meet the needs of the case.

20 Years of Devolution

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

I will not.

In Scotland, we think about politics differently. We do not consider this Parliament sovereign. We do not consider the Scottish Parliament sovereign. In Scotland, the people are sovereign. It is the duty of the Scottish Parliament and all who seek to serve Scotland in the political sphere to continue to work to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, and the voice of Scotland’s people must be heard.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) lamented the lack of English MPs in the debate, but I put it to him that that might well be down to the fact that UK Governments of all colours have come to regard devolution as an inconvenient irritation. We know that not every political party in Scotland shares the SNP Government’s view of Scottish independence, but the Scottish Government stand ready to work across the political spectrum to continue to deliver improvements to the lives of the people of Scotland, despite the fact that some Tories have never really reconciled themselves to the existence of the Scottish Parliament. All we have to do is remember the words of former Tory Prime Minister John Major, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and, of course, the former Tory leader and Member for Richmond (Yorks). I will not even talk about the behaviour of the elusive current leader of the Tories in Scotland. The Scottish Tories in this place love devolution so much that some of them could not wait to get out of the Scottish Parliament to come and sit in this Parliament.

The first 20 years of the Scottish Parliament has had a materially positive influence on the lives of the people of Scotland, and I am sure we will continue to see such improvements in the next 20 years. We were told by the once high-profile Labour MP Baron Robertson that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. As he sits in the other place wrapped in ermine, he must surely at times reflect on his underestimating and misunderstanding of his fellow Scots. The fact is that Scotland is making more and more decisions for herself, and she likes it. There is no going back.

The process of devolution will one day, I am sure, lead Scots to demand their full independence, when we can complete our journey to a more prosperous, more just and more equal society. To complete that journey and to continue to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, we need all the levers of taxation and spending powers, and that day will come. The first 20 years have brought so much improvement, and as we embark on a new constitutional journey over the next 20 years, things can be—and, I believe, will be—even better. I pray that I am alive to bear witness to that, and that I will live to be part of a flourishing, just, equal, independent Scotland.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who, in her inimitable style, delivered a passionate speech. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for opening the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about a whole generation of young people in Scotland who have never known anything other than devolution. I was just seven years old when the people of Scotland voted for a devolved Parliament, so it is on that basis that I want to make some reflections about where we are and where we are going. Quite deliberately, I have not written a speech today. I want to try to avoid some of the party point scoring. I do not intend my speech to be that this House has confidence in the Scottish Government, tempted though I am after some of the various remarks, but I think it is worth reflecting on the record not from 2007 until now, but all the way back to 1999.

When I came to this place I did so as a nationalist MP, and we have an understanding—I sometimes think that it is missing in other parts of the House—that our primary job is to come here to scrutinise reserved matters. There are Members of this House who may have served in the Scottish Parliament, but they seem to speak more about devolved issues in this Parliament than they do about reserved issues, and I think that they are doing an enormous disservice to their constituents. [Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who is chuntering away, wants to stand up and intervene, I am happy to give way, but he appears not to be taking that opportunity.

The point I want to make is that one of the first things I put up on my office wall when I came here was the metrics of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. It is no secret that there are a number of challenges in the constituency I represent. The metrics we have in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation cover employment, income, health, crime, housing, education and access, some of which are devolved. The argument I want to develop over the next four minutes is about how much progress we have made in the last 20 years, but how the reality is that our hands are tied behind our back, particularly on the first two—employment and income.

The reality is that legislation relating to the national minimum wage and all these things is still held at Westminster, and limited taxation powers have come to Scotland. The Conservative party would say, “Well, you’ve got your taxation powers—use them”, but when we use our taxation powers to try to lift people out of poverty, we get accused of the nat tax and all these other things. That seems a bit of a joke when we reconsider the council tax comparison between Scotland and England.

As I go around my constituency, I reflect on what devolution has actually meant. Particularly over the past few months, I have found that pretty much every single week there is a sod-cutting in my constituency where we are going to open a housing development. That is because of the record investment that the Government in Scotland are putting into housing.

I want to turn to some comparisons between devolution and the Union. The first one I will look at is the right to buy. The Scottish Government have decided that we are abolishing the right to buy because we want to invest in social housing; yet, down south, there is a major problem with housing, so I think that there is an opportunity for the UK Government to look at.

There are other areas as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has been campaigning very hard on the issue of drug consumption rooms. There is a recognition and a realisation that, on a public health issue, we have a problem there. Many politicians in Glasgow understand that drug-related diseases and all those things are a major challenge for us. We have a Scottish Government and local authority in Glasgow who realise this is a challenge—that it is a public health issue we want to try to sort out—but we have the Home Office standing in the way. That highlights some of the challenges we have as a result of still being tied to the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) has been campaigning for a very long time for recognition that immigration is not a problem in Scotland, but emigration is. He has been consistently asking the UK Government to look at a regional approach to immigration policy. Any Member who comes to this House and represents Scotland but does not recognise that we have a challenge when it comes to migration, and that the one-size-fits-all policy pursued by this Government is not helping, is doing a disservice to their constituents.

On defence policy, the vast majority of people in civic Scotland do not want to have nuclear weapons on the River Clyde—whether it is the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland or the trade unions. Public polling consistently shows that in Scotland and it is the view of the majority of MSPs, yet the Government just say, “That’s fine—you’re just leaving it there”. That does not strike me as much of a respect agenda.

[Jamie Stone]

May I briefly add one to the hon. Gentleman’s list that is often forgotten—the Scottish Government’s decision to ameliorate the bedroom tax? I was very grateful for that when I was a councillor, as I was then. That actually made a very great difference to my constituents, and I give credit where it is due.

[David Linden]

I always think the hon. Gentleman is a very thoughtful Member of the House; when he has the opportunity, he fairly calls out when the Scottish Government have done something right. Again, that highlights the reality. What is the purpose of devolution? Is devolution just to be a sticking plaster for bad decisions that come out of Westminster? In that case, the reality is that we have had to use money that would have been used for other areas of devolved policy to deal with the bedroom tax, so he is right to highlight it.

The final area I want to touch on is the European Union. Whenever we talk about the Union—or what has now become the precious Union—Members in this House say, “Well, you know in 2014 Scotland voted to remain a part of the Union”. They are right: Scotland did. But in 2016, there was a referendum on our position in the European Union, and people in Scotland voted by 62% to remain in it. That decision has been ignored.

[Patrick Grady]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a very powerful speech. In fact, is the situation not even more profound than that? As the First Minister of Scotland has said, the Union that people voted for in 2014 no longer exists. That is the fundamental constitutional change that has taken place. [Interruption.] That is the fundamental reality.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes the point. In 2014, people were told, “Oh, you’ll have the triple A credit rating, and you’ll be a member of the European Union”, but the reality is that that has changed. When the facts change, we need to look again at the options. We are not saying that we will unilaterally declare independence from the United Kingdom, but the reality is that the facts have changed and that the Union people voted for in 2014 no longer exists.

If Conservative Members are so confident that people in Scotland would give a ringing endorsement of the Union, the first thing the Cabinet Office will do is to release the polling information that they are hiding. If they are still confident that people in Scotland wish to be a part of the United Kingdom, ask them. Put the question to the people.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me in this important debate.

We recently held a moving debate in this House to mark the 25th anniversary of John Smith’s death. Members who participated reflected on John’s unwavering support for Scottish devolution. In 1994, John referred to the creation of a Scottish Parliament as

“the settled will of the Scottish people”.

In 1997, the referendum proved him right, with 74% of voters supporting the creation of a Scottish Parliament.

I would like to pay tribute to all those involved in the campaign for Scottish devolution, from Keir Hardie onwards and right throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Groups such as the Scottish Constitutional Convention brought together civil society, political parties, trade unions and others in support of devolution. Its tireless campaigning was in no small part responsible for ensuring that we now have a Scottish Parliament.

I also want to commend those individuals in the Labour party, such as John Smith and Donald Dewar, who championed the cause of Scottish devolution, and others such as Tom Clarke, who served this place for 33 years as the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. Their efforts led Labour to adopt a firm commitment in favour of devolution to Scotland. I will always be proud of the fact that it was a Labour Government who created the Scottish Parliament and delivered devolution to Scotland. Let us never forget that the Tories opposed the creation of the Scottish Parliament, and their reckless pursuit of a no-deal Brexit poses a real risk to such devolution today.

The Scottish Parliament has achieved significant changes, which have had a positive impact on the lives of all people across Scotland. We have heard about many of them. They include free personal care, land reform, the smoking ban, free bus travel, votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scottish Parliament and local government elections, and the passing of the equal marriage Act for same-sex couples. All these changes highlight the real potential of a Scottish Parliament to deliver positive change for Scotland.

However, the potential of a Scottish Parliament to deliver real change is not being met. We have entered a period of constitutional politics in Scotland that has seen the powers of the Scottish Parliament go unused in the pursuit of social justice. The SNP and the Scottish Government in Edinburgh are focused solely on pursuing independence, and their Tory opposition in the Scottish Parliament has just one policy: to oppose a second independence referendum. The people of Scotland are being badly let down by both the SNP and the Scottish Tories, who have chosen to put the constitution before the interests of their communities.

Nearly 500,000 workers in Scotland do not earn the living wage. [Interruption.] I will repeat that in case the House missed it: 500,000 workers in Scotland do not earn the real living wage.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hugh Gaffney]

I will not; the hon. Gentleman cost me two minutes earlier on.

Over 70,000 Scottish workers find themselves with exploitative zero-hours contracts. There is a housing crisis, and those in the private rented sector find themselves facing rip-off rents. Nearly a quarter of all children in Scotland are living in poverty, and one in 10 Scots is living in food poverty. That is the Scotland that we live in today.

It could not be clearer that we need to use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to deliver real change for the people of Scotland. We could be using the new tax powers to introduce a 50p top rate of tax to raise revenue for our public services. We could be using new welfare powers to end the two-child limit and top up child benefit by £5 a week. We could be using the Parliament’s existing powers to extend free bus travel to those under 25, cap rents and end exploitative zero-hours contracts. That is what Scottish Labour would seek to do, because we recognise the potential of devolution to deliver for the many, not the few.

John Smith was right to say that the creation of a Scottish Parliament was

“the settled will of the Scottish people”.

Most Scots do not want independence; nor do they support a Tory Government attacking devolution. They want to see a powerful Scottish Parliament, but crucially they want a Scottish Government who are prepared to use those powers to tackle poverty, invest in public services and deliver a fairer society. Twenty years on, it is clear that Labour is the only party to settle the will of the Scottish people.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

4. What assessment he has made of the merits of devolution over the last 20 years.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

8. What assessment he has made of the merits of devolution over the last 20 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Dearie me! The SNP need to stop misrepresenting the review. A key part of its terms of reference states that it will

“need to respect and support the current devolution settlement”.

It is about how the UK Government can work better with the devolved Assemblies and Governments. The SNP should be welcoming the review, instead of trying to foster yet another false grievance.

[David Linden]

The Scottish and Welsh Governments recently wrote to the Minister expressing disappointment that 15 months on a review about intergovernmental relations has stalled owing to the Government’s unwillingness to make reforms. Will the Minister commit to addressing in detail each of the points in that letter, including the one on a strengthened dispute resolution process?

[Kevin Foster]

Constructive discussions continue on the intergovernmental review and its structure, although it has been slightly hamstrung by the lack of a Government in Northern Ireland. We hope that that can be resolved in the near future. We will of course consider all submissions with respect, because ultimately we all need to agree the way forward.