Oral Answers to Questions

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

It is good that the hon. Gentleman’s lines are written by Mike Russell. That is an old one, and not a very good one.

The reality is that Scotland is the most taxed part of the United Kingdom, which is not attractive for people to work there. We have the highest ever net migration. If the Scottish Government focus more on good public services, good infrastructure and lower taxation, hopefully those high net migration figures will see more people settle in Scotland.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on developing carbon capture, utilisation and storage in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a vital component of our journey to net zero. The Acorn project represents a huge opportunity for the north-east of Scotland. As would be expected for any multi-billion pound project, due diligence must now be followed.

[Neale Hanvey]

Under Westminster rule, Bathgate, Linwood, Methil and Irvine are all no more. Grangemouth now risks being added to that sorry list, and with it the hope of its developing carbon technologies. The Minister is quick to attack a Scottish Government with limited powers, but responsibility for the robbery and ruination of Scotland’s energy sector, and the continued denial of substantial funding for carbon capture, rests squarely with the UK Government. What is his office doing to protect energy sector jobs and livelihoods in Scotland, and what is his Department’s excuse for utterly failing the people of Scotland?

[John Lamont]

I had the pleasure of meeting the Cabinet Secretary from the Scottish Government this morning, together with the leader of Falkirk Council, to discuss the situation at Grangemouth. The Scottish Government and the UK Government are working together, hand in hand, to protect as many jobs as possible. The Scottish cluster is expected to include at least one project located in Grangemouth, which is welcome news.

Scotland: Further Independence Referendum

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I am going to begin where I left off on 1 February this year when I moved my Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill. It is important to establish how far this Government and the party of opposition have moved from the principle of equity of all peoples of this alleged Union of equals, and ultimately against the democratic will of the people of Scotland. In this place in 1889, the equality of UK partner countries was asserted by none other than William Ewart Gladstone MP, when he said that

“if I am to suppose a case in which Scotland unanimously, or by a clearly preponderating voice, were to make the demand on the United Parliament to be treated, not only on the same principle, but in the same manner as Ireland, I could not deny the title of Scotland to urge such a claim.”—[Official Report, 9 April 1889; Vol. 335, c. 101-102.]

That principle of equity was at the heart of my private Member’s Bill, and was again articulated in amendment (j) to the recent King’s Speech, tabled in my name. Each was consistent with the motion passed by this House that endorsed the principles of the 1989 claim of right, which acknowledged

“the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.

However inured this House has since become to the aspirations of the people of Scotland to live in a normal independent country, support for independence is holding steady at around 50% without a single leaflet being dropped through a letterbox. That number is rising steadily, and will continue to climb. The independence genie is not for going back into the bottle.

Of course, that growing support requires a mechanism through which to express its effect and place beyond doubt the will of the people. My Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill is explicit about the conditions necessary to bring that mechanism into play, and is clear that the power to legislate for a referendum requires a democratic mandate from the Scottish public. Since 2014, that criterion has been met in successive general elections to the Scottish Parliament, most recently in 2021, when a majority of MSPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver an independence referendum. This evening, I intend to set out how that must now happen, and how it can be put beyond the wiles of intransigent London-led parties for good.

One of the most invigorating aspects of the 2014 independence referendum campaign was the explosion of interest and engagement in all aspects of policy, and the healthy workplace, coffee house and pub debates across Scotland. Back then, as a movement, we were unafraid to have differences of opinion and to propose various solutions to decades-old problems. Most importantly, we spoke truth to the distortions of the Unionist Better Together “no” campaign. That appetite for truth and facts is something we must rediscover. Our movement must demand that if we are to make progress towards independence.

The first issue we must come to terms with is that another section 30 independence referendum is not going to happen for the foreseeable future. As a consequence of the Scottish Lord Advocate’s folly in arguing a poorly crafted question, the UK Supreme Court made it clear that in the absence of an equitable mechanism for self-determination across these islands—such as the one I have proposed—any referendum on Scottish independence is a matter reserved to London.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

In some ways, the Supreme Court’s judgment was perhaps helpful. It said in paragraph 81—this is the reason the Court stopped the referendum—that even if the referendum did not have any legal powers, because the UK Government had not signed up to it, the ballot box would carry authority, which would force the UK Government to recognise that authority and therefore cause a change to the Union. By stopping the referendum, the Supreme Court has now opened another avenue for Scotland, which we will maybe touch on later. That, of course, is using elections.

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and that is a key element of my contribution to this debate.

Put plainly, a section 30 order to temporarily transfer those powers to the Scottish Parliament is entirely in the gift of Westminster. That underscores the unavoidable truth that our Parliament is in reality part of the fabric of the British state and is increasingly being squeezed under the heel of Whitehall. Securing mandates to ask for a referendum on independence only to be rebuffed is now the equivalent of Monty Python’s parrot that has ceased to be. It is as stone dead as a mandate can be. The Tories have become increasingly bolder in this regard, and while they persist with their assertion that this is a voluntary Union, they refuse to set out the means of withdrawing consent. This Government have also made it clear that they will plunder Scotland as a cash cow until the wind stops blowing. Westminster plans to rob our resources at its leisure. There is no way, even if the First Minister were to ask, that the Prime Minster would agree to an independence referendum in his final months in office.

In a Westminster Hall debate on this subject, the Minister responding this evening claimed that

“the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom have never been more apparent.”

Where is the benefit for the one in three households in Scotland living in fuel poverty? Where are the benefits for the north-east of Scotland when the Acorn carbon capture and storage project still waits for a go-ahead from the UK Government? The Minister proclaimed that Scotland has

“one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 384WH.]

But Scotland remains powerless to stop the plunder.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

When the hon. Member speaks about opportunities to improve the lives of people in Scotland, we could of course do that through our NHS, through our education system, through our justice system and through local government. All of those issues are devolved fully to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, but they are of course ignored by the SNP and Green Government—the nationalist Government—because they are always focused on independence, rather than on the real priorities of the people of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I would be the last person to speak for the SNP Government in Scotland. I refer back to my party leader’s excellent tenure as First Minister, and the meaningful difference he made to the lives of the people of Scotland.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

This comparison with a devolved Scotland in the United Kingdom is as silly as comparing the performance of Northern Ireland and Stormont in the United Kingdom with Dublin and an independent Ireland. Ireland has a €10 billion surplus this year, rising to €20 billion next year. The UK, with a deficit of around £170 billion, is unable to build small hospitals on small Hebridean islands, whereas Ireland is funding nurses over the border.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I was extending the debate.

[Neale Hanvey]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am equally—[Interruption.] Yes, my hon. Friend has put the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) in his place.

Anyway, the Treasury is happy to siphon off £11 billion in tax receipts from oil and gas this year alone, and we are sending south 124 billion kWh of energy, which is enough to power Scotland’s needs fifteen times over. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) set out in a Westminster Hall debate this morning, with this Union it is all pooling and absolutely no sharing. I ask the Minister: where is the evidence of a share of Scotland’s energy bounty?

As for an incoming UK Labour Government, now bedecked in Union Jackery—the Tories will like this bit—the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that his priority is continuity with Tory economic and social policy, and he intends to continue London’s plunder of Scottish assets. Do not be confused: it was British Labour that first hid the truth of the McCrone report from the people of Scotland—a truth kept secret by successive Labour and Tory Administrations for 30 years. Neither party has protected our economy or our communities, so why should we trust any of them now?

They each may persist with the claim they have

“no selfish strategic or economic interest”

in the north of Ireland, but we know the opposite is true of Scotland, where the strategy is wholly economic and top-to-tail selfish.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am sitting here as a determined, strong-willed, proud Unionist who believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together. Northern Ireland is part of that, and I very much wish to see Scotland be part of that, so the hon. Gentleman and I will disagree. Does he accept that when it comes to the British Government, the amount of money that comes from here to keep Scotland going can never be ignored? He talks about the trade downwards, but the trade is also upwards and that cannot be ignored when it comes to the financial implications. Better off together, always.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that we will absolutely not agree on anything he said.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

In answer to that point, the Republic of Ireland is costing the UK nothing after leaving, therefore if Scotland goes it will save you a fortune—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Stop intervening on Mr Hanvey to intervene on the person who intervened on Mr Hanvey.

[Neale Hanvey]

You can’t knock his enthusiasm, Mr Deputy Speaker. Neither the Labour nor the Conservative parties have protected our economy, and any fantasy that pleas for more devolution will be accommodated by Labour are pie in the sky. North of Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll recently accused the Labour Opposition of censoring, diluting, and striking down key recommendations contained in a report by former Prime Minister and MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Gordon Brown, on the constitution and further devolution across the UK. Those forlorn attempts to prevent the “Break-up of Britain” by refusing to devolve power away from London will serve only to boost the case for Scottish independence. Mr Brown’s attempt to reframe the debate to one of

“change within Britain versus change by leaving Britain”

has been utterly dismantled by his party leader and increased the urgency for independence. All that leads us to the position where Scotland urgently needs a robust strategy that not only deals with the facts of the day, but overcomes that central Westminster hurdle of the denial of a democratic process.

The Alba party, and our Scotland United colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), believe that every single Scottish and UK general election must now be used to secure majority support for independence negotiations to commence. That could, and should, include the triggering of an early Holyrood election.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. The referendum door is slammed shut, and there are three ways that the SNP Government at Holyrood could trigger a plebiscite on Scottish independence. Of course, the resignation of the First Minister was very awkward and difficult, but a majority of two thirds of MSPs can vote, or by using section 31A of the Scotland Act 1998 the two-thirds majority can be altered to a simple majority. That was not communicated properly in light of the Supreme Court, and those who did not communicate it properly should have set the record straight or at least apologised. I think they should set the record straight so that MPs, MSPs and the wider public clearly understand that point.

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important piece of information. It underscores that there is need for much more robust and firm action from the Scottish independence movement, to push forward the case for independence. As I said recently, independence will not fall into our laps. It is something that we have to pursue with vigour and absolute determination.

That approach reinstates the position of the national movement prior to devolution. As with all democratic expressions, the threshold would be a simple majority of votes cast for all independence parties—a threshold that was achieved on the last list vote for the Scottish Parliament. That approach is supported by the expert legal opinion I obtained from highly distinguished academic and legal practitioner in international law, Professor Robert McCorquodale. He said that

“the people of Scotland are distinct within the UK and have a right to self-determination.”,

and subsequently that

“the right to self-determination applies to the people of Scotland.”

He went on to state:

As the people of Scotland are a people for the purposes of the right to self-determination, they can exercise it. The choice of the means to exercise it is for the people to decide and not for the state.”

Furthermore, he explained that the UK, as a signatory to multilateral international human rights treaties, has

“expressly accepted that the right to self-determination is a human right”

and

“not just as an international legal principle—which is binding under international law on all states.”

These are not obscure or arcane points of law; they are precise and purposeful.

I understand why the UK Government do not want to hear the facts that Professor McCorquodale set out, but I cannot comprehend why others are steadfast in their refusal even to acknowledge that landmark legal opinion charting the correct lawful and democratic course to self-determination and independence.

The Alba party’s amendment to the recent King’s Speech repeated the democratic principles contained in my Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill for the recognition of the right of the people of Scotland to self-determination by amending the Scotland Act 1998. That would transfer the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament.

Let me deal with the supposed gold standard of a section 30 order. Such an order on its own is not a gold standard; it was the process of negotiation and agreement that led to the signing of the Edinburgh agreement that was the gold standard. Let me be clear that any democratic vote in favour of self-determination is the only standard required, providing that that is the clear and unclouded purpose of any such vote—unless of course the UK Government do not want to recognise democratic elections as legitimate expressions of the will of the people.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point. An unscheduled Holyrood election would precisely be in that category. It would make the world stop for a moment and see whether Scotland was to choose independence. That power rests with MSPs at Holyrood if they want to do that.

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman is making really important and valid observations. Those are the key tactics that we need to adopt.

Whichever UK Prime Minister comes next, while they may have every technical right to stifle, subdue or ignore the Scottish Parliament, the British state has no locus to limit the inalienable human rights of the people of Scotland or the march of our nation. Yet in this Union, that is precisely where Scotland finds its democracy —denied. That flies in the face of commitments given. In Margaret Thatcher’s memoirs, she said of Scotland:

“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination”.

John Major, when Prime Minister, said of Scotland that

“no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will”.

The commitments contained in the Smith commission’s agreement, which was signed by all Scotland’s main political parties, said that

“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

Scotland will only ever become an independent country as and when the majority of the people of Scotland choose that path, yet that requires a democratic mechanism that is constitutional and satisfies international legal precedent. From Gladstone to Thatcher, no one until now has had the gall to seek to constrain the Scottish people’s democratic right to self-determination. I have made this point many times, but it bears repeating. Democracy is not a single event; it is a continually evolving process that demands opinions be tested and retested regularly.

I anticipate that the Minister will reel off the usual rebuttals and crow about how we have had a referendum, but he should know this. As an option, a referendum has been put beyond reach by Westminster and Whitehall, but Scotland will adapt. Each and every election from hereon in can and will provide a platform on which the people of Scotland can have their say on their consent to this Union. Consistent with Professor McCorquodale’s opinion, that would pave the way to where

“a clear majority of people representing Scotland… indicate their approval”

for independence,

“but it should not be done by the Scottish Parliament, as the latter is within UK domestic law. This could be done, for example, through a convention of elected and diverse representatives from across Scotland with a clear majority in favour.”

Scotland’s separate constitutional tradition is best summed up by Lord Cooper, in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate:

“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”

The UK Government face a choice: give serious consideration to bringing forward legislation for an equitable mechanism for self-determination, as exists on the island of Ireland, or face that test at every election in future. In international law according to human rights declarations, the decision on Scotland is the purview of the people of Scotland, not of any London party. In the constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty in our great country, it is the people who remain sovereign, and it will be the people of Scotland who decide.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

Yet again, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) has decided to use valuable debating time in this place to focus on the constitution. Yet again, this time could have been used to raise issues of immediate importance to Scotland’s future. Yet again, his constituents, and my constituents in the Scottish borders, will be disappointed.

The Government’s position on a further independence referendum is well known.

[Neale Hanvey]

rose—

[John Lamont]

I want to make some progress, and I will give way another time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member has only just sat down, and I will deal with his points in due course.

People across Scotland rightly expect to see both their Governments working together. Our relentless focus should be on the issues that matter to them, their families, and their communities. Scotland’s bright future as part of the United Kingdom is better served by focusing on tackling the cost of living, and on growing our economy so that everyone has access to the opportunities, skills, and jobs that they need. [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches shake their heads, but I know that those are the priorities of my own constituents in the borders. It is disappointing how disconnected those Members are from the priorities of the constituents they represent.

When it first came to power, the SNP set out to emulate the Labour party of old, and it certainly has succeeded. The nationalist movement is now even more divided than the far left. The SNP and Alba compete to see who can be the most reckless in their demands. They are constantly trying to get one up on each other on independence. But it does not matter who is pushing separation—Humza Yousaf or Alex Salmond. Scotland does not want it.

Unlike the divisive nationalists, we Unionists on the Government Benches are all about bringing people together. As hard as it might be, let me try to find a point of unity with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Perhaps we can agree that Scotland wants to be free—free of the SNP. As a member of the Alba party, surely he can agree that we are fed up with Humza Yousaf, Michael Matheson’s ever-changing stories and their endless incompetence and deceit.

While Scottish Conservative MPs are securing millions of pounds-worth of investment in our constituencies through UK levelling-up funding, elected members of the hon. Member’s party want a giant independence thermometer to be constructed somewhere in Scotland. I wish I was joking. The independence thermometer is the brainwave of the Alba party’s most recent recruit from the SNP, Ash Regan MSP. Personally, I would rather see taxpayers’ money spent on schools and hospitals, but if the hon. Member insists, will he tell us where he wants the independence thermometer to be located? Has he lobbied the Chancellor for funding for this ridiculous proposal? Will the thermometer be made of mercury, or is that where he got the idea from—another planet?

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the Minister for giving way. However, I need to go back to my first request for an intervention. He was complaining about using valuable time in the Chamber for a debate on the constitution, but it is his Government who are finishing early! It is his Government who have just launched a new King’s Speech and cannot fill the parliamentary programme with enough business to keep the Chamber going. I hope he will correct the record that it is not me who is impeding Parliament doing its business; it is a lack of action from his own Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. The UK Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society and we have taken decisive steps to do that, including UK-wide additional spending of £137.5 billion in benefits for pensioners, £67.9 billion in benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions and £114.3 billion in working-age benefits and child welfare. We have also uprated benefits and pension credit in line with inflation and have raised the national living wage to help to protect the most vulnerable. We will continue to keep the situation under review, but this Government have continually demonstrated our commitment to the most vulnerable across Scotland.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

5. What recent discussions he has held with Cabinet colleagues on supporting the development of carbon capture, utilisation and storage in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage will be essential to meeting the UK’s 2050 net zero target, playing a vital role in levelling up the economy, supporting the low-carbon economic transformation of our industrial regions and creating new high-value jobs across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the Acorn cluster has been allocated more than £40 million in development funding by the Government and has been selected, subject to final due diligence, for track 2 CCUS cluster sequencing.

[Neale Hanvey]

According to Office for Budget Responsibility and UK Government projections, the UK will see between £50 billion and £80 billion in revenue from North sea oil and gas over the next five years. While it is welcome that the Acorn project can now bid for funding, it is important to know that not a penny has been committed. Can the Minister tell me what discussions the Secretary of State has had with Government colleagues to secure at minimum a share of those revenues—say £1 billion over five years—to rapidly accelerate Scotland’s carbon capture industry? If not, does that mean he is content to see Scotland’s people stripped of their vast natural resources without a single penny of that £80 billion being invested in Scotland’s carbon capture ambitions?

[John Lamont]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman actually listened to my first answer, but more than £40 million has been allocated by the United Kingdom Government to the development of this technology. The Government will commence engagement and assessment of delivery plans and due diligence on the Acorn and Viking transportation and storage systems and will engage with them directly in respect of the next steps to develop those. We will set out the process by which capture products in track 2 will be selected to meet the stated ambitions in due course.

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I want to make it clear that balancing rights is not a simple task. It is complicated and requires proper attention. We have needed a constructive discussion on equality and rights for years, but that has been consistently dismissed and denied. This is entirely the wrong issue for a constitutional clash. It is a matter of public record that my party and I have grave concerns about the format and consequences of the Bill. It has alienated women, campaigners and defenders of the rights of women to access single sex spaces across Scotland.

I want to make a couple of points for the Secretary of State’s attention. A section 35 order is absolutely the wrong approach. The Secretary of State said earlier today that the SNP did not object during the passage of the Scotland Bill to the clause that has been invoked today. I have to tell him that that is simply not the case. Far from the section 35 override clause being agreed to by the SNP, it was objected to strongly, most of all by my party leader Alex Salmond. It was realised then that it would cause the very trouble it is creating now.

There are two questions that the Secretary of State must address. First, if it is inappropriate to use section 33, will he now publish that legal advice, however exceptional it is to do so? Secondly, why has he not used part I of schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998, as that would surely have been a route open to him? Paragraph 1(f) states:

“In this Schedule ‘devolution issue’ means—

(f) any other question about whether a function is exercisable within devolved competence or in or as regards Scotland and any other question arising by virtue of this Act about reserved matters.”

The matter was not referred to under that schedule. Why?

I have no concerns about trans people. My concern is and always has been about bad actors. As mentioned earlier with regard to the police case in the press today, predators are determined and devious. They will go to extraordinary lengths to access their prey. We know that through various reports, not least the Laming report on the behaviour of organisations, and overly optimistic and unrealistic views of predators. Some 42% of trans-identifying prisoners on the female estate are sex offenders. That is not representative of the trans community. It is a distortion. So any suggestion that people would not use the Bill for nefarious ends is wrong.

Independence Referendum for Scotland

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

As is the convention for the 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on a further independence referendum for Scotland.

Today is St Andrew’s day, and on this national day there is a particular significance and imperative. Last week, the UK Supreme Court told the Scottish Government that they could not exercise their democratic mandate to hold an independence referendum. But there was something else in that judgment—something that simply cannot be tolerated. There was the suggestion that, somehow, Scotland as a nation does not possess a right to self-determination. In suggesting that, the London Supreme Court overturned what has been the accepted legal, historic and political position that the UK is a voluntary Union.

Scotland’s separate constitutional tradition is perhaps best summed up in the view expressed by Lord Cooper, in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate,

“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle, which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”

The Supreme Court seems to have repudiated that. Last week’s judgment rendered the UK a state of glaring contradiction. There are contradictions in our shared history, and contradictions of equality, politics, and representation.

The UK enthusiastically claims it seeks to preserve democracy the world over, yet moves to block Scotland at each and every turn. Can the Minister imagine the circumstances where, having entered the common market and ratified every subsequent treaty—leading to the European Union—the EU Parliament moved to block his party’s Brexit vote, or set a limit on when and if such a vote could be heard? The notion is, of course, ludicrous, because democracy is not a single event but an evolving and continuous process. That is how civilised people behave, and how freedom of thought and expression are peacefully demonstrated. Those are the foundations of inalienable human rights.

I will consider the contradictions, concluding with a commentary of the Supreme Court’s judgment. We are often told in this place that Scotland must be proud of our shared history as part of the most successful political union ever. I will test that narrative and ask the Minister to consider our shared history through a Scottish prism.

Before the Union, the English Alien Act 1705 threatened economic sanctions if Scotland did not settle the royal succession, or negotiate for a political union. The treaty was met with vociferous opposition both inside and outside Scotland’s parliamentary chamber but, given threats and enticements, a majority of Scottish parliamentarians were persuaded. The people were never consulted.

It so often goes that this is all ancient history and irrelevant to a modern Scotland in a respectful union of equals. Last week’s judgment challenged that previously understood narrative. What of that modern Scotland? In my lifetime, the political complexion of Westminster rule has rarely reflected the polity of Scotland. We have endured repeated Tory Governments that Scotland did not vote for, or Labour Administrations that took us into illegal wars that we wanted no part of.

Socioeconomic policies have destroyed our communities, exploited our resources and worked against the utility of the people of Scotland, contrary to the Articles of Union. The pursuit of such social and economic policies has driven a stake through the heart of once proud communities. As noted in the pleadings of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), in her prorogation case to the UK Supreme Court, the 1707 parliamentary Union between England and Scotland may have created a new state but it did not create one nation.

Scotland was an independent nation for millennia before its coerced incorporation. It remains a distinct and internationally recognised people and country. No clearer is that evidenced than by the much earlier and continuing Union of the Crowns, where our shared monarch does not accede to a single throne of Britain, but takes the separate crowns of the realms of Scotland and England.

As a member of the EU, the UK possessed and exercised a veto, yet claimed its sovereignty was impeded by membership. Scotland has no such mechanism in this place, and is always subject to the wiles of the policy of its larger neighbour, exemplified by Brexit. How does that constitute access to meaningful political process, as claimed by the UK Supreme Court judgment?

In signing the Atlantic charter of 1941, wartime Prime Minister and hero of the Conservative party, Winston Churchill, brought into being the principle of self-determination of peoples, as now set out in the United Nations charter, in article 1(2), article 73 and article 76. Margaret Thatcher in her memoirs said of Scotland:

“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination.”

John Major, when Prime Minister, said of Scotland:

“No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will.”

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. He started by raising the point about the Supreme Court and self-determination. I found paragraph 88 of the judgment particularly interesting:

“The people in question are entitled to a right to external self-determination because they have been denied the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination.”

The judgment did exactly that; it did limit that right. The reason the judgment did not give the referendum was because, if it happened—even if it had limited legal effect—as it says in paragraph 81, it

“would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”—

and that is all over western Europe. Ultimately, the concession has been made by the Supreme Court that the ballot box rules supreme. Indeed, the ballot box made the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is a creature of the UK Government, which in turn was made at the ballot box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will consider the blurred boundaries of legal and political, as I move through my speech. In 1989, this place reaffirmed and acknowledged the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. In May 1997, in an exchange with the right hon. Alex Salmond during the passage of the Bill that became the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, the late Donald Dewar responded that he should be the last to challenge the sovereignty of the people, accepting the right of the Scottish people to a choice, including independence, should that be their wish. None of these senior politicians ever placed a limit on or sought to constrain that democratic right to self-determination. Indeed, in the wake of the 2014 referendum, the Smith commission agreement was signed by all of Scotland’s main political parties and it stated:

“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

Of course, the Good Friday agreement sets out a reasoned and internationally considered timescale of every seven years to consider constitutional change. A political generation of seven years is not unreasonable, but Scotland is now a year beyond and no further forward. It is therefore imperative; if there is a consented, legal and democratic route by which the people of Ireland —north and south—can choose their own constitutional future in a border poll every seven years, what is the consented, legal and democratic route by which the people of Scotland’s sovereign right to determine their own constitutional future can be respected? That is a right underpinned by Scots law, which rests on the claim of right that asserts that it is the people who are sovereign.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the argument that Scotland has the right to self-determination in international law was described last week as “problematic”—very problematic—by Michael Keating, emeritus professor of politics at the University of Aberdeen. He states:

“The way is now open for the UK Government to say that there is no time or way for Scotland to exercise its acknowledged right of self-determination”.

He has quite rightly pointed out that in invoking the Canadian court’s ruling on Quebec, the UK Supreme Court failed to mention or consider a further aspect of that Canadian judgment—namely, that if Québec or any other province did vote for independence by a clear majority on a clear question, the Government of Canada would be bound to negotiate. That aspect of the Canadian court’s ruling is significant and in essence reflects a situation where legality meets politics.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is making a great speech, and I am grateful to him for giving way again. The Holyrood Standing Orders perhaps possess a way, and the Supreme Court has, unwittingly perhaps, opened up every election from now on for people to speak at the ballot box. Under rule 11.10 of the Standing Orders for Holyrood, “Selection of the First Minister”, paragraph 5 mentions what happens when there is one candidate, paragraph 7 when there are two candidates, and paragraph 8 when there are more than two candidates. That, with a combination of no-confidence votes, surely leaves the way open, if it was chosen, for Scotland to determine its own future—if Holyrood decides to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman will probably not like my answer, but that is a matter for the Scottish Government to consider.

In addition to the point that I was making about political reality, Professor Keating goes on to argue that not going beyond the letter of the law to look at broader constitutional issues

“risks undermining the conventions and understandings on which”

the UK’s “largely unwritten constitution depends.” Those are wise reflections that both the UK Government and the UK Supreme Court would do well to consider.

With regard to Kosovo, the UK has stated, in its submission to the International Court of Justice:

“The United Kingdom considers that the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo was not incompatible with international law. It was not made in haste or in a political vacuum. Rather, it flowed from the failure of the two sides, and of the international community, after long and sustained effort, to secure any other framework”.

Further, the UK

“considers that developments since 17 February 2008 have crystallised Kosovo independence and cured any deficiency that might initially have existed. As the 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States”—

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I want to ask a question of clarification on the comparison to Kosovo. Is the hon. Gentleman really comparing the situation that Scotland finds itself in within the United Kingdom with Kosovo in the literally war-torn former Yugoslavia?

[Neale Hanvey]

I am referring to the petitioners’ arguments, the Supreme Court’s response and the UK Government’s judgment on the Kosovan situation. I am pursuing a line that was submitted by the petitioner and responded to by the UK Supreme Court.

As the 1776 declaration of independence of the United States of America—a declaration of independence that the United Kingdom opposed at the time—illustrates, many states emerge to independence in what, at the time, were controversial circumstances. That does not vitiate their subsequent emergence into full statehood.

These developments are succinctly crystallised by Robert McCorquodale, a professor of international law and human rights who has himself appeared as an advocate before the International Court of Justice and the UK Supreme Court. The dissolution of the USSR and its influence on the development of the right to self-determination has been examined, and Robert McCorquodale states, “Lithuania’s declaration of independence had substantial impacts on the understanding and application of the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination, which is a human right acknowledged by all states, changed from being limited to people with traditional colonial territories to applying to all states, including to peoples within states. This development has profound effects today, such as enabling people in all states worldwide to seek to exercise their right to self-determination.”

That directly challenges a key assertion of the UK Supreme Court, which led it to conclude that the Scottish Government could not independently consult the Scottish people about independence and that it was in the gift of Westminster. Yet a public petition entitled, “The Treaty of Union 1707 is no longer fit for purpose and Dissolve The Union”, was submitted to this place in 2019 and was rejected by this place for the following reason:

“We can’t accept your petition because this would be a decision of the people of Scotland and not the UK Government or Parliament.”

On that, I wholly agree. For all the reasons given above, the UK Supreme Court’s position cannot stand unchallenged, particularly on our national day.

Today I invite others to sign the declaration of St Andrew’s day, published in my name as early-day motion 633, which asserts the following:

“we the people, elected members and civic organisations of Scotland assert that our nation has the right of self-determination to freely determine our political status and to freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development, mindful of the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people, we will democratically challenge any authority or government which seeks to deny us that right.”

On Wednesday 23 November 2022, it became clear that the wrong case had been argued at the wrong time and in the wrong court. Just as Westminster and the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court are part of the British state apparatus, so too is the Scottish Parliament, but if Scotland’s Parliament is denied agency over the future of its people, where stands democracy for the Scottish people?

In Scots law, there is no sovereignty higher than that of our people, and here today I have asserted that right into the record. Neither Scotland’s claim of right nor the aspirations of the Scottish people to be a normal, outward-looking, independent nation are the sole purview of any one political party or any individual party leader. We now learn, the UK’s Secretary of State intends to act as a territorial viceroy, banning the Scottish civil service from advancing the democratic will of the Scottish people. Well, I give him fair warning: the independence movement extends far beyond the Scottish civil service. If anything, such an undemocratic move will simply galvanise and liberate the movement by decoupling our ambition from the daily trials of government. We are the nation of the Enlightenment, and our movement possesses minds with more ambition and vision than any Government or civil service that is subject to diktats from London.

At the start of my contribution, I said that this was an issue of contradictions. Let me say today, on St Andrew’s day, that there is no contradiction in Scotland. Scotland is a proud and ancient nation that goes back millennia, and no one but the people of Scotland shall impede, limit or restrict our right to self-determination. It is precisely a week since the Supreme Court gave its judgment on the right of the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. Let me be clear: Charles Stewart Parnell said about another nation that was once a part of the United Kingdom:

“No man has a right to fix a boundary of the march of a nation…no man”—

no court, no Government—has the right to say to another country

“thus far…and no further.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)]

It is a privilege to respond to this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) on securing this debate. I am pleased to respond to my first Westminster Hall debate as a Scotland Office Minister. The hon. Gentleman chose to focus the debate on the issue of an independence referendum. I cannot help but feel that this valuable debating time could have been better focused on matters of immediate importance to his constituents, mine in the Scottish Borders, and the constituents of other Members across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Neale Hanvey]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Lamont]

I shall make some progress, if I may. The hon. Member had quite some time to make his points, and I want the opportunity to—

[Neale Hanvey]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. It is a shame that the Minister did not allow me to intervene. However, he makes assertions that are simply not possible. He is asking me in some way to manage the Scottish Government, or indeed to divorce myself from the reality experienced by my constituents, who voted for me to secure Scotland’s independence.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It was clearly not a point of order, but his remarks are on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that clarity, Mr Bone. I am keen to make the strong and positive case for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. We have heard much nonsense from nationalist Members in this debate, and I want to make the record slightly more accurate.

There has also been the record £1.5 billion city and growth deals programme, which invests in Scotland’s infrastructure and future. Another example would be the collaboration of local councils, which are delivering real devolution by levelling up communities and bringing local projects to life. Another divisive referendum is the wrong—

[Neale Hanvey]

On a point of order, Mr Bone.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

We have another point of order, which I am sure will be in order this time.

[Neale Hanvey]

The question that is being considered is the position on a further independence referendum for Scotland, not the Government’s alleged beneficence towards Scotland. That is not the matter under consideration. I would respectfully ask that the Minister restricts his comments to the subject of the debate.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much for that intervention, but I am afraid that is my job. If the Minister is wandering off, I will bring him to order. He is wandering, but not quite off the pitch yet.

Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

Apart from the record settlement of £41 billion over three years, there is additional money—the £37 billion —from the support schemes the Chancellor introduced. That has Barnett money, which goes to the Scottish Government. The wonderful thing about devolution is that the Scottish Government can then decide how they spend that money.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Is the Minister able to tell us what percentage of the £8 billion of oil and gas revenue that has gone to the Treasury in the last nine months is being directed to the Scottish Government to prioritise for their own spending? What percentage of that revenue goes to Scotland? The answer is none, isn’t it?

[Mr Jack]

The answer is that Scotland gets her share of Government spending. Everything goes into one big pot, but we know that spending in Scotland is 26% higher per head than it is per head in England. That is the Union dividend, which I will come on to, of £2,000 per man, woman and child. We have one Treasury and one pot, and Scotland takes a very fair share out of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Neale Hanvey]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

Let me make some progress. The time that I am taking is making you agitated, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

By the hon. Gentleman’s proposition, I could go into Barclays bank on Monday morning when my mortgage is due and say, “I’m not going to pay it” while waving the saltire. I wonder if the bank manager would accept that as payment.

This debate is not about the Scottish people; it is about the bust proposition that is being put to the Scottish people on independence. There is no doubt that the Scottish Government are now GERS deniers. These are their own figures; this is the crux of the issue. The Scottish Government’s own accounts show a deficit in Scotland of £23.7 billion, which is equivalent to 12% of Scottish GDP or 1.5 times the entire budget of the Scottish NHS. How do they plan to resolve that deficit? Where will the spending cuts land? If they are going to borrow tens of billions to support a new currency, what happens to the day-to-day spending deficit? Do they borrow that as well? At what cost, and in what currency? I am afraid that this paper makes the Conservatives’ mini-Budget look like an economic masterstroke.

Let me finish by talking about borders. For the first time, the Scottish Government and the nationalists have admitted that there would be a hard border between Scotland and England. Families and businesses who for three centuries have bonded and traded freely would be split up by a hard border, a different currency and a different country—[Interruption.] Members keep braying from a sedentary position, but they have no answers to these questions. In fact, the answers they are giving us make their position worse, not better. Let us be clear: Scotland trades more with the rest of the United Kingdom than it does with the rest of the world combined. The SNP’s response to the Conservatives’ damaging Brexit is to commit an act of economic folly that would be several orders of magnitude worse.

The SNP has no credible answers on pensions either. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber claimed that the UK Government would continue to pay Scottish pensions after independence, having seemingly not read his party’s own policy from 2014. So who will pay? Will somebody clarify whose position on pensions is right? Is it the right hon. Gentleman, the First Minister or the papers that they have put into the public domain?

Let me finish with words from themselves—

[Neale Hanvey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I said I would give way to my neighbouring colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but she is no longer here—

[Ian Murray]

She has given up; she has no answers to these questions either.

It is little wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies—much quoted by the First Minister in the last few weeks, and rightly, because of the mess this Government have made of the UK economy—has also slammed the SNP’s position. The IFS said:

“It is highly likely an independent Scotland would need to make bigger cuts to public spending or bigger increases to tax in the first decade following independence ”.

The IFS was right about the mini-Budget—indeed, everyone quotes it, including the First Minister—and it is right about this proposition as well. If SNP Members will not listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, why will they not listen to their own people on their own side? Robin McAlpine of the Common Weal foundation has been quoted already today, and he is somebody the SNP used to quote vociferously in here. He campaigned for independence alongside the First Minister—and alongside many Members who are now sitting here—in 2014.

[Neale Hanvey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about Robin McAlpine.

[Neale Hanvey]

I think it is important to point out to the shadow Minister that there is no single blueprint or proposal for Scotland. Those are decisions that the people of Scotland will take after independence, and there are other propositions on the table. That is what a democracy is. I want to pick him up on one point from some time ago, when he made the suggestion that democracy is allowed to prevail in Ireland and he supports it because it keeps the peace. Is he therefore suggesting— I hope he is not—that there needs to be violence—[Interruption.] No, this is important. I fled Northern Ireland when I was a seven-year-old boy because of sectarianism. Is that really the point that he is making about how democracy will prevail?

[Ian Murray]

I am going to treat that intervention with the contempt it deserves and utterly ignore it, if that is the kind of argument we are getting from the Alba party. The hon. Gentleman was elected as an SNP Member of Parliament, and the people of his constituency of Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath should reflect seriously on what they do at the next general election.

[Neale Hanvey]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to give the shadow Minister the opportunity to correct the record. I was not elected as an SNP MP. I was elected as an independent MP.

[Ian Murray]

Ah, yes, the hon. Gentleman did correct the record. I forgot that he was suspended for antisemitism. I am surprised he wants to put on the public record why he was thrown out of the Scottish National party, but I think that his second contribution probably sums up my disdain and the reason why I would not accept his first one about violence in Northern Ireland.

But I was talking about Robin McAlpine, who said of the economic position for independence that we have to get off the “mad bus” of the First Minister’s independence prospectus. He said:

“It could be because you think the government should have a lender of last resort. It could be because you realise they have no economic plan for Scotland. It could be because they failed to come up with answers on trade or borders. It could be because the whole thing is utter pish. Pick your reason, but for God’s sake get off this mad, mad bus”.

The Tories have lost all economic credibility by crashing the UK economy, and on the same day that they reversed their catastrophic mini-Budget, the SNP produced a paper that should have been entitled “Hold my beer”. It is a mad, mad bus indeed, and ordinary working people across the country will pay the price. It is time for a UK Labour Government.

[Neale Hanvey]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know it may feel politically expedient for the shadow Minister to slur me in the way that he did, but he should be aware that I was reinstated into the SNP because the accusations of antisemitism did not stand. I have worked tirelessly with Danny Stone from the Antisemitism Policy Trust and other Members in this House to ensure that that scourge is not furthered. I am not an antisemite.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is now on the record. I think we should move on. As “Erskine May” states, there should be good behaviour, but to be honest I am not seeing a lot of it in this debate. Let us try and change the tone.

Direct Ferry Links: Scotland and Mainland Europe

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill]

I think that is something that should be done by the UK Government, but, as I will go on to say, transport—certainly maritime transport—is largely devolved, which is why my demands are not simply to the UK Government, but to the Scottish Government.

As I was saying, despite distance and sail times being longer, Ireland ensured alternatives to the land bridge that was the previous favoured route for many. That meant sailing to a port in Scotland, Wales or England and then journeying on via the UK motorway network to the channel ports. Not for them a Boris bridge or any other delusional nonsense. Instead, Ireland arranged to sail direct to Europe. Direct freight routes were expanded and passenger services increased, thus avoiding customs backlogs, reducing road journeys, avoiding the difficulties of driver absences through illness or self-isolation, and making environmental gains.

In Ireland, three main operators now offer passenger services. Brittany Ferries, Irish Ferries and Stena Line offer services, with some sailing up to five times a week from Cork, Dublin and Rosslare, heading to Roscoff, Bilbao and Cherbourg, ensuring access to their principal markets and allowing for inbound as well as outbound tourism. Those are not the only routes available across the Irish sea to access Europe. Other services provide for freight only, whether for vehicles with haulage or unaccompanied freight. Since Brexit, services and routes have increased, allowing further options and avoiding the problems that have arisen, especially at the channel ports.

Scotland and Ireland have similar sized populations, and both are dependent on trade and tourism. For both countries, Europe is a big and major market. In several instances, Ireland is a direct competitor, yet Irish maritime links are growing almost exponentially, and Scotland remains tied up in port with increasing paperwork. It is not only Ireland that has been acting to increase maritime links. Countries across Europe have been taking action to address the challenges that they faced—even if not the Brexit-imposed customs debacle—allowing for new opportunities for trade and tourism.

Many have accessed funding from the EU, but all have been financially assisted by government to develop. A tender has been issued to re-establish a ferry link between Greece and Cyprus. Support funding of €5.5 million is being provided for a three-year service, with the possibility of an extension beyond. Other nations have acted similarly. Stockholm in Sweden to Rostock in Germany is to begin this spring. Yes, it is having a state subsidy, but it is saving on CO₂ and other costs—and it is not just in the Baltic, but in the North sea, as a Norway to Netherlands service is to commence in April.

So why are we devoid of action in Scotland? Transport is largely devolved, and therefore much of the failure to date and, indeed, the action that needs to be taken rests with the Scottish Government. They have failed to show any sign of urgency, let alone any sign of ambition for the country. Instead, they have remained thirled to a free market dogma that might be expected of London, but which could and should be rejected by an Administration with Scotland’s interests at heart. Although a four-nations approach may have merit in aspects of health policy, with ferries it leaves Scotland isolated, sucking everything into the ports in England and leaving Scotland marooned.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Does my hon. Friend share my deep regret that a comparative drop in the ocean of investment would be sufficient to move this project forward? The reluctance of the Scottish Government to do so undermines Scotland’s case for independence and the valiant work and efforts of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman).

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. I will come on to some of the specifics of maritime in the next eight minutes. However, it is only right for me to point out that the impression that the Government are not interested in connectivity in all its forms is simply not true.

[Neale Hanvey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Iain Stewart]

I will give way one last time and then I must make progress or I will not get round to the maritime points.

[Neale Hanvey]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being a good sport. On HS2 and the benefits it may deliver at some distant point in the future, dependent on the project’s development and links, if we are trying to achieve a comprehensive transport strategy, does he not think it would be a useful investment, and small in comparison with the massive investment in HS2, to support the development of maritime connectivity as part of that comprehensive transport link? Will he commit to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) at some point in the future to discuss maritime strategy in more detail?

[Iain Stewart]

Indeed. The Union connectivity review is across all modes of transport. I do not think only one single intervention is important. I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I know the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has been to see the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the specifics of the Rosyth-Zeebrugge route.

Let me make some progress on this. I understand that the proposed ferry link would replace a service that was previously run by DFDS Seaways from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. That started as a combined passenger and freight service in 2002 but was changed to freight-only in 2010 due to insufficient demand. Even after cost-saving measures were taken by the operator, including changing to freight-only and double-stacking the containers, the route continued to make losses, and a fire on board sealed the fate of the service in 2018. I understand the opportunities such a direct ferry link could present, encouraging passengers to use fewer short-haul flights and diversifying the connectivity.

Leaving aside all the other arguments about Brexit—I am sure we could have a fascinating debate about that—it is surely a truism that it is better to have more diversity in transport links, so that if one is constrained for whatever reason, such as industrial action on the continent or whatever, there are alternatives. Indeed, there are services from Zeebrugge to the UK—I think there is a daily service at least from Zeebrugge to Hull. What I cannot do is commit today to one specific route—that has to be a commercial matter. But the infrastructure required is there at both ends so there would be no need for additional infrastructure at Zeebrugge or Rosyth.

The one bit of additional resource that would be required, which is not impossible and I understand discussions have already happened, is to have Border Force manpower at Rosyth to deal with passengers and freight coming in. Those discussions can happen and that could be put in place, but the request must come from the operators who wish to establish such a service.

Let me put this discussion into the broader context of changing international shipping patterns, particularly freight. The hon. Member for East Lothian may not know that I spent seven years serving on the Transport Committee, so this is a subject I have given some consideration to. Looking at the scale and patterns of international shipping, particularly from the far east to Europe, the vessels are becoming larger and larger. Whereas in the past they would come from the far east and serve various European ports and then return, now they tend to come to one port, such as Felixstowe or Rotterdam.

Shipbuilding and Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd Insolvency

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

This debate goes to the heart of two Scottish institutions. The first is Caledonian MacBrayne—CalMac—which provides lifeline services to the Scottish highlands and islands and whose ships are acquired for it by Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, or CMAL; both are Scottish Government agencies. The second is Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd, which operated the last shipyard on the lower Clyde—a river where ships admired around world were made—but which has been excluded from the most recent CMAL tender to build CalMac ships, and orders are going abroad.

CalMac and Ferguson are part of Scotland’s story, but they are also vital to Scotland’s future. Communities devastated by incessant breakdowns and cancellations need a fast and reliable service to maintain them and allow them to grow. For that, new ships are required. Not only should Ferguson be building them, but yards elsewhere along the length of the Clyde, not just in Port Glasgow but on other sites that can be revitalised. Instead, CalMac is floundering and Ferguson’s future is threatened.

In 2014, Ferguson was saved by the intervention of Jim McColl, and all looked rosy. What has gone wrong? Why have vessels 801 and 802 been so delayed, why have costs overrun so massively, and why has Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd gone into liquidation? At the core of those questions are procurement and administration, both of which are issues reserved to Westminster. I hope that Ministers will be able to provide answers, if not an inquiry, into a scandal that needs to be resolved.

First, let me rebut suggestions that the yard or the workforce were to blame. History shows what the Clyde can do, and the same skills still remain at Ferguson. Moreover, research by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has shown that of the eight ships that have broken down recently, only two were built on the Clyde, and they were among the oldest ships, where difficulties could be expected. CMAL recognised the skills there when placing the order for ships 801 and 802. In evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee inquiry, Jim Anderson, the director of vessels, stated:

“The shipyard was already building ships for us. It had a good history of building these type of ships.”

Even more convincing was Commodore Luke van Beek, a Dutch maritime expert appointed by the Scottish Government, who said:

“I was in no doubt it had the management expertise. Having rebuilt the yard, Ferguson Marine had a good shipbuilding system in place.”

For sure, mistakes will have been made and perhaps more could have been done, but it was and remains a skilled workforce and Jim McColl and his company have a global reputation for engineering prowess. His initial intervention was lauded by the Scottish Government. The suggestion that he can succeed around the world but not in Scotland is absurd. Procurement and liquidation lie at the heart of this mess, and responsibility rests with CMAL and the Scottish Government.

Dealing first with procurement, there are two aspects: the contract specification and the requirement for the vessels to be dual fuel—that is, operating on both marine diesel and liquefied natural gas. Dealing first with the contract, it is clear that what was signed off by CMAL was lacking in specification, and that most of the problems arose from that. There was a design and build contract for a ship at an initial price of £97 million, but many critical factors were not clear. That was a recipe for discord and, indeed, disaster. Costs rose as changes kept being made, and just what was to be built was never entirely clear. As Jim McColl said:

“We would normally expect the specification to be more fleshed out.”

He continued:

“Price was based on the specification that were had at the time. As we have said it was not detailed at that time, there were still some open ends that we had to resolve collaboratively with CMAL.”

The second issue was fuelling. Leaving aside why, environmentally, we would even consider LNG, basic engineering concerns remain. It is a relatively new technology, more normally used on larger vessels than on smaller ones, such as ships 801 and 802, where other options such as batteries or hydrogen are preferred. Whatever CMAL or the Scottish Government may suggest, dual-fuel LNG was the diktat of CMAL, not the want of CalMac. As Van Beek said,

“801 and 802 were not the ships that CalMac wanted… When I met the chief executive of CalMac, I was very surprised to discover that it was not and had not been involved, except in having made some observations right at the beginning of the process, when it had said that it did not want LNG ships.

It is also not surprising that CalMac did not want LNG ships, as there is no LNG infrastructure in Scottish ports. I asked CMAL what consideration was given to onshore supply systems, what was in situ at the time of requisition, and what the situation is now for LNG. This is the answer given:

“At the time the only load out facility in the UK was the Isle of Grain. There were 3 projects looking at the bulk storage in Scotland 2 on the East Coast and one on the West Coast—so far none of these have been built out.”

CalMac operates in the Hebrides and on the Clyde, which lie on Scotland’s west coast. The Isle of Bute is in the latter and the Isle of Lewis in the former, but the Isle of Grain is in Kent, on England’s east coast. No wonder CalMac did not want it.

Having messed up the tender, CMAL proceeded to make a bad situation worse. When co-operation between shipbuilder and vessel procurer was needed, CMAL refused to co-operate. That is confirmed by Van Beek, who said that

“CMAL had no interest in compromising”.

Most damningly, he added that

“the people who I met from CMAL were adamant that they did not want to discuss ways to make the situation better.”

FMEL offered mediation, but CMAL refused. This was the modern equivalent of the Titanic racing into the iceberg.

This was known to the Scottish Government, as Van Beek made clear, saying:

“I said exactly the same thing when I briefed Mr Mackay. I said that the relationship between the customer and the client was broken, and that some things that CMAL was doing were very unhelpful.”

The “Mr Mackay” is Derek Mackay, then the Scottish Finance Secretary. Knowing all that, what did the Scottish Government do? Did they remove CMAL? No, they did not; CMAL remains, running the show and tendering for vessels abroad when work is needed on the Clyde. Instead, they forced FMEL into liquidation. As Jim McColl said in evidence:

“The Scottish Government didn’t save the yard from administration, they forced it into administration by repeatedly refusing to instruct CMAL to engage in reasonable requests for mediation, an expert witness process or arbitration.”

Administration was not the recommendation made by their own expert adviser, Commodore Van Beek. He advised arbitration, but instead the Scottish Government chose administration. Why? I am afraid Mr Van Beek cannot help us on that, as he said:

“I have no idea why he chose that route. It was against my advice.”

The “he” is, again, Derek Mackay, who said that the CMAL board would resign on mass if he interfered. Many communities might have said, “Accept their resignations with alacrity.”

By the time we got to the Scottish Parliament inquiry, the Scottish Government line was that “contractor error” was to blame. That was put forward by Paul Wheelhouse, who was then the Islands Minister. Why were neither the First Minister nor the then Finance Secretary called to give evidence? Rather than the senior Ministers directly involved, it was left to a junior Minister with no prior involvement to speak for the Government and to put forward a position that was not the view of the Government’s own expert, who had been supportive of FMEL’s getting the contract and critical of CMAL’s actions and who suggested arbitration, not administration.

More damningly, if the contractors were responsible, why did the First Minister meet Mr McColl privately when the dispute between FMEL and CMAL was raging, outwith the presence and even knowledge of CMAL, and provide significant financial assistance to FMEL? If the contractor was in error, why keep funding it? Moreover, why ignore the advice of their own expert? No wonder the Scottish Parliament concluded that

“there has been a catastrophic failure in the management of the procurement of vessels 801 and 802, leading us to conclude that these processes are no longer fit for purpose”.

Liquidation followed, but the questions about this whole sorry saga only increase.

On 14 August 2019, FMEL went into liquidation. Aware of its financial difficulties, FMEL had already engaged KPMG to act in the administration it saw looming, but the Scottish Government appointed Deloitte, insisting that any administrator appointed had to be acceptable to CMAL. As disclosed to Lord Tyre in a related court case, Deloitte and the Scottish Government had been “contingency planning”, and the former was appointed by the latter despite the Scottish Government being only the second-ranking creditor, yet also the largest debtor.

On 16 August, Deloitte arrived at the yard—the same day the Scottish Government declared publicly that they had nationalised it. Yet administrators are required to consider the position and speak to all creditors before any disposal can take place. None had, but the position was not challenged by Deloitte. It would be some time before the administration was finalised, and the yard was not formally taken over by the Government until 2 December. Instead, having been appointed administrators at the behest of the Scottish Government, Deloitte in turn appointed Macrocom to run the yard. Macrocom is a company wholly owned by Scottish Ministers. Deloitte also refused to pursue any potential claim by FMEL—now in liquidation—against CMAL. That could have been substantial and might also have offered some clarity.

Former senior staff have been moved on, and non-disclosure agreements have been signed. Why? Surely experience was needed at that juncture and information should be publicly available. Questions therefore arise regarding the liquidation and the role of administrators. These actions have been raised with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and questions have been asked as to whether it acted with “objectivity and integrity”. Hopefully, we will be advised on that soon.

As things now stand, the yard is operated by the Scottish Government, but although the salaries of senior management grow exponentially, progress is still slow on ships 801 and 802. At the time of liquidation, work on military vessels had been agreed with Babcock, fishing support vessels were being built, with more to be won, and work was ongoing on the world’s first hydrogen-propulsion system, which had received an international award. Now, though, islands are still bereft of services, communities and businesses are threatened, and the yard is worried about its future as CMAL tenders orders abroad and other orders have been lost.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

Does my hon. Friend, as the biographer of the late Jimmy Reid, share my concern that this whole sorry affair, and the Scottish Government’s involvement in it, renders their protestations about Type 26 frigates risible and is deeply damaging to the proud history of shipbuilding on the Clyde?

[Kenny MacAskill]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The history of Scottish shipbuilding is a fantastic record, but it also has a future. To have a future, it has to be not simply on the upper Clyde but on the lower Clyde, and that takes me to what needs to be done.

There needs to be clarity on CMAL’s actions and the role of Government Ministers responsible. A public inquiry should be held. The Holyrood inquiry suggested an independent external review. That, I believe, is inadequate. This straddles reserved and devolved competencies. Will the Minister consider seeking to establish a joint inquiry with the Scottish Government, as happened, for example, with the Stockline explosion? Moreover, for the communities involved and for Scotland’s industrial future, action is needed. To use football parlance, sack the board and remove the manager. CMAL should be abolished.

CalMac, in consultation with the communities, which must have rights, should be responsible for the selection of ships. The management team that has been put into Ferguson needs to be removed. The replacement of the CalMac fleet, which will involve several vessels a year and over decades to come, should be placed out to tender, but with the stipulation that Ferguson and other sites in Scotland must be used for their construction by whoever wins it.

We need clarity on what went wrong, but fundamentally we need to secure a ferry service for our remote communities and provide a future for our shipyards on the lower Clyde.

Scotland Act 1998: Role of the Lord Advocate

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I believe that many of the ills that afflict Scotland can be laid at the door of this Tory Government. The Tories have not been elected in Scotland not just for the 55 years of hurt experienced by English football fans, but for 65 years—longer than I have lived. Independence is therefore essential, but not all ills rest there; some, along with our demons such as alcohol and violence, can and must be addressed by ourselves. The role of the Lord Advocate is one.

The Lord Advocate and Law Officers, along with Ministers, are part of Scotland’s offices of state. They are enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament. That is why legislative change is required, so I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I welcome the willingness of the UK Government to assist, and I hope that urgency will now be shown by the Scottish Government. Scottish democracy badly requires it.

Before the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was created, the Lord Advocate was the power in the land, and some postholders were despotic indeed. The transportation of Thomas Muir and the hanging and beheading of Baird, Hardie and Wilson, the Scottish radicals and 1820 martyrs, are crimes that lie with them. Thankfully, the post devolved and became a purely legal role, but an anachronism was built in, for the postholder is both principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government yet also head of the prosecution service—the Crown Office, as it is known. That is something replicated neither elsewhere in the United Kingdom nor, indeed, in any modern democracy. Conflict of interest precludes it. In England and Wales, an Attorney General advises the Government from within. Meanwhile, a head of the prosecution service is both separate and independent from Government. But not so in Scotland, and therein lies the problem.

To be fair, apart from those despotic years, postholders, irrespective of political hue and whether pre or post-devolution, have acted with the impartiality expected. Modest steps were taken to mitigate the conflict of powers. Under Alex Salmond’s Administration a convention was invoked that the Lord Advocate appeared at Cabinet only when legal advice was to be given and did not participate in wider political debate. But the anachronism still lingered. Under Nicola Sturgeon’s Administration it has been brutally exposed by both Scottish Government and Crown Office actions, with the Lord Advocate straddling both. Change is now needed, and fast.

Firstly, there has been an admission by the outgoing Lord Advocate of malicious prosecutions involving the administrators in the Rangers FC liquidation. That is unprecedented in Scotland, not just in recent years but since those days of the early 19th century. Even south of the border there have been no such cases since 1999, and high-profile cases before such as the Winston Silcott and Daniel Morgan cases were rare. It has caused alarm with the public and been of huge reputational damage in an organisation where impartiality is imperative. It has also caused consternation and anger within police and prosecution services, where the overwhelming majority of staff act without bias and free of any favour or prejudice. The reputation of the many has been traduced by a few.

It was the former Lord Advocate’s decision, and seeking to cast blame on his predecessor was shameful and inadequate. An inquiry, perhaps even by a non-Scottish judicial figure, has been promised. Additionally, there is the financial cost. The quantum of damages is for the court, but suggestions are that the final bill could reach £60 million or £80 million—this in an organisation with an annual budget of £300 million, struggling to meet existing commitments. The price will be paid by Scottish taxpayers and the loss felt by hard-pressed Scottish public services.

Secondly, and just as alarming, has been the role of the Lord Advocate and a coterie around him within the Crown Office in the Alex Salmond case, and the fallout from it. It is another instance of the public having to pay the price of Government incompetence, with the legal expenses bill in the civil case amounting to £500,000, but where the issue of impartiality as well as competence was raised. In the civil case, the presiding judge described the Scottish Government’s actions as “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias”. During proceedings, senior external counsel, Roddy Dunlop QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, expressed horror at the situation he and his colleague had been put in by their client. They could no longer rest on pleadings they knew to be untrue. The client was the Government, and their senior legal adviser was the Lord Advocate. A criminal case followed the failed civil case and was prosecuted by the Crown Office, where the same Lord Advocate remained in office.

Despite growing pressures on police and prosecution, nothing has been spared—nothing has been too trivial—but the targets always seem selective. The Alex Salmond case saw resources deployed that are normally reserved for serious organised crime figures or serial killers, for charges that, were it not for who was being prosecuted, would either never have seen the light of day or appeared only in the lowest courts, not the High Court. I say that as someone who was Justice Secretary for seven and a half years but also a defence agent for 20 years. As it was, Mr Salmond was acquitted on all charges, by a majority female jury.

It is standard practice in cases involving politicians that the Lord Advocate recuses himself from involvement in the consideration or prosecution of the case, and that was done here, with no direct involvement in the prosecution. However, at the same time, the Lord Advocate had been, and was, sitting on Scottish Government committees dealing with the civil case, where referral or prosecution was being actively sought and advised by the Administration.

Let us recall that a prosecution was sought by the Scottish Government, as the actions of the director of human resources in contacting the police confirm. Many—indeed, most—complainers were and remain at the heart of Government, or are officials or otherwise closely linked with the governing party. Prosecution was encouraged and pressed for by the chief executive of the governing party, who is the First Minister’s husband.

Chinese walls and recusal are entirely inadequate. In one role, the Lord Advocate was supporting a Government pursuing prosecution; in another, he was denying that it was anything to do with him. A separation of powers this certainly was not. When James Wolffe appeared before the Holyrood Committee considering the Salmond prosecution, he was frankly evasive and obfuscating, mirroring the actions of the Crown and the Government in a lack of openness and transparency. There was neither contrition nor candour. Open government this certainly was not.

The fallout and failures continue to reverberate. Following on from the Alex Salmond case has been that of Craig Murray, a writer and former diplomat. His conviction is under appeal at the Supreme Court; accordingly, I refrain from commenting on specifics of the case. Instead, I restrict my remarks to the decision by the Crown to prosecute Mr Murray for jigsaw identification of complainers in the case. Why was he prosecuted when others who did so—in one case certainly overtly, and in many others much more flagrantly than by Mr Murray—were not? No action was taken against them.

Moreover, publications that in any other case would have constituted a clear contempt of court went without censure by the Crown. They included newspaper articles as prejudicial as I have ever seen, but they were supporting prosecution, whereas Mr Murray, though seeking to report factually, was not. It seems that the Crown has one law for those supporting the Government line and another for those who challenge it.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the case of journalist Mark Hirst, who was arrested and charged with threatening and abusive behaviour. However, when that case went before Sheriff Paterson, he ruled that there was no case to answer, and that Hirst had simply been giving his opinion of the situation in the SNP and no more than that. There are also cases of police knocking on doors for single tweets, and others that are sub judice or where charges have yet to be brought.

All this is exerting a chilling effect on democracy in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, even in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance, any continued failure by the Scottish Government to address the separation of powers reinforces talk of deliberate and targeted harassment of individuals critical of the Scottish Government, their policies and their leadership, including their role in the Salmond affair?

[Kenny MacAskill]

Absolutely. There is a clear perception of there being far from equanimity or, indeed, even balance by the Crown.

Now James Wolffe has stepped down as Lord Advocate, replaced by Dorothy Bain. Ms Bain has an illustrious record of service and I wish her well, but the structural flaw remains. Personnel changes, no matter how merited, cannot resolve the fundamental flaw of a lack of separation of powers. The impartiality of the Crown is an imperative in a democracy. It must be seen to act in the public interest, not that of the Government or their friends or allies. The coterie who surrounded Mr Wolffe and who were instrumental in driving these policies and actions, often against the wishes and views of long-serving staff, still remain—in particular, the Crown Agent, Mr Harvie, the senior civil servant. Unusually among senior Crown staff, his career has not simply been as a procurator fiscal in Scotland, but has included service in and secondment to British Government Departments.

The situation is now critical as a police investigation has opened into the SNP’s finances. The party leader is the First Minister and her husband is chief executive. This situation would be intolerable in any public body or private company, or even in a bowling or social club in any Scottish town. The idea that the chief steward could be the spouse of the treasurer would draw derision and rejection, but not so in Scotland’s governing party. Worsening that further is the fact that all three members of the SNP finance and audit committee resigned from their roles when refused information by the chief executive. That has been followed by the resignation of the elected treasurer, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), for similar reasons. Given what has happened, can the Scottish public be assured that the investigation will have access to all information, and that any decision to prosecute or not will be made on legal criteria and in the interests of justice?

Protocols have failed, been breached or even abused. Interim steps can be taken to separate the roles. Perhaps there should not just be a recusal, as there no doubt will be by the Lord Advocate, but, as with the Rangers FC investigation, the bringing in of an external judicial adviser. Moreover, the Lord Advocate has recused herself from involvement in the Rangers FC civil proceedings. Maybe she could recuse herself from all direct Government involvement. An in-house legal department exists. The duty to represent the Government in court and pursue constitutional challenges remains, but that can be dealt with by external counsel.

Change and a separation of powers there must be. The twin roles of the Lord Advocate in prosecution and in advising Government are an historical anachronism, and are entirely unsuited to a modern democracy. As a former Justice Secretary, as well as someone who has practised law in Scotland for over 20 years and cherishes our distinct system, I am appalled at what has happened, and I know that is echoed in legal circles.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention, because that is kind of the point I was making. Although the UK Government, as I said to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), have the power to bring forward such legislation, in practice we would want to ensure that the Scottish Government have put the proposals to be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore a matter for the Scottish Government, in the first instance.

It is only right that the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise and debate these proposals. Only once these proposals are agreed in principle in the Scottish Parliament would we expect the Scottish Government to make a formal representation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as custodian of the devolution settlement, and then the UK Government would consider the next steps.

As I think the hon. and learned Lady said, the SNP made a manifesto commitment ahead of the recent Scottish parliamentary elections to consult on whether the dual function should be separated in the future. It is right that our colleagues at Holyrood, rather than UK Ministers, take the lead on deciding what must now happen, or at least they should take that first step. We have not received, as far as I know at this time, any requests from the Scottish Government to amend the 1998 Act, and it would therefore be premature for the UK Government to comment further on that point.

[Neale Hanvey]

Surely there is nothing to prevent the Scottish Government from returning to the arrangement of the Salmond Government, where the Law Officer recused himself from Cabinet discussions on an informal basis, despite the separation of powers not being in place. That would at least show some willingness towards a formal separation, or towards a consideration of that matter before the Scottish Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neale Hanvey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend is right about that and he is right to welcome the breakthroughs over the past few days with the Australian Government. Businesses in Scotland exported goods worth over £352 million to Australia in 2019, and reducing tariff barriers for our world-class food and drink industry could bolster Scotch whisky exports to Australia. As the Secretary of State for International Trade made clear at the weekend, this deal will be based on fair competition, maintaining our high standards and providing excellent, exciting opportunities for British products.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on Scotland’s constitutional future.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

The UK Government work with the Scottish Government on a daily basis on a range of constitutional matters, including delivering on our devolution commitments through the Scotland Act order programme. I would have thought that a more interesting question would have been to ask what discussions his new party has had with the First Minister on an unnecessary and divisive further referendum on separation.

[Neale Hanvey [V]]

When Scotland opens negotiations for independence following the election of a supermajority on 6 May, will those talks be led by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Union—should, of course, he still be in post by that time?

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman is being rather presumptuous about the outcome of the elections next week, so let us wait and see what the people of Scotland decide. I would have thought they would be more interested in keeping the protections of the pandemic in place, helping businesses to recover and helping children to catch up on the education that they have missed over the past year.