Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That great achievement demonstrates just how far the Government’s teaching reforms have taken us. I again praise all teachers for their amazing dedication, and congratulate the children themselves on England delivering its best result since 2001, which was in no small part thanks to our increased emphasis on phonics.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Many Conservative MPs said in this House on Monday that clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was deficient and yet they voted for it. At Scottish questions yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the purpose of the Committee of the whole House is merely to listen. Can we have an urgent debate on the purpose of the different stages of a Bill as it goes through this House, because I thought that the Committee stage was meant to amend a Bill?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As has been made clear so many times, including by me, we are determined to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom—and for the EU27—as we leave the EU. An important part of that is listening to all constructive views that seek to amend and improve the proposed legislation. That is what we have been doing and what we will continue to do.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Euna on being named Barnardo’s national volunteer of the year. I understand that he met Euna last December when he volunteered in the Barnardo’s shop. It is incredible that at the age of 79, Euna is still dedicating 20 to 30 hours a week and rarely misses a day. I sincerely hope she enjoys the awards ceremony in London at the end of the month.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May I concur with the remarks you made about Tam Dalyell, Mr Speaker? He sent me a lovely gift when I won the election in 2015 of six boxes of parchment that he found while cleaning out his study. Little did he know that we just have to hit a button to print two copies on the computer these days.

May I ask the Leader of the House about the taxation of airlines? I had cause to complain to British Airways about a flight that I was unable to take. I was told by the chief executive’s office that the taxation on the flight is not automatically refunded to the customer unless they make a complaint or ask for their money back. It therefore goes neither to the customer nor to the Treasury. May we have a debate on the taxation of airlines and how consumers can automatically be refunded the taxation that does not need to be paid to the Treasury because they have not travelled?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Personally, I have had a different experience, but it seems that the matter could easily be resolved with a parliamentary written question to the Department. However, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that if a traveller does not travel, they should not be subject to the tax.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an appalling-sounding situation with which I absolutely sympathise. I am sure there must be a way through this. I urge her to raise the matter with Ministers to try to find a way forward for her constituent.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I was delighted to attend the launch of the Scottish poppy appeal yesterday, when it became apparent to me that 2017 and 2018 would see many centenaries, particularly over the role of women in the great war. Will the Government allocate time to ensure we properly commemorate the centenary of these wonderful occasions and give proper notice to the country that we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice and helped out in the great war?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think there is cross-party support on this issue, and I am absolutely certain that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee would be interested in promoting such a debate in the Chamber. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who made the ultimate sacrifice and remind hon. Members that next year we also celebrate the centenary of women’s suffrage. The contribution of women over the last 100 years or so is something we can all celebrate.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

In the UK we have always been very clear: we do not believe that permission to use drugs is of any benefit whatsoever, and we will continue to make every effort to reduce drug offending and to encourage people to get clean from drugs.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Government on when they plan to reconvene the Joint Ministerial Committee, so that devolved Administrations can be fully involved and consulted on the Brexit process?

[Andrea Leadsom]

There is a great deal of consultation going on, as the hon. Gentleman knows, between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government. That will continue, and there will be plenty of opportunities for further consultation in the weeks and months ahead.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

We all applaud the work of food banks. There are a couple of them in my constituency, and they and their volunteers do a fantastic job.

The important topic that the hon. Lady raises would lend itself to a Westminster Hall debate. The issues of food bank use and the reasons why people go to food banks are very complex, and it would be valuable if we were to get to the bottom of all the factors involved.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Government shook their magic money tree this week to find a £1 billion bung for Northern Ireland. May we have an urgent statement from the Chancellor on when that magic money tree will blossom again to enable my constituents to benefit from the full funding of the Edinburgh city regional deal?

[Andrea Leadsom]

From my recollection, it is the Government who said that there is “no magic money tree”, but it was Opposition Members who were expecting a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.—[Interruption.] I said gold. This Government are seeking to create an economy that is booming and that takes us away from the problems we were left with by the profligate spending of the last Labour Government, followed by a global financial crisis that left this Government with the worst economic situation since the second world war. The reality is that we are making progress, but the job is far from done. We can choose either to sort out the deficit and live within our means or to leave the enormous debt that results from that deficit to our children and grandchildren. This Government are making the sensible choice to provide fairness between the generations by dealing with our deficit and tackling that mountain of debt in a fair way.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Cabinet Office is very active in seeking to ensure that the pledges given in the manifesto on which this Government were elected are delivered, whether through legislation or through other means. The points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have not been part of the Government’s manifesto.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate to clarify the Prime Minister’s negotiating stance with the EU? If we extrapolate her wish list from both her statement in the House yesterday and her letter to President Tusk, the only conclusion we could come to is either being a member of the European Union or a member of the single market.

[Mr Lidington]

What the Prime Minister said yesterday was absolutely consistent with what she said both in her Lancaster House speech and in the subsequent White Paper. We are at the start of a complex and challenging period of negotiation. As she said yesterday, there will need to be the political will and give and take on both sides, but we are looking forward to that task and we are entering into it in a constructive spirit.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The enforcement of the law is, rightly, a matter not for Ministers but for independent police and prosecuting authorities.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said in this House on Tuesday that at the recent European Council meeting she encouraged the EU to

“complete the single market and the digital single market.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 180.]

May we have a statement or a debate in this House on why it is in the UK’s national interest for the EU to complete those markets but it is not in the UK’s national interest to be part of them?

[Mr Lidington]

It is in the UK’s national interest that the European Union, with which we are negotiating a new partnership, has a system of economic co-operation that is as friendly to open markets and free trade as possible, because that will enhance the opportunities for our companies and citizens when it comes to that new relationship. I would have thought that was an objective that the hon. Gentleman would support.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That:

(1) In Standing Order No. 83S(3)(c), after the paragraph (4A) treated as inserted in

Standing Order No. 83J, insert-

“(4B) In addition, a clause or schedule-

(a) relates exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and

(b) is within devolved legislative competence,

if it does nothing other than set one or more of the main rates of income tax for a

tax year.”;

(2) In Standing Order No. 83S(3)(d), at the end insert “and”;

(3) In Standing Order No. 83S(3), omit sub-paragraph (f), and the “and” preceding it;

(4) In Standing Order No. 83T(2)(c), for “, (7) and (12)” substitute “and (7)”; and

(5) In Standing Order No. 83U(8), for “(4A), (7) and (12)” substitute “(4B) and (7)”.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Scotland Act 2016 received Royal Assent last year. The Act provides the Scottish Parliament with the power to set its own rates and thresholds of income tax. For that reason, the Government announced in the 2016 Budget changes to the structure of income tax intended to ensure that from the Finance Bill 2017 onwards, a clause setting the main rates of income tax would be certified under the English votes procedures. In other words, the consent of hon. Members from constituencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be required for any income tax matters that affected their constituents and that did not affect Scottish taxpayers. The necessary legislative changes to achieve this were made in the Finance Act 2016, and mean that from April this year, these UK main rates will no longer affect Scottish taxpayers.

The technical amendments to Standing Orders before us will ensure that provisions setting the main rates of income tax will be subject to a certification decision by the Speaker now that the Scottish rates of income tax are set by the Scottish Parliament. It will mean that the Standing Orders on which Parliament has already voted will work as originally intended, but now taking account of the new element of the Scotland Act 2016.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the ever-generous Leader of the House. If the Chancellor were to come to the Dispatch Box and deliver a Finance Bill in which he said that the rates of income tax in England and Wales would alter and that, on that basis a different set of taxes, which were still reserved, would be altered—national insurance, for example—would this English votes for English laws clause be appropriate?

[Mr Lidington]

It would be a matter for certification by the Speaker. As in all other such matters as provided for already under our Standing Orders, the Speaker’s test has to be whether the content of the clause or amendment under discussion is devolved to Scotland—or, for that matter, to another part of the United Kingdom—and then, in addition, whether the subject-matter before the House at that time is the sole province of English, Welsh or Northern Irish Members.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I shall not give way again; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is important that this small technical change is made in time for this year’s Budget and Finance Bill. As hon. Members know, the Budget statement is due tomorrow, so that is why we are bringing this change to the Standing Orders before the House now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

This is the second time this afternoon that I have debated English votes for English laws on the Floor of the House, and I have to say that I did not expect to be speaking conclusively on EVEL on either of these occasions. It is always a pleasure to address some of the issues surrounding English votes for English laws.

SNP Members see this very much as a technical change to the Standing Orders, and we are quite surprised that we are getting into a general debate about the whole insidious package of English votes for English laws. I totally understand Labour’s concerns, and there are good reasons to be concerned, but it seems a curious environment in which to be having some of these debates about EVEL just now.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the very distinguished Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee on which I serve. For clarity, will he re-emphasise that he and his party previously supported English votes for English laws?

[Pete Wishart]

I am happy to confirm that we believe conclusively that English Members should of course be responsible for all their own measures, and we agree that it is up to English Members to determine their own legislation and their own policy. We have a very elegant solution for that, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what territory we are getting into with that. English votes for English laws is simply the wrong way to do that. As a package, it has been utterly divisive in this House and has been supported by absolutely no one other than the Government themselves, so I think it should be reviewed. I shall come on to that later, and I will allow him to come into the debate again if he thinks it necessary.

Let me address what is before us now. When it comes to these changes to the Standing Orders, we need to recognise the fact that the Scotland Act 2016 devolved to the Scottish Parliament the right to set the main rates of income tax—and thank goodness for that. This was agreed between the party of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my party in the Smith Commission, and we are grateful to know that the rates of income tax are now a responsibility for the Scottish Parliament. That is a good and positive thing, which we very much welcome.

We see the motion as a recognition of our legislative authority on rates of income tax and as a tidying up exercise. If anything—I am loth to concede this to the Leader of the House—it is helpful in clarifying the new arrangements on Standing Orders relating to English votes for English laws. That is why I am surprised that Labour has decided to have a real debate and conversation tonight about EVEL. I am always happy to debate EVEL. I am just surprised that Labour has chosen this evening to conduct such a debate.

The changes take account of the fact that there might, in future, be resolutions or pieces of legislation relating to main income tax rates that are specific to England, or to England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not Scotland, because those matters have been properly devolved. It also makes changes to ensure certainty on who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South will remember the tortuous conversations we had on trying to identify who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The changes will clarify that a touch and are therefore reasonably helpful in that regard.

There is much about English votes for English laws that SNP Members do not like. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that our issues with EVEL are many and manifest. No one understands what on earth is going on. We just had a Legislative Grand Committee. The bell went off, the Mace went down and the Mace went back up again, and not one Member from England had got to his or her feet to contribute. I have the House of Commons record for contributions in Legislative Grand Committees. In fact, I have spoken twice as much in LGCs as all the English Members put together, yet we were told that EVEL was an absolute necessity, a burning issue that concerned and consumed the shires of Englandshire as they were revolting about me and my hon. Friends coming down and voting on all their precious legislation. And what do we get when they actually have the opportunity to discuss this? Absolute and utter silence! That is why we say again that English votes for English laws are unnecessary. They are burdensome to this House and cumbersome to the way we do business. More than anything else, they divide this House on the basis of nationality and geography. It is on that basis that we profoundly disagree with the whole idea of English votes for English laws.

Now that is all well and good—I am looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker, getting edgy and tetchy about where I am going with this—but in our view this is not the place to have this debate. I am surprised at Labour’s lack of understanding about what is being pitched by the Government. As the Leader of the House says, this is a technical change to Standing Orders. I understand that the Labour party will press the motion to a Division. I will support Labour on that as I will oppose English votes for English laws at any opportunity, but I know that the Leader of the House finds it very curious that Labour has decided that this will be a matter of principle on which to vote this evening.

English votes for English laws is an absolute disaster. This is nothing to do with the Leader of the House, bless him; this is all about his predecessor’s charge to bring this forward to the House without any due regard to its impact on our business. It is wrong. It does not work. The House does not require it and it does not satisfy anybody. It does not satisfy us in Scotland. It certainly does not satisfy English Members, who have not contributed one peep to English Legislative Grand Committees. This is an opportunity for the Leader of the House. Yes, go ahead with the technical changes. There is no real issue from us on them, but he will not get the support of the House on EVEL. He has seen all the reviews and reports and it manifestly does not work. It sits awkwardly with the idea of a unitary UK Parliament, where every single Member should be equal. This may be the wrong place to have that fight, but on EVEL we are in the trenches and will support Labour this evening.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says about how EVEL was brought to this House. It is an unnecessary change to Standing Orders, because the Conservatives and the Government have a majority in both England and Wales, and across the UK. They do not have to use this process to get legislation through. All it has done, as the Conservatives have done consistently over the past few years, is create more division, which the SNP—if SNP Members do not mind me saying—thrives on in this House.



That brings me to the motion and the Standing Order. We have now added to English votes for English laws the issue of income tax. I am delighted that income tax has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is a shame that members of the Scottish National party, who have spent their entire lives fighting for more powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, failed to use that in their most recent Budget, because they did not want a differential between Scottish and English rates. That is the irony of the position.

Adding the income tax issue to the EVEL provisions, Madam Deputy Speaker, not only undermines the principle of the House, but puts pressure on you, and on Mr Speaker’s office, to determine, when dealing with a Finance Bill, whether a provision should indeed be invoked under the EVEL regulations. That means—this is why I intervened on the Leader of the House earlier—that an individual clause in the Finance Bill could rightly say, “We will set the following rates of income tax as part of the Finance Bill for England and Wales,” but the Chancellor could come to the Dispatch Box tomorrow and, hypothetically, say, “We will reduce income tax by x pence in the pound, and we will pay for it with an increase in national insurance.” The income tax rates in the Finance Bill will be in a separate clause, and that will then have to be determined by Mr Speaker and his office, but the national insurance increases will be in another part of the Bill that will not be subject to EVEL.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am loth to bring this up, but I am holding a copy of the Standing Orders of February 2016, which specifically mention the Scottish rate of income tax. That was already in the EVEL Standing Orders presented by the Leader of the House previously. This is just a technical change in the language. Has the hon. Gentleman read the Standing Order?

[Ian Murray]

It seems to me that SNP Members agree with English votes for English laws and do not want to defend the principle that we are against them, or they want to vote with the Government this evening, or they want to abstain. I am not quite sure what they are doing. However, if I heard the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire correctly, he is going to vote with the Labour party against the motion. I am not sure where the hon. Lady stands on that argument, but the point I am trying to make is simply about division and unnecessary complication in the House. The Government’s majority will see any Finance Bill that they wish to present before the next general election—whenever that may be—through the House, because that is the way in which Governments and majorities work. If the Government have a problem with their own Back Benchers when they are trying to change income tax rates, that is entirely fine.

The hon. Lady was right to raise the point that she has just made, but let me gently say to her that we wanted to debate this matter today because it is the first opportunity that we have had to return to the EVEL regulations. It does not make sense for it to be possible to invoke this procedure in the context of income tax.

That brings us to the great repeal Bill and what will come back from the European Union. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised that issue on a number of occasions. What will happen then? Will more technical changes be made by means of statutory instruments and Standing Orders to determine whether provisions are subject to English votes for English laws? We do not even know where some of the powers will lie when they are repatriated. It is important to note that none of these issues were examined in depth at the time of the McKay commission’s proposals. There was no consideration of the impact and the knock-on effect of the provisions on the way in which the House operates.

On four separate occasions, under the premiership of Gordon Brown, the Scottish National party asked for English votes for English laws. In fact, they used the term “EVEL”. Then, after 2015—I do not know what happened in 2015; they must have won more seats—SNP Members became opposed to English votes for English laws. Now they are reluctantly voting against this measure. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire just said that he profoundly disagreed with it as a matter of principle, but was not sure whether he would vote against it. He seemed to be saying that these were merely technical changes.

On top of all that, the greatest anomaly in all the regulations, including the one that is before us now, is that even when the hon. Gentleman has sprung up in that strange Committee where the Mace goes down, Madam Deputy Speaker moves to the Chair to take the proceedings and no one speaks, and when he has—invariably, and quite rightly—railed against English votes for English laws, SNP Members do not vote when they are allowed to do so, on Third Reading. They are, in practice, demonstrating English votes for English laws in any event.

I remember the circumstances surrounding the housing Bill where the EVEL provisions were put in place for the first time in this House. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly railed against EVEL, and we supported him on that, but then the SNP Members did not vote on the Third Reading of the Bill in any case, when they were entitled to, so I am not quite sure where the principles of that lie, or whether or not the hon. Gentleman should have been voting on the housing Bill.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Of course we support the principle of English votes for English laws and its ultimate logical conclusion of independence, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a difference between supporting that concept in principle and this dog’s breakfast of Standing Orders that were brought forward in such a rush after 2015? It is these procedures that we have an issue with, not the principle of English votes for English laws.

[Ian Murray]

And that is quite right: it is a dog’s breakfast, which is why I am so surprised that the hon. Gentleman’s spokesperson on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not rail against this particular dog’s breakfast, but instead welcomed this technical change and is not quite sure whether he will vote for it or against it or abstain on it this evening. If it is a dog’s breakfast and a matter of principle, let us try to fight these changes at every possible turn, of which this is a great and ideal opportunity in this House this evening.

I will conclude by saying what the alternative is for the Government. Let us take away all these changes to Standing Orders—the mess that the Leader of the House is making of the constitution—and get to a point whereby we have a set of constitutional arrangements in this House that work for the UK. We have called for a constitutional convention that would look at all these issues—the House of Lords and everything we do in terms of the constitution—and do it through a sensible and pragmatic approach, where we can look at everything in the round and come out with something the public want. It is time we started bringing the country together: no more division, no more separating different classes of MPs, no more bringing Standing Orders to this House that merely set one MP off against another. Let us work together to try and find a set of circumstances that work for the entirety of this House. It seems to me that when this Conservative Government talk about taking back control, they are not talking about taking back control to the people of this country; they are talking about taking back control for themselves, and that is the principle behind all these English votes for English laws.

This is a dog’s breakfast and it does not work, as has been highlighted time and again in this House. It is a waste of this House’s time to have to go through the process of a Committee to address whether or not we have English votes for English laws. It is inelegant and we will be voting against this this evening, to send a strong message that we as Members of Parliament are all one in this House, and the Government must go back and think again about what they are doing to the procedures in this famous House of Commons.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we proceed further, I can say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), in the light of his business question, that before I came into the Chamber this morning I selected his proposed subject matter for the end-of-day Adjournment debate on the first Thursday after we return from the half-term recess, Thursday 23 February.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Leader of the House himself—perhaps he could do it now—on how the Government bring forward Bills to this House? The fact that they did not programme a Report stage for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill makes it quite clear that they had no intention of accepting any of the 100 amendments that were tabled by well-intentioned Members. May we have a statement on whether it was indeed the Government’s intention to ride roughshod over this parliamentary process, making the past three days a sham?

[Mr Lidington]

The programme motion was very clear that there was provision for a Report stage. Whether there would be debating time for one would, as always, depend on whether amendments had been carried and on how long the House wished to continue to debate the amendments in Committee ahead of a Report stage.

Business of the House

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In this place we should never underestimate the affection that millions of our constituents have for their pets, and the important therapeutic role that pets often play by giving people companionship who might otherwise be at risk of great loneliness. I will refer his request to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but in the meantime my hon. Friend might want to pursue opportunities to highlight his concerns through the Backbench Business Committee or an Adjournment debate.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to join me in congratulating Professor Peter Mathieson, who has just been appointed the new principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, and also pay tribute to Tim O’Shea, who has kept it in the top 20 of the world’s universities. Will the Leader of the House use the time for debate on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill next week to look seriously at the Labour party’s new clause 6, which could give Professor Mathieson a real boost in his new principalship at Edinburgh University, by saying that EU nationals can not only stay and work here, but are very welcome?