Exiting the EU: Sectoral Analysis

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am very conscious of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill coming forward, and I would like to begin Committee stage in a positive spirit of collaboration in order to deliver in the national interest. I have sought today to give straightforward answers to the questions that we have been asked, and I stand by what I have said.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

This is turning into the Government equivalent of the dead parrot sketch. The Minister says that releasing the information could compromise the Government’s negotiating position, yet he could not be bothered to turn up to the House to vote the motion down. The Secretary of State for Scotland said at Scotland Office questions just last Wednesday that a sectoral analysis of Brexit’s impact on Scotland’s economy existed and had been shared with the Scottish Government. Does it or does it not exist? When will the Minister release that information?

[Mr Baker]

As I have said throughout the urgent question, we are not in possession of quantitative forecasts of the impact of Brexit. We are in possession of sectoral analysis, and we will work on that to satisfy the motion.

European Economic Area: UK Membership

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all her work to bring this matter not just to the Floor of the House, but to the general public discourse. Does she agree that part of the problem with the EEA and EFTA is the Government’s intransigence in looking at the situation? This is an ideologically driven process to take us out of the EEA, out of EFTA and out of the EU and turn us into an island on our own in the Atlantic with no trade deal whatsoever with anyone. [Interruption.]

[Heidi Alexander]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) says from a sedentary position, this is about dogma. It is not about democracy and it is not about our country’s future prosperity.

Last summer, we grafted a massive public plebiscite on to our system of representative parliamentary democracy. I will not repeat my views on how the referendum was conducted—suffice to say I do not think it was our country’s finest hour. There was only one question on the ballot paper:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Where were the words “European economic area”? Where were the words “single market”? Now some people say, “Well, everyone knew it meant we’d be leaving the single market,” but that is pure assertion. That is an interpretation of the result. Some people may have voted believing that, but others did not. Many more would not have had any idea where to start if you asked them to explain the difference. I do not say that to patronise; it is a matter of fact. If you asked my mum to explain it, she would run a mile. Taking us out of the single market is a political choice. Prioritising controls on immigration over safeguarding jobs and investment is a political choice. Making a massive issue of the European Court of Justice, even though most people would be hard pressed to tell you what it does, is a political choice. Those choices will determine the future of our country for many years to come, and it is the basic responsibility of each and every Member of this House—irrespective of party—to reflect long and hard on whether the form of Brexit being pursued by this Government is the right one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

At Edinburgh University, 25% of the senior academic staff are EU nationals. What is the Minister saying to institutions such as Edinburgh University, which needs those staff to be able to compete as one of the world’s leading universities?

[Mr Walker]

I have met representatives of Edinburgh University and visited them to discuss exactly that issue. I recognise the benefit that the university receives from EU nationals working there; indeed, nationals of countries from across the world contribute to the university’s research. The university has welcomed what we set out in our science and research paper, and we will continue to work closely with the university sector to make sure that we can meet its needs.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Florence speech had a massive impact, frankly, on the attitudes in the capitals of the European Union and, indeed, within the Commission. Certainly, Mr Barnier, Mr Juncker and Mr Tusk have all said as much.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State can hardly be surprised that many people in this House think that the promises—the undertakings—he is giving on a meaningful vote are merely empty words, given the debacle of yesterday. May I therefore encourage him to put his money where his mouth is and put this into the Bill, so that we can move on to other issues? Can he give the House and the country one good reason why he would not put it into the Bill?

[Mr Davis]

They are not empty words; they are the exact words that were said to the House when the undertaking was given. That is what is important in this. The undertaking was given in those terms.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When I introduced the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill earlier this year, I said that that Bill was just the beginning—it was the beginning of a process to ensure that the decision made by the people in June last year is honoured. Today we begin the next step in the historic process of honouring that decision. Put simply, this Bill is an essential step. Although it does not take us out of the European Union—that is a matter for the article 50 process—it does ensure that, on the day we leave, businesses will know where they stand, workers’ rights will be upheld and consumers will remain protected. The Bill is vital to ensuring that, as we leave, we do so in an orderly manner.

Let me start with a brief summary of the Bill before going on to set out its key provisions in more depth. The Bill is designed to provide maximum possible legal certainty and continuity while restoring control to the United Kingdom. It does so in three broad steps. First, it removes from the statute book the key legislation passed by this Parliament in 1972—the European Communities Act 1972. That Act gave European Union law supreme status over law made in this country. It is therefore right that it be removed from our statute book on the day the UK leaves the European Union, bringing to an end the supremacy of European law over laws made in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, the Bill takes a snapshot of the body of EU law that currently forms part of the United Kingdom legal system and ensures that it will continue to apply in the United Kingdom after we leave. This is to ensure that, wherever possible, the same rules and laws will apply the day after exit as they did before. Without that step, a large part of our law would fall away when the European Communities Act is repealed.

But simply preserving European Union law is not enough. There will be many areas where the preserved law does not work as it should. So, as its third key element, the Bill provides Ministers in this Parliament and in the devolved legislatures with powers to make statutory instruments to address the problems that would arise when we leave the European Union.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Davis]

In a moment.

These powers allow Ministers to make those changes to ensure that the statute book works on day one. This will be a major shared undertaking across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I will give way in a moment.

I stand ready to listen to those who offer improvements to the Bill in the spirit of preparing our statute book for withdrawal from the European Union.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) likes to remind me of my past incarnation as a Back Benchers’ champion and my dedication to holding the Government to account. I have not changed my views one jot. Let me be clear: this Bill does only what is necessary for a smooth exit and to provide stability. However, as I have repeatedly said, I welcome and encourage contributions from those who approach the task in good faith and in a spirit of collaboration. All of us, as legislators, have a shared interest in making the Bill a success and in the national interest.

[Ian Murray]

The Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks that the Bill gives Ministers the power to change laws through statutory instruments and other mechanisms. Does that include changing laws in terms of devolved Administrations?

[Mr Davis]

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come later in my speech to the detail of that and how that process will work.

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

That returns us to the issue raised by the spokesman for the hon. Gentleman’s party, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). We shall be talking to the devolved Administrations about the extent to which this will have an impact, and ensuring that there are increases—not decreases—in the powers available to them.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State consistently ignores my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made a perfectly legitimate point about the European Economic Area Act 1993 and article 127 of the European Economic Area agreement, which states that the UK Government must give 12 months’ notice to remove itself from the EEA. How will that be dealt with in the great repeal Bill—or has the Secretary of State simply forgotten about it?

[Mr Davis]

No, but it is not a matter for the great repeal Bill.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is completely right. This Bill is far more important than all those treaties wrapped together, because it is about withdrawing from the European Union.

What made the situation worse was the White Paper we had from the Government. Let us not forget that it came the day after the vote on Second Reading. That was pretty shocking and quite contemptuous of the rights that the House of Commons should have. It is a lamentable document because of the lack of information it contains on so many of the important issues on which I and other hon. Members have tabled amendments.

We should use the time we have today to talk about what we need to know and to ask the Government what their plan is. That is why I will briefly go through some of the new clauses I have tabled. For the sake of argument, let us take the first one, new clause 20 on financial services. One could say that it is merely a small corner of Britain’s GDP, but it provides £67 billion of revenue for all our schools and hospitals. If we mess around with that sector in the wrong way, we will all be poorer and our public services will be poorer as a result.

New clause 20 suggests that there should be a report twice a year on where we are going on one of those questions that was not contained in the White Paper: “What is our progress towards a smooth transition from the existing open market access, where we have passports, to the new arrangements, whatever they are going to be?” The White Paper merely says, “We’d quite like to have the freest possible trade,” but it says nothing about what will happen on mutual co-operation, regulation and oversight; whether we will be able to have permanent equivalence rights for some trades; or whether UK firms will have time to adjust.

Those issues already pose a clear and present danger to our economy. HSBC says that 1,000 jobs are going to go, Lloyd’s of London is moving some of its activities, UBS is moving 1,000 jobs, and J.P. Morgan has said that potentially 4,000 jobs will go. Firms are voting with their feet already, yet the White Paper hardly touches on this question.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligence on this Bill and for tabling these important new clauses. If we boil it all down, this is not about passporting and the complicated legal framework around financial services, but about the tens of thousands of my constituents who are in highly skilled, highly paid jobs in the financial services sector and who are worried about their future employment.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. When hon. Members are asked by their constituents, “What time did you have to debate financial services?”, they will have to say, “There was only a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes. I didn’t say anything about it because of the ridiculous programme order that we put in place to curtail debate.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I have no issue with the Government seeking to reach a consensus. There are two issues. One, as I think the hon. Member for Darlington accepted, is that reaching a consensus is likely to be difficult, but we should try. I have no problem with Ministers trying to seek a consensus, but the danger of putting that in legislation is that we then hand over to a court the adjudication of whether Ministers have sought that consensus or whether they have tried hard enough. Even if the court ends up reaching what I would consider the right conclusion of not interfering in the process, it seems an obvious route for delay. The Prime Minister has made it clear that she will seek to take into account the views of the devolved Administrations, but I would not want that to be put into the legislation.

[Ian Murray]

While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about distinctions, I want to make another distinction as a reminder to him and the House: the Scottish National party is not the entirety of Scotland—[Interruption.] It might like to think it is, which is evident from the reaction from the SNP Members just now. New clause 4 is carefully worded and states that the Government should seek a consensus for building the negotiation with the European Union. That is about letting the Scottish people into the process, not the Scottish National party, and the right hon. Gentleman should distinguish between the two.

[Mr Harper]

While the Scottish nationalists are currently in government in Scotland, I completely agree that they are not the same as the Scottish people. On the new clause, the representatives on the Joint Ministerial Committee are the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative not of the Scottish people but of the Scottish Government, so there will be two members of the Scottish nationalists whose expressed purpose, as confirmed here today, is to destroy the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Let me make some progress, because otherwise other Members will not have the opportunity to speak. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was able to intervene on me. He is the lead name on new clause 23, on which I have a question. Subsection (2)(c) refers to

“the legal status of EU nationals resident in Scotland”.

It then refers to “Scottish nationals”. I do not quite understand what they are. I understand what UK nationals are, but I was not aware that there is a separate class of nationals of Scotland. Does he wish to explain to the Committee what they are? If for no other reason, not knowing what they are is reason enough to vote against the new clause.

[Ian Murray]

It is people who were normally resident in Scotland before they moved abroad. It is quite simple.

[Mr Harper]

“Scottish nationals” implies that they are somehow tied to Scotland other than by residence. If someone is English but happens to live in Scotland for five minutes, does that mean they are a Scottish national?

[Ian Murray]

No.

[Mr Harper]

But the hon. Gentleman just said that his definition of a Scottish national is someone who resided in Scotland before moving overseas. It seems to me that someone does not need to have any connection with Scotland bar the fact that they lived there for five minutes. This seems a very poorly worded new clause that is not worthy of support.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.

[Ian Murray]

I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that his Government’s pushing through the programme motion means that we cannot have a full debate on these issues. Whether it is a beautifully worded clause or a badly worded clause, EU nationals should be given the right to stay by this Government today, and we should be fighting to make sure that UK nationals living in the EU have their rights, too. The Government could do that now and, if they did, we would not need to press these new clauses.

[Mr Harper]

I will not address that issue now, as we debated it at length with the previous group of amendments. A number of colleagues spoke, so it has had sufficient debate.

The next grouping contains a number of new clauses proposing various mechanisms for giving different parts of the United Kingdom a veto on the entire process and, for that reason, I do not think they should be accepted. New clause 26, tabled by the Scottish nationalists, would effectively give the Joint Ministerial Committee a veto on the process. That means a single member of the Joint Ministerial Committee could veto the entire process, which would not be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I like having a helpful intervention, which gives me another chance to remind the Committee that 17.4 million people across the UK voted for this result. The one thing that would be bad this evening is if we were to accept any of these amendments, because that would lead to uncertainty. What we need is clarity. After the vote last week, businesses, investors and those in jobs across the land need clarity and certainty, so I suggest that the SNP gets back to the day job. Look at the primary schools where literacy rates are declining. Look at the universities where the number of people from less well-off backgrounds is declining. Look at the great hospitals that are not performing. Look at the mess the SNP made of its police reforms. Go back and work on the day job.

Another narrative is creeping into this evening’s debates. It concerns Northern Ireland and is rather more serious than the pantomime of the SNP. I refer to some comments that have been made about the potential threat to the peace process, and I wish to put another point of view. The people who should be given the most credit are the incredibly brave professional people in our security forces who, under the most extraordinary provocation and in difficult circumstances, held the line and held the peace, which allowed the peace process to take place. I also pay tribute to all those in all parties in Northern Ireland who worked on the peace process; to the two leading parties in the UK, the Conservative party and the Labour party, which took a bipartisan approach; to the two main parties in the Dáil, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil; and to the two main parties in Washington, the Democrats and the Republicans. That extraordinary unity of purpose, over many years, has brought Northern Ireland to the better place it is in.

When I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I went to Northern Ireland every week for three years, and when I was Secretary of State I went every week for two years. In five years, I do not recall having a single meeting with any EU official; I do not recall any visit to Brussels on any issue. Obviously, the two years I spent at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were a complete contrast, as about 90% of what DEFRA does is implement EU law. So I wish to correct the idea about what would happen should the UK bring back powers and the money to this place. Obviously, there were significant EU funds, so we will have shedloads of money coming back, which we will continue to spend.

I wish to put on the record again the fact that in five years neither I, nor my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), my stalwart Minister of State, can remember a single meeting with an EU official. That just puts into perspective the importance of the EU. I recall having the German ambassador to a successful dinner at Hillsborough where we talked about investors, but I honestly cannot recall a meeting with the EU. I did come in after the settlement had gone through and perhaps Labour Members who were involved remember interventions, but for me the key players in this were the UK security forces, the two main parties here, the two main parties in Dublin and the two main parties in Washington.

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman used the term “shedloads”. Will he tell the House how much “shedloads” is? Is it more or less than the £350 million for the NHS that was plastered on that now infamous bus?

[Mr Paterson]

The latest figure I saw was about £10 billion, so significant funds from the EU pass through the UK Government and those funds could be either spent at the same level or increased should we wish to do so. I therefore do not see that the money side will destabilise the peace process. We have heard talk that the process is unhelpful for Northern Ireland, but it has moved on to a completely different position. The main thing to concentrate on in Northern Ireland is getting the economy moving, and that is where the real efforts should be. It is also worth thinking about the position of the Republic—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Engaging with the devolved Administrations and discussing their priorities is exactly what the Joint Ministerial Council on EU Negotiations was set up for. It brings together the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to discuss each Government’s requirement for the future relationship with the EU, and to seek a UK approach to and objectives for article 50 negotiations.

I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) presented her new clause, and I recognise her and her party’s dedication to the Union. However, the JMC is not a legislative or statutory body, and it would not be appropriate to change that in the way new clause 4 proposes. I say that not only for the reasons given by my right hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), but because it provides a neutral forum for confidential discussions, which this new clause would undermine.

When it comes to the new clauses and amendments, we take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that we get the best deal for every part of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, England—as well as for the UK as a whole.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I can give way only once.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted that the Minister has been able to give way. I wonder whether he and other Ministers will take it on board that Members who tabled amendments in all good faith have not even been able to speak to them because of the programme motion tabled by the Government. The Government have been forced kicking and screaming by the Supreme Court to the Chamber to present the Bill. It is about time that they thought again, and gave us more time for debate

[Mr Walker]

The House voted for a programme Order, and that programme Order has been followed by the Chair.

We have not yet made final decisions about the format for direct negotiations with the European Union. That is a matter for the Prime Minister, representing the interests of the whole United Kingdom. Moreover, it is important to recognise that there are two sides to the negotiation, and we cannot say for certain how our side will progress until we know how the EU side will approach it. In the context of amendments 46, 55 and 88 and new clause 140, it is important to note that Supreme Court ruled—I quote from the summary—

“Relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and parliament, not to the devolved institutions.”

The summary went on to state:

“The devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU”.

While that provides welcome legal clarity, it in no way diminishes our commitment to working closely with the people and the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as we move towards our withdrawal from the European Union.

I have made it clear that the Government will negotiate on the right approach for the whole United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who made a passionate speech, and to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). They made important points about the significance of the Belfast agreement and its successors. I must emphasise to them that the position of the UK Government remains unchanged. Our absolute commitment to those matters is reflected in our White Paper, which mentions the Ireland Act 1949, as well as a commitment to the common travel area and our bilateral relations with the Republic of Ireland. While I accept all the points that the hon. Member for St Helens North made so well about the importance of respecting those agreements, I can assure him that the Government respect them, and I do not think that his new clauses are necessary.

We have heard a range of suggestions from Members on both sides of the House about how to engage the devolved Administrations and, indeed, every part of our United Kingdom. The Government will continue to do that through the JMC process, which is firmly established and which functions on the basis of agreement between the UK Government and the devolved Assemblies. We have also heard suggestions for huge constitutional reforms which are beyond the scope of the Bill. New clause 168 proposes that the Government establish a national convention on exiting the European Union. Amendment 91 requires a duty to consult representatives at every level of government, regions and the sectors.

I have already spoken about the role of the JMC, and Ministers throughout the Government are organising hundreds of meetings, visits and events involving businesses in more than 50 sectors across the United Kingdom. They are consulting a number of representatives, including the Mayor of London, who is mentioned in some of the amendments. New clause 168 would get in the way of those established processes, and the idea of a national convention would cause unacceptable delay to a timetable that the House has clearly supported.

We are committed to engaging closely with the devolved Administrations and all parts of the country to secure a deal that is in the best interests of the whole United Kingdom. However, as the Supreme Court ruled, relations with the EU are not a devolved matter, and no part of the UK is entitled to a veto. I urge Members not to press their new clauses and amendments, so that the Bill can make progress in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

[Jenny Chapman]

The Minister opened his remarks by saying that the JMC was not on a statutory footing. That is precisely the point of our new clause. He has given us warm words and platitudes about his respect for the devolved Administrations, but I am afraid they are not enough, and we will press the new clause to a Division.

[Ian Murray]

Given that we have not reached the moment of interruption, Mr Hoyle, may I move new clauses 23 and 24 and amendment 8, which stand in my name?

[The Chairman]

Unfortunately not.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I have been a Member of this House for almost seven years and rarely have I spoken on a Bill of such great importance, not just to the country and to Scotland but to my own constituents. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). Although we fundamentally disagree about the European Union, it is right that we are able to express our views in this House on behalf of our constituents and the country.

If that is what taking back control is about, let us talk about that democratic process. We have been able to debate this Bill yesterday and today only because the public took the Government to court to express the view that they were railroading through a decision without due process or the taking back of control that they had promised this Parliament. We should pay tribute to those people for making it possible for us to make these arguments on behalf of our constituents.

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I campaigned vigorously for a remain vote. One of my party members, Gordon Dalyell, the son of Tam Dalyell, campaigned alongside me night after night. I pay tribute to Tam. Our thoughts are with Gordon, Pam, Matthew and the rest of the Dalyell family.

I campaigned vociferously for the UK to remain a member of the European Union because it was in our national interest. When I was tramping around the streets of my constituency in 2010 and 2015, I was not knocking on doors promising my constituents that if I was elected to this House I would do everything I possibly could to make their lives poorer. Indeed, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has said quite clearly on the record that nobody votes to make themselves poorer. It is incumbent on everyone in this House, throughout the process, not simply to railroad the Bill through as though it did not matter, but to fight for every single amendment so that the House sends a strong message—both to the Government and to our European partners—that we will make sure that the country gets the best deal for our constituents.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will not give way, if my hon. Friend does not mind, because of the timescale and the fact that other people wish to speak.

At the end of the EU referendum campaign, 78% of my constituents voted to remain. Many Members from across the Chamber in the last day or so have talked about not respecting the democratic will of the people, but, as far as I am concerned and according to “Erskine May”, we are representatives of our constituents. None of these decisions in the House is taken easily; in fact, it is with a heavy heart that I will vote against triggering article 50 this evening, but I will do so in the knowledge that I will be able to walk down the streets of Edinburgh South, look my constituents in the eye and say to them that I have done everything I possibly can to protect their jobs, their livelihoods and the future of their families.

When the Bill goes through Third Reading and the Lords, as we know it will, I will work enthusiastically to get amendments to it and hold the Government to account. Brexit might mean Brexit, but to my constituents and to many people across the country Brexit does not mean Tory Brexit. The rhetoric we have been hearing from the Government is wrong. I do not know why they are fighting the people to stop Parliament having a say, and I do not know why they are not reaching out across the Chamber to try to get a common sound and a common voice, to make sure that Britain can get the best possible deal from our European partners. I will vote no this evening, against triggering article 50, but rest assured that I will spend the rest of the time in this Chamber fighting for my constituents’ lives.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; as there may be something like an 18-month lag, some people might try to pre-empt the decision and, rashly, move early. The Treasury has held a roundtable on this specific issue. It has looked very clearly at various mechanisms of mutual recognition as a fall-back on passporting. Somebody made the point earlier that we issue more passports than we seek. As a result, our negotiating leverage in this area is at least reasonable.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

This is the Secretary of State’s second statement on this issue. Frankly, he would have said more if he had said nothing at all. Can we conclude from his statement today that his definition of “taking back control” is that this sovereign Parliament will get no binding say on the negotiating stance, article 50 or even the final deal? What he said today is that of the 28 current members of the European Union, 27 sovereign Parliaments will get a say, but not this one.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been paying attention. The words I used were that we will obey all the conventions and laws that apply to the signing, reform or removal of European treaties. I suggest that he goes and looks those up.

EU Exit: Devolved Governments

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered devolved governments and negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. One of the great privileges of being back on the Back Benches is that I can not only participate in these debates, but apply for them. I am grateful to the House for allowing me this debate. It follows on the back of early-day motion 325. One of the other unenviable privileges of being on the Back Benches is that I can now table early-day motions. I hope that all Members will sign my EDM once they have heard this debate.

Normally, I would say it is a great pleasure to hold this debate, but in many ways I would rather we were not. The repercussions of our vote to leave the EU will be profound and far-reaching in Scotland and across the United Kingdom and the European continent as a whole. We are already beginning to see the impact on our economy. The value of sterling has fallen against the euro, the dollar and most other international currencies, and remains highly volatile. Many businesses have predicted that Brexit will have a negative impact on their fortunes. The International Monetary Fund has revised down its forecasts for UK growth and said that Brexit risks throwing

“a spanner in the works”

of the global economy. Those of us who campaigned to remain in the EU warned of those obvious consequences and others as a probable outcome of our vote to leave. What was dismissed as “Project Fear” by many, we are now seeing as “Project Fact”, emphasised by today’s survey of German businesses, which concluded that 56% of them would want a hard bargain when negotiating with the UK.

We have to deal with what is in front of us and get the best possible solution for the UK and, for the purposes of this debate and my responsibilities, for Scotland. The evidence suggests that support for leaving was strongest in the most deprived areas of our country. I witnessed that myself at the Glasgow counting centre. In my constituency, the more affluent the area, the larger the remain vote. We have a responsibility and a duty as politicians to reach out to those who voted leave to strive to understand why and to respond to their concerns. I suspect that increasingly they feel that they have no stake in society. In general terms, although this is not necessarily always true, these are communities where the ravages of deindustrialisation have hit the hardest and where the economic recession has bitten deepest.

In many ways, there are pronounced similarities with the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, where some of the most deprived communities in Scotland voted to leave the UK. They also felt disillusioned and disfranchised in large numbers. Many of them had not cast a vote in many years, if at all. There is a clear problem for us to address, and we must find an amicable solution that reconnects communities to the political process and proves that politics can and will be a power for good in their lives. We must not let the Conservative Government or the Scottish Government—or any Government, for that matter—abdicate their responsibilities and abandon those who need help the most.

Immigration is an issue that came to dominate the EU referendum debate, and that concern must be addressed, but is immigration the true cause of the deep dissatisfaction felt in communities, or is it other things? There are six years of public sector austerity, the lack of a proper house building strategy, the failure to recruit adequate numbers of GPs, a dearth of well-paid, progressive, highly skilled work and crushing pressure on schools and hospitals. Those are failures not of the EU, but of national Governments north and south of the border. As such, they can all be resolved by a sea change in UK and Scottish Government policy. We should not allow the UK Government in particular to hide behind the EU over those public policy failures.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

We in Scotland have a demographic challenge that can only be aided by people coming to live and work in Scotland, and we need to encourage people to do so, perhaps with the post-study work visa, and there are EU citizens who still wish to come. We need to talk about how immigration enriches us and not demonise those who wish to come here to live, work and make a contribution to our society.

[Ian Murray]

That is precisely my point: immigration enriches society. Politicians have to be much braver about making the positive case for immigration. The arguments are not mutually exclusive; they all have to be set alongside the fact that if we have an influx of people, whether through migration or for other purposes such as work, public policy has to respond. The previous Labour Government had the migrant impacts fund, which was precisely that kind of response for local communities in need of additional resources to deal with the impact of the movement of people, whether immigrants or otherwise. That was scrapped in 2010 by the Tory Government, and we should look seriously at bringing it back. None of these issues is mutually exclusive, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He was not only wonderful at intervening, but has successfully made me lose my place. I will get used to being back on the Back Benches shortly.

I was saying that we should reassure those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain that we are listening to them by demonstrating not just through speeches, but by our actions, that we are firmly on the side of everyone who voted in the EU referendum. In doing so, our first priority—it is a priority that needs to serve the interests of people across the entire country—should be to secure the best deal possible in the Brexit negotiations. That means adopting a negotiating stance that takes into account all views: those of people who voted to leave and those of people who voted to remain. The building blocks for the negotiations must be what we want to retain from the European Union.

As Scottish Labour’s Westminster spokesperson, my focus today is obviously on Scotland, but I am sure many people from the other devolved Administrations, such as Northern Ireland, which voted to remain, and Wales, which voted to leave—my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) is here—will have their say in the negotiations. I am sure Members from Wales and Northern Ireland will make those points.

Let us reflect on the vote in Scotland for a moment. Some 62% voted to remain, and 38% voted to leave. In my constituency, 78% voted to remain. I assume that was in no small part due to the contribution of the significant financial services sector to the economy in Edinburgh, the large number of businesses that export and the world-class universities that rely on EU funding for some of their world-leading research. Those factors all have to be taken into account as we set out our negotiating stance, so I will go through Labour’s priorities and principles.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions his voters and the financial sector in Edinburgh. Does he accept that Scotland remaining within the EU would provide an opportunity for businesses to look north to Scotland, particularly in the financial sector? For those who are considering leaving London, there is an opportunity for his constituents, for Edinburgh, other cities in Scotland and Scotland overall.

[Ian Murray]

When I conclude my remarks, I will say that we should be looking at this as an opportunity, not only for Scotland, but for the whole United Kingdom. We are where we are. We need to ensure that the Government’s negotiations reflect what has happened, not only in Scotland but across the component parts of the UK, and make those arguments. I hope the financial services sector in the UK and in particular in Edinburgh reflects on where we are and makes those decisions accordingly. The uncertainty brought about by the decision to leave the EU is similar to the uncertainty that comes from any constitutional change that we have to deal with. I am delighted that the hon. Lady intervened, because she gave me an opportunity to mark my paper when I sat down. I am getting the hang of it.

I will go through the founding principles from which everything else in these negotiations should flow. We must be mindful of respecting and upholding the will of the Scottish people, not just in this referendum, but in the 2014 independence referendum. Those results have shown that Scots wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and retain the advantages of European Union membership. I understand that that is not a particularly easy thing to achieve, but they should be the founding principles of what we want to achieve in these negotiations. That is Labour’s starting point and forms the basis of what we believe should be Scotland’s negotiating platform.

That platform is informed by an excellent and aptly named paper written by Professor Jim Gallagher of Nuffield College, Oxford, entitled “The Brexit shambles: charting a path through the rubble.” Hon. Members can probably guess from the title where he is coming from on the issue. The paper identifies and delineates four priorities that should guide the Scottish and UK Governments—I have added one to make it five, because it does not mention the role of EU nationals and it is important to put that on the record as well.

As matters stand today, Scotland belongs to two Unions and gets significant advantages from both. The people of Scotland recognise that and have recently voted overwhelmingly for both Unions to be continued. The result of the referendums should be respected, but instead, they are being ignored. The political context in Scotland at the moment is that the Conservatives want Scotland in the UK but out of the EU, and the Scottish National party wants Scotland in the EU but out of the UK. Only the Scottish Labour party is clear that we want Scotland to remain in the EU and in the UK. The UK and Scottish Governments have an obligation to pursue every avenue in pursuit of that outcome, and to facilitate that, we should look at the priorities that should be put in place. Scotland’s first priority should be to urge the UK Government to accept a Norway-type option, if I can use that terminology.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is a decent man. He said that he does not want to see referendum results ignored but went on to state that Scottish Labour’s position is to keep Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU. Given that that is not what people voted for across the UK, does he perhaps consider that his party is behind the curve on the issue?

[Ian Murray]

When giving way, I should have asked the hon. Gentleman whether he would sign my early-day motion—he probably will not, given its content. If he had been listening properly, he would have heard me say that what the people of Scotland have voted for in the two referendums is a position where Scotland is in the UK and retains the advantages of being in the EU. I did not say that the UK will remain in both, because that is quite obviously not so.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she confirms whether she will sign my early-day motion.

[Hannah Bardell]

I will need to read the hon. Gentleman’s early-day motion before I make a decision; it would not be appropriate to make a comment either way without prior knowledge. I have a brief point. Does he not recognise that many people in Scotland voted for independence on the basis that his party and other UK parties said that the only way to retain Scotland’s place within the EU was to vote against independence?

[Ian Murray]

I am sure that you will rule me out of order, Mr Bailey, if we rehearse the well-trodden paths of the arguments about the Scottish referendum. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will touch on some of them as we go through my contribution. Knowing the time, that it is the last day of term and that everyone is desperate to head to the shores of Spain—without a visa—to enjoy the sunshine with their families, I will get on to that as we go through.

The first priority—the Norway-type option that I referred to—is that we would have membership of the European economic area. UK, and hence Scottish, membership of the EEA would mean maintaining much of the same conditions of trade and freedom of movement as currently exist. I am not sure whether the Government’s position in the negotiations is to maintain the free movement of people, but the Norway-style option would allow that to continue. It is worth putting in context why that is important.

The value of Scotland’s unfettered access to the EU single market is well established. The Scottish Government’s figures value Scottish exports to EU member states at around £12 billion annually, but it is worth reflecting on similar figures that show Scottish exports to the rest of the UK, which is why this is such an important debate. Those exports are worth four times that amount at £49 billion a year, which is why I think that the Scottish people have voted twice to stay with the advantages of being in both Unions. It makes scant economic sense to prioritise the EU market over the UK market. In this debate, it cannot be an either/or—we should strive to maintain full access to both.

UK membership of the EEA would allow Scotland to continue to trade undisrupted with both the EU and the UK. If that becomes impossible, a separate trading deal would have to be negotiated and nobody knows what that would look like. The other option at the other end of the spectrum, which I think unpalatable, would be to abide by World Trade Organisation rules. That would have significant impact on UK and Scottish trading capacity.

The second priority should be to protect Scotland’s public services and public spending by securing a continued fiscal and political union with the UK. These are the building blocks for the negotiations. The Scottish Government attach huge importance to the fiscal relationship with the UK; in his own words, the former Finance Secretary strained “every sinew” to protect it during the negotiations on the fiscal framework underpinning the Scotland Act 2016. The Scottish Government’s accounts and independent analysis show that Scotland is carrying a substantial budget deficit. It is incredibly important that Scotland’s position in the UK is maintained through the block grant and the Barnett formula.

Without those mechanisms, the Scottish Government would have to undertake dramatic spending cuts or increase taxes to balance the books, based on their current annual accounts. That point was reflected on by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), the SNP’s representative on the Treasury Committee, who said that not having those fiscal transfers would be incredibly difficult—I think that the word he used was “catastrophic”—for Scottish public services.

The third priority is the protection of Scotland’s currency union with the rest of the UK. Many of these arguments were covered in 2014, as we have just discussed in the intervention by the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), but it is worth revisiting them in this context, because it is incredibly important for the debate on how the negotiations with the EU proceed. If the first principle is to ensure that Scotland remains in the UK and with the benefits of the EU, we know that the euro is a non-starter, so that should come off the table—we owe the former Prime Minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown a debt of gratitude for keeping us out of that—but what of the other currency options that may be available? We know that the best available currency option at the moment is the current settlement. As part of the Scottish and UK Governments’ Brexit negotiations with the EU, we must make sure that Scotland’s position in the UK is protected, because Scotland’s fiscal and economic union with the rest of the UK is beneficial for the currency argument. I am conscious of the time, so I will not go through the currency arguments, but they are all on the record. The preferred arrangement in terms of Scotland’s fiscal, currency and economic position is the current arrangements, and the negotiations must underpin that point and reject all other arrangements.

I will quickly skirt through the fourth priority, which is to explore all options for Scotland’s future relationship with the EU. If we view this positively, it could turn the Brexit negotiations on their head, transforming a vexatious trial into an unprecedented opportunity. The hon. Lady mentioned that earlier. No one has ever suggested that the EU is a tremendous success and there are elements that Scotland may wish to relinquish. Equally, there are parts that Scotland may wish to retain. One aspect of the Brexit debate rarely mentioned is that it will greatly empower the Scottish Parliament. Many of the competencies, such as control over fisheries, agriculture, university research funding and environmental policy, will transfer directly to the Holyrood Parliament.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous; I promise this will be the last intervention. He makes the point about the EU not being perfect. Does he accept that, with a seat at the top table, Scotland could have a greater voice and influence in reforming the EU as an independent country within the European Union?

[Ian Murray]

That flies in the face of the arguments of economic, currency and political union with the United Kingdom; that is essentially Scotland turning its back on a much more successful Union, to be part of the European Union. What people have said quite clearly is that they want Scotland to be part of the UK and part of the EU. If where we want to get to in the negotiations is an independent Scotland—I am sure that it is for the hon. Lady; if it was not, I would be incredibly surprised—the journey and the pathway to get there are slightly different from the pathway and journey towards an outcome that keeps the UK together and keeps Scotland with many of its current advantages within the UK as a member state of the EU. That should be the genesis of the negotiations. I appreciate that the Labour party perspective and the Scottish National party perspective on the outcome of that journey are different, but my contention is that it has to be about keeping both Unions together.

Michael Keating recently observed that, given the new powers that will fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government could choose to align themselves with the EU and the directives that currently exist, rather than the UK, and that they can have either an informal or a formal relationship. The key thing is that there will be new and interesting opportunities. For example, the responsibility for delivering air quality lies with the Scottish Parliament but falls under the EU directive. The inter-governmental working between the UK and Scottish Governments means that the English and Welsh policy and the Scottish policy to deliver that directive can be different, but they are under the same umbrella. Strong inter-governmental working will be needed to ensure that example and many others are delivered across the UK.

Lord Falconer, the former Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, commissioned a piece of work in the other place to set out options for a federalised membership structure. Many people say that that is impossible to achieve, but we are in uncharted territory and everything should be on the table when we examine the possibilities for protecting the component parts of the UK and the advantages they get from membership of the EU.

The fifth and final principle that should guide these negotiations, particularly from a devolved perspective, is that we must protect the rights of EU nationals who live, work and contribute to the UK. Conversely, we must protect the right of UK nationals to work, study and live in other EU countries.

The UK’s political landscape is changing rather rapidly. A week is certainly a long time in politics these days. Brexit is perhaps the reckoning that the political system has been needing for a long time. It enables us to readdress where we are in the political landscape and think about how we respond to the big issues for communities. There is no doubt that the basic things that people took for granted—a job, a decent wage, a home of their own, a secure pension in old age and the idea that the next generation will do equally well if not better than the current generation—are increasingly becoming unattainable. Whether that is fact or perception, it is what people tell us. They are working harder and doing the right thing, but they are not receiving the benefits. I think that is the genesis of why the UK voted to leave. That is a failure not of the EU but of national Government.

Let us reflect on where we are. I would like the Minister to address some of these issues. The principle that the UK should come out of the EU but Scotland should stay in the UK and retain many of the advantages of being in the EU should guide the Government’s negotiations with the devolved Administrations and the EU. The Minister has the opportunity to set out the UK Government’s position on the devolved nations and Administrations today and be clear that the Brexit negotiations will protect their interests. He should reaffirm that the UK Government will recognise that Scotland voted to be in the UK and to keep the advantages of the EU. Those will be the foundation stones and building blocks for the negotiations. If we are optimistic about this, and if we all want the same journey and outcome, those should be the conclusions that we seek.

The former leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said last week in his Tony Benn memorial lecture:

“This can be a progressive moment. In any case, there is no point in the left sinking into gloom. The only answer is to rise to the challenge. The optimists have always been the people we need at times of greatest adversity. Today we need them more than ever.”

I hope the Minister is indeed an optimist and will respond positively to this debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It is a pleasure to see him on the Back Benches, and it is always a considerable pleasure to listen to his erudite exposition. There is much in what he said that I can agree with; there are some parts that, as he will understand, I would not. I would describe it as a bit of a curate’s egg. I hope he will take that in the spirit in which it is intended.

[Ian Murray]

Pot, kettle, black.

[Ian Blackford]

You will get your chance later.

On 28 June, the First Minister of Scotland secured a mandate from the Scottish Parliament to seek to secure options for protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU. I am glad to say that it was supported not only by the Scottish National party, but by the Labour party, the Greens and the Lib Dems, working in consensus for Scotland’s interests. Scotland’s Parliament came together to affirm its view on Scotland’s place within Europe.

We in the SNP argued ahead of the referendum that we should not be dragged out of Europe against our will. In the referendum, Scotland voted to remain in. Although England voted for Brexit, 62% of those who voted in Scotland voted to remain within the EU. We proclaimed our historic position as a European nation and our belief that our country is part of a wider family of nations.

Prior to the Act of Union in 1707, Scotland had for centuries established strong trading links with much of Europe, particularly northern Europe—the low countries, France, Germany, the Baltics and Poland, to name but a few. The Dutch town of Veere was essentially a Scottish trading port in the Netherlands. The Dutch conferred rights to Scotland, from a diplomatic point of view, in Veere. It was a two-way street. There was a significant European influence on Scotland. A walk through many Scottish towns, particularly on the east coast, shows the important influence of European architecture on our towns and cities. Dutch gable ends, for example, are prevalent in many parts of Scotland.

The point is that Scotland has long been at peace with itself as a European nation, predating the European Union by centuries. It is little wonder that many of us proudly define ourselves as Scottish and European. Alyn Smith MEP, speaking in the European Parliament, said this to Europe:

“please remember this: Scotland did not let you down. Please, I beg you…do not let Scotland down now.”

When we woke up on the morning of 24 June to find that the Brexiters had won in England, we recognised that there was a real threat that Scotland could be dragged out of the EU against its will. That is why it is important that we are having this debate on the issue of devolved Governments and the negotiations on leaving the EU. There must be respect for Scotland’s position of having voted to remain. For us, remain means remain.

We often hear about parliamentary sovereignty. I am minded of the words of Lord Cooper’s judgment in the Court of Session in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. He said that

“the principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle and has no counterpoint in Scottish Constitutional Law.”

We hold to the principle that the Scottish people are sovereign. If that is the case, we cannot be dragged out of Europe against our will. The people of Scotland have spoken. The people are sovereign, and the UK Government must recognise that legitimate position in their deliberations and negotiations on Brexit. The UK might be leaving, but Scotland’s future remains as a European nation.

In the days after the referendum, there was a failure of leadership in the UK Government, who sought to come to terms with the circumstances they had created. I was proud that on 24 June, when we were looking for leadership, it was our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who spoke for many when she said:

“Yesterday, Scotland—like London and Northern Ireland—voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. We voted to protect our place in the world’s biggest single market—and the jobs and investment that depend on it. We voted to safeguard our freedom to travel, live, work and study in other European countries. And we voted to renew our reputation as an outward-looking, open and inclusive country.

Indeed, I want to take the opportunity this morning to speak directly to citizens of other EU countries living here in Scotland—you remain welcome here. Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.”

Nicola went on to say:

“I want to make it absolutely clear that I intend to take all possible steps and explore all options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted—in other words, to secure our continuing place in the EU and in the single market in particular. We will also be seeking direct discussions with the EU institutions and its member states.”

Nicola was speaking for so many of us and, crucially, to the 173,000 citizens of Scotland who come from the EU—our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours, now fearful of their rights to remain living in our country, their country.

The Prime Minister has still failed to guarantee the rights of all EU citizens living here, with the suggestion that their rights will be used as a bargaining counter. What kind of society are we when we allow that level of fear to lay on the heads of many of our people, living in our country? It is immoral, wrong and something that the Government should deal with immediately, by protecting the rights of all EU citizens living not only in Scotland, but throughout the UK.

That message about exploring all options to give effect to how people voted in Scotland, to secure our place in the EU, has broad all-party and non-party support. What steps will the Minister take to reflect the votes and wishes of the Scottish people? Will he recognise the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and that we cannot be dragged out of the EU against our will? What will he do to recognise our rights? Will he agree to the Scottish Government, on behalf of the Parliament and people of Scotland, being given a full and formal role in negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU?

We are often told that our position within the Union is one where we are respected. I say to the Minister: how are we to judge this? Actions speak louder than words. He should show us that his Government are respectful and will give the Scottish Government their rightful place. It is crucial that the Scottish Government are not only consulted, but at the table when negotiations are ongoing, to ensure that the voice of the Scottish people is heard.

We have been put in a position where our vital interests—businesses, jobs, universities, freedom to travel, workers’ rights and much else besides—are all at risk. A Conservative Government have put us into that position, so the onus is now on them to prove that our interests can be protected within the UK, because the fact is that the EU referendum has placed a big question mark over that.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South spoke about the existing fiscal position, but the critical point about the fiscal position is that what we have today is a legacy of the UK Government. The fact that we want independence, ultimately, is not because Scotland is such a success story within the UK; it is because we know we can do much better. A crucial difference post-23 June is that one of the consequences of retaining our place in Europe is that Scotland becomes a destination. It is about us fulfilling our potential, creating opportunities for jobs and investment, growing the Scottish economy and, therefore, creating the tax revenues that will allow us to deliver on the social policies that we want. It is about a new Scotland, with its own place in the world—a bright, bold and optimistic Scotland, which is at peace with itself. That is what we seek to deliver.

The Scottish Government are committed to maintaining Scotland’s reputation as an outward-looking, open and inclusive country. We will look at all options to protect Scotland’s place in the EU. Today, independence is not the only option on the table. Our guiding principle in all our actions is to protect Scotland’s interests and our place in the EU. We will work with all parties to achieve that—I extend the hand of friendship to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South, if I may call him that, and to others, because we must ensure collectively that Scotland’s place is protected.

If it becomes clear that Scottish independence is the best and only way to achieve that, then it is an option that Scotland has to have. The Scottish Parliament must be fully involved in that consideration, and it is not something to be hurried. However, if the Scottish Parliament judges that a referendum on independence is now the best option to secure Scotland’s continued place in Europe, the Scottish Government have a duty to act. Will the Minister give a commitment today that if the Scottish Parliament calls for a referendum on Scottish independence, the UK Government will respect it? That is a simple question, which requires a simple answer. Do the UK Government accept that it is for the Scottish people to determine their own destiny?

The First Minister confirmed that the Scottish Government will now begin to prepare the legislation required to allow a referendum to take place if and when the Scottish Parliament so decides. The context for a second independence referendum is very different from that in 2014. A second referendum would not be a re-run of 2014, and it would be fought on entirely different grounds. The UK that we voted to stay in in 2014 no longer exists. Independence could be the best option to provide security for our economy and society, and to keep Scotland in the EU. It would be about preserving the status quo—independence would not be about Scotland wanting to leave, but about wanting to stay with what we have.

The Scottish Government are focused utterly on protecting Scotland’s interests and on doing all they can to ensure that Scotland remains in the EU. We consider that the process to exit the EU requires Holyrood’s consent and we cannot foresee circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament would give that without the guarantees that we asked for. Our focus is on protecting Scotland’s interests and remaining in the EU, not on frustrating England’s will to leave—it would be for Westminster to deal with the consequences of that situation. For us, remain means remain. We must not, we cannot and we will not be dragged out of Europe against our will. Westminster must respect the people of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

There we are; it is an open invitation. Northern Ireland voted to remain, which would also have triggered the four-nation lock mechanism, had it been introduced.

But we are, as others have said, where we are. I take some of the points that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South raised about the potential impact on domestic policy and reform and on the broader need to re-engage our populations in the democratic process. I think we did that quite effectively in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, which may explain the different tone of debate that took place during the European referendum. On the question of more powers for the Scottish Parliament, our preference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, is for Scotland to influence those powers as a full member of the EU at the top table, where those decisions are made. If that is the outcome and that is the only way of protecting Scotland’s place in Europe, that is what we will have.

The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made some considered remarks and reflections. They were not necessarily direct questions to the new Minister, but the fact that he is asking those questions reflects the fact that the UK Government really are playing catch-up on the result. They were not fully prepared for a Brexit result, which stands in contrast to the initiative and the momentum shown in Scotland. The First Minister, who spoke so eloquently—she was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—was immediately out the hatch, reaching out to leave voters and welcoming European citizens and assuring them of their continued welcome in Scotland. She then travelled to Brussels, where the President of the European Union, Jean-Claude Juncker, said:

“Scotland won the right to be heard in Brussels”.

It therefore stands to reason we should also have the right to be heard in the UK. The First Minister had a mandate to do that, with the Scottish Parliament passing a resolution saying that it

“welcomes the overwhelming vote of the people of Scotland to remain in the European Union”

and

“mandates the Scottish Government to have discussions with the UK Government, other devolved administrations, the EU institutions and member states to explore options for protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU, Scotland’s place in the single market and the social, employment and economic benefits that come from that”.

[Ian Murray]

The whole debate today is about which destination we wish for the negotiations. The Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who is the SNP’s Europe spokesperson, said on “Good Morning Scotland” this morning—and I quote— “Untrammelled access to the EU’s single market is much more important to Scotland than access to the UK’s”. Does the SNP spokesperson today agree or disagree with his hon. Friend?

[Patrick Grady]

I heard the interview to which the hon. Gentleman refers; it was a useful preparation for today’s debate. It is clear that we want to maintain our access to—exactly as the Scottish Parliament resolution says—

“Scotland’s place in the single market and the social, employment and economic benefits that come from that”.

In order to help to prepare for the transition, the First Minister moved quickly to put in place a standing council of experts to provide advice to her Government on how best to achieve our EU objectives. It is chaired by my constituent, Professor Anton Muscatelli, who is the principal of the University of Glasgow. That council is made up of specialists in finance, economics and European and diplomatic matters. It encompasses a range of political and constitutional opinions and was designed to provide the Scottish Government with access to a wealth of knowledge that has been built up over the years. The council will consider the impacts of the proposed changes to the UK’s relationship with the EU on Scottish interests and will advise Scottish Ministers throughout the coming negotiations on the best way to ensure that we achieve those Scottish objectives.

The Prime Minister met with the First Minister, and we welcome that willingness to listen and to commit, which she emphasised again at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, but there is some need for clarity over the UK Government’s plans. The Prime Minister said article 50 would not be triggered until there is a UK-wide approach on the objectives of the negotiations, but the Secretary of State for Brexit has said that article 50 will be triggered early next year. It would be useful to have some clarity on that.

We have to recognise the result in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke about the sovereignty of Scotland, and we have a debate in Westminster Hall on the Claim of Right after the summer recess. If Brexit means breakfast in the UK—sorry, if Brexit means Brexit; I have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of that—then in Scotland, remain should mean remain. The former Prime Minister said in his statement to the House after the referendum that his county of Oxfordshire had voted to remain, and implied that was somehow comparable to the result in Scotland, but Oxfordshire is not a devolved Administration. Oxfordshire County Council did not sign an Edinburgh agreement with the UK Government recognising in principle Oxford’s right to become an independent country should it choose to do so. Scotland did.

That is why the FM has said the option of a second independence referendum

“must be on the table”

for Scotland, and if independence is found to be the only way to secure Scotland’s place in Europe, a referendum would be “highly likely”. Any such referendum would have to command cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, which is why it would be unacceptable for the UK Government to stand in its way. But we are not there yet. The Scottish Government have signalled their intention to work constructively with the UK and with EU institutions and member states during the negotiations following the referendum result, but the result in Scotland was not for Brexit. It was for remain, and that result must be respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister. Perhaps it was because of his charm and the way he is willing to work together that I thought he had been in his ministerial post for some time.

Let me reflect on the debate. It has raised many questions. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in his contribution, raised the competing challenges that we have. I would throw Scottish whisky into those sectoral challenges, which may be slightly different from other challenges.

The negotiations all go back to the building blocks and the destination. The destination for me, for the Scottish Labour party and for the Labour party as a whole is to ensure that Scotland’s position in the UK is assured but we do not lose sight of the advantages that we get from the EU. Those are the two mandates that the Scottish people have given us, and to disregard one mandate for the other would be wrong.

I have mentioned a number of times in the debate my early-day motion. It now becomes clear that the SNP will not sign it, because it says at the end that we want the Scottish people’s mandates to be upheld and to

“remain in the EU and the UK.”

The fact that the SNP does not want to sign that or to give us any indication—in the contribution from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—of where it wants to go with this perhaps highlights the fact that our destinations are different. I hope that the Government reflect on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered devolved governments and negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.