Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Let me first join the Secretary of State in wishing Rangers football club all the very best in Seville tonight—although I wish them no luck whatsoever for the Scottish cup final on Saturday, when they will play the famous Heart of Midlothian FC.

The Cabinet was asked for ideas on how to deal with the cost of living crisis. So far, we have had “Take on more hours”, “Get a better job”, “MOT your car every two years”, “Buy supermarket branded food”, and even “Learn to cook”, but all that the Chancellor has delivered is “Give taxpayers a loan of their own money to pay their bills.” Although oil and gas company profits are more than the combined increase in everyone’s energy bills, the Government are rejecting Labour’s plan to give all households up to £600 off their energy bills with a one-off windfall tax on those profits. Can the Minister tell us what the Scotland Office team’s contribution has been to these ideas, and which of those ludicrous ideas he favours the most?

[Iain Stewart]

I should begin by saying to the hon. Gentleman that the colour of my tie in no way diminishes my support for Rangers in Seville tonight.

As I have said, the Chancellor has already announced £22 billion of support. That includes 5p off a litre of fuel, £150 council tax rebates, and the hardship fund for local authorities, which gives support to the families experiencing the most difficulties. We have made it clear that the windfall tax to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not a simple solution to every problem—we have to think carefully about what it would mean for investment and jobs, and for our transition to clean energy—and the Chancellor made it clear yesterday that he wants the oil and gas companies to invest their profits in those schemes, and if they do not do so, no option is off the table.

[Ian Murray]

That is simply not good enough from this Government. Inflation is at a 40-year high, but in reality, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies this morning, it is much higher for most families. There is the weekly shop, the energy bill, petrol for the car, and taxes all rising to the extent that 150,000 more Scots cannot pay their bills, and today—in 2022—too many children are going to bed hungry or cold or both. The Chancellor keeps saying that he “stands ready to act”, but refuses to deliver an emergency Budget. His actions so far have raised taxes to their highest level in 70 years and dropped living standards by the largest amount since the 1950s.

Scotland has two Governments making decisions that are compounding the cost of living crisis. Can the Minister tell us what he is doing to get the Chancellor to act, if he is not acting now?

[Iain Stewart]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the inflationary pressures are global, resulting from the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and other global supply chain problems. This is not an issue unique to the United Kingdom. I have already said that the Chancellor has delivered £22 billion of support for the people of this country; he is keeping a very close eye on the situation, and will intervene where necessary. I should also draw attention to his record during the pandemic, when he stepped in at the right points to support those people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to join me in welcoming Dr Riches, who is watching our proceedings today. She is from the Royal Society and she is shadowing me as part of a pairing scheme. She is very welcome.

Holyrood unanimously approved a legislative consent motion for the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, which included an amendment from my Labour colleague Michael Marra urging the UK Government to remove a provision that would require ownership of land only from 2014 to be registered in Scotland registered, when the requirement is from 2004 in England. So if someone has laundered Putin’s dirty money in Scotland before 2014, they are in the clear. For example, Perthshire’s Aberuchill castle was bought by the Russian steel magnate Vladimir Lisin for over £5 million in 2005. He has been on the Treasury’s watchlist since 2008, but he is not covered. Vladimir Romanov, who bought Heart of Midlothian football club along with swathes of central Edinburgh, is allegedly hiding in Moscow under the protection of Putin. He would not be covered either, but both of them would be covered in England. Does the Secretary of State think that is right? What is he doing to implement the LCM amendment to sort this smugglers’ cove in Scotland?

[Mr Jack]

I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the Royal Society pairs who are in London. I also thank the Labour party for its support for the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill—it is hugely appreciated.

On the registration of property, England and Wales changed the rules for transparency of ownership in 1999, but in Scotland they were changed in 2014. The problem we have is that, if we go back before 2014, there is a risk that third parties who did not know they were engaging with an overseas entity that was non-compliant could be hurt. That hurt would be for something they were engaged in unwillingly, and we must protect those third parties. That is the reason why we have not gone back before 2014, and the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which reviewed the draft legislation, agreed with that, but I have every sympathy with the points the hon. Gentleman makes.

[Ian Murray]

I am sure that anomaly could be sorted to ensure that we do not hurt unsuspecting third parties. One of the most important ways to clamp down on illicit Russian money and influence in the UK is through the reform of Companies House. Despite Labour’s attempts, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 does not contain such reforms, but they are important, because Scottish limited partnerships, which were set up for Scottish farmers in the 19th century, remain an outdated and opaque vehicle of ownership that is used in the 21st century to obscure beneficial ownership. There is widespread support for that change, but the Government refused to act. Will the Secretary of State commit now to reforming Scottish limited partnerships and wider company law so that we can see who actually owns the companies and shut down those laundering loopholes?

Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance and Information- Sharing) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2022

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 General Committees

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees.

We will not divide the Committee on this order; we fully agree with it. We have continued frustrations that such provisions, which are transferred under the 2016 Act and the subsequent legislation, are taking a long time to get through.

I have some questions for the Minister. There is interaction between the new Scottish systems and existing UK infrastructure, including in respect of the DWP and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—I am sure the Minister’s inbox is as full as mine with messages from constituents who have problems and are struggling to get a response from the DVLA—so how do we ensure the seamless transition of the benefit? Even more importantly, how do we ensure seamless passporting to other benefits and other attachments to the new benefit?

How do we ensure that people who are on PIP in particular are aware of the different timescales for when people can apply and of who to apply to? There is no doubt that the DWP system is, by its very nature, incredibly complicated—we see from the experience of our constituents who apply for PIP and other benefits how complicated the process can be—so what support will be put in place to ensure the seamless transition from previous benefits to the new benefits administered in Scotland? How can we ensure there are no delays in the process? Personal independence payments go to some of the most vulnerable people in the country so we would not want things to be delayed.

If I was being slightly playful at this time in the morning, I would have asked the Minister to emphasise the fact that if someone moves from Scotland to another part of the UK, the Scottish Government will continue to pay for 13 weeks, and to comment on how that would relate to pensions in an independent Scotland, but I shall not push him on that today. Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow East could enlighten us when he makes his contribution for the SNP.

I have asked several questions but we will not divide the Committee. It is great that orders such as this are now coming through and that powers are being transferred, as set out in the 2016 Act and promised after the Smith commission. We fully support the Government in respect of this order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and particularly to the hon. Members for Edinburgh South and for Glasgow East for indicating their support for the measure. They and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley all raised perfectly fair questions, which I will endeavour to answer.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South asked about the transition process. Initially, there will be a pilot scheme for new claimants only in three parts of Scotland—Dundee, Perth and Kinross, and the Western Isles—before existing claimants are gradually transitioned over later in the year, so there will not be a cliff-edge or big-bang transition. I hope that will allay the hon. Member’s perfectly valid concerns about ensuring, as he rightly said, that the most vulnerable people in society are not disadvantaged.

It is very tempting at this hour of the morning to enter into a broader constitutional debate, but I am not sure my Whip would be particularly accommodating of that. In the same spirit, I will not rise to the bait of some of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East. I am sure there will be plenty other occasions in the weeks, months, years and decades ahead—

[Ian Murray]

In the generations ahead.

[Iain Stewart]

Generations, indeed. I am sure we will return to these matters.

I should also say that such things are complex to transition, and we have been co-operating with the Scottish Government to ensure that it can happen in their desired timescale, with the pilots starting later this month. I also pay tribute to officials from both the DWP and the Scottish Government for doing the detailed preparatory work to ensure that this change can happen.

Finally, on the sensible questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, the situation does apply both ways. If a person in England claims PIP or one of the other benefits and moves to Scotland, the DWP would look to ensure that they had an equivalent transition period. The 13 weeks is a safety net, and applications can be made in advance. It is there to ensure that payments can continue if there is some delay, so that no one is disadvantaged.

On my hon. Friend’s further sensible point about whether the matter would need to be revisited if the Scottish Government chose to change the adult disability payment so that it did not capture broadly the same cohort as PIP, that is not the case at the moment. The definition of eligibility is very similar, and the quantum of payment is broadly similar. Until that diverges significantly—I have no crystal ball to see whether it will—the current carry-over remains sensible. Of course, we will always keep things under review to ensure we were not missing anyone out. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

This order is a sensible and pragmatic move on the UK Government’s part to make devolution work and reflects strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I am pleased to say that, after a lot of initial opposition and resistance, we are close to agreeing two freeports with the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend is a great champion for Wales, and I hope that the Welsh Government will also accept a freeport.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Sue Gray report released on Monday was utterly damning about the Prime Minister’s conduct, yet the Secretary of State continues to back him against the wishes of his own Scottish Conservative leader, who I notice is not in the Chamber for Scottish questions. We now know that the Metropolitan police are investigating no fewer than 12 incidents in Downing Street, with more allegations every day. It is little wonder then that a recent poll found that the Prime Minister is as unpopular in Scotland as Alex Salmond. Does the Secretary of State think that the Prime Minister, in refusing to do the decent thing and resign, is good for the Union or helps those who want to break it up?

[Mr Jack]

The Prime Minister is resolute in opposing a second Scottish independence referendum and therefore very good for the Union.

[Ian Murray]

What is Groundhog day, Mr Speaker, is the Secretary of State’s defence of this broken Prime Minister.

Tomorrow, the Bank of England is projected to raise interest rates, and inflation is running at a 30-year high. There will be much anxiety in Scottish households that Ofgem will announce the raising of the energy price cap, leading to a massive hike in bills. Last night, my colleagues and I voted to give every single Scottish household support towards the cost of their spiralling energy bills. Under Labour’s fully costed plans, we would save every Scottish household £200 and save £600 for over 800,000 Scottish households hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. That is proper action on this crisis for those both on and off the grid, like many thousands in the Secretary of State’s constituency. Given that the SNP did not back these plans in the vote last night either, why are Scotland’s two Governments refusing to take any action whatsoever to help Scots with spiralling energy costs?

[Mr Jack]

The UK Government are taking action. The energy price cap is being maintained and will be renegotiated—that is ongoing work for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We are providing a £140 rebate on energy bills for 2.2 million households with the lowest incomes, and we have the £300 winter fuel payment for pensioners.

Draft Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 General Committees

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I thank the Minister for presenting the statutory instrument. It is not a controversial SI for us at all, but I have a couple of questions for him.

When this measure was going through the Scottish Parliament, it was very consensual; many Opposition amendments were carried by Parliament. We tried to balance the rights of someone who would under this SI be underage, but would still be part of the criminal justice system as a result of serious offences that could be harmful to our communities.

However, it has taken so long for the instrument to come here—long enough for two independence referendum Bills to go through the Scottish Parliament —that meanwhile the UN convention on the rights of the child has recommended that the age of criminal responsibility be increased from 12 to 14. I believe the Scottish Government have indicated that they wish to increase the age from 12 to 14 as well. Have there been any discussions about that, so that this time the rules do not change again before the consequential amendments are made in this place?

Also, has there been any indication about the working between the Scottish Government, the UK Government, the Police Federation and the police authorities? There has been some consternation, particularly with regard to the Scottish Police Federation, about the operation of the order and ensuring the protection of not only children but our communities when criminal justice matters are brought before them.

As I said, we will not oppose the order and we very much welcome it. We wish it had happened significantly quicker: many people who would have been caught by it are now too old to be covered—unless the age is increased to 14, as is the Scottish Government’s wish.

Draft Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2021

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 General Committees

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be in a Committee with you in the Chair for the first time, Ms Fovargue. Labour does not oppose this rather complex draft order—I was trying to keep up with all the abbreviations, and I will not ask him to read them out again. However, I do have several important questions to pose to the Minister.

First, the draft order obviously defines the environmental authorisations framework for radioactive substances, but will the Minister confirm whether the 2014 White Paper on independence falls under “radioactive substances”?

Secondly, and more seriously, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency experienced a major cyber-attack last year, with its chief executive saying it will take many years for it to recover. Will the Minister assure me that both Governments are working together to ensure that SEPA can fully recover, because it will obviously take responsibility for these important regulations north of the border?

Finally—this is not directly related to the draft order, but it is important because the Minister did talk about dangers and mentioned Euratom—what work is ongoing following SEPA’s announcement that it would take no action temporarily if there is a non-compliance issue that related to EU exit or covid-19? Will he update the Committee on what action the Government are taking to ensure that that is very much temporary and that any occurrences of non-compliance with the regulations, rare though they may be, will be dealt with rather harshly?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I recall that, in a previous exchange, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had suffered some personal family losses as a result of the pandemic, and I again extend my sympathy to him. He raises an important question. I am pretty certain that those matters will be covered by the inquiry. As I say, the discussions to establish its remit and processes are under way. The issue of care homes in Scotland is, of course, a devolved matter for the Scottish Government, but we want this inquiry to be as wide-ranging as possible so that we learn the lessons from the pandemic.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Stevie Clarke and the whole Scotland team on cheering up a nation over the past 10 days or so. As we said in the 1970s, we had a dream. That dream died, unfortunately, last night, and it will now have to wait until Qatar next year for the World cup.

In recent weeks we have heard scathing criticisms from the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser about the UK Government’s covid response, which has no doubt cost many lives. We have even learned that the PM described his Health Secretary as “hopeless”. Most recently, their dither and delay in securing the borders of the UK has resulted in restrictions continuing beyond the initial date. Sadly, the people of Scotland have also been failed by the choices of the Scottish Government. We know from a recent freedom of information reply that the Scottish chief medical officer advised the Scottish Government to say nothing at all in response to the Edinburgh Nike conference outbreak last March. The Scottish public were kept in the dark. These are just some of the major issues, which include the two we have heard about from my hon. Friends this morning. Will the Government agree with calls for an urgent separate Scottish judge-led public inquiry into both Governments’ management of covid-19 in Scotland so that we can learn the lessons of covid and the grieving families can get the answers they so deserve?

[Iain Stewart]

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the tartan army, my experience is that while the spirit is often tested it is never broken, and I am sure it will sustain.

I do not think that, at this stage certainly, there is a need for a separate inquiry. We are still at the very early stages of establishing the remit of the UK-wide inquiry, which will cover both reserved and devolved matters. It is important that that inquiry looks at all aspects of the situation. We should also remind ourselves that this is an unprecedented challenge that Governments right across the world have faced. Inevitably, with the benefit of hindsight, different decisions would have been made. We are learning all the time. I do not necessarily accept some of the charges that the hon. Gentleman has made—on borders, for example—but lessons are being learned all the time, and the right place for permanent lessons is from the wide-ranging inquiry that the Prime Minister has promised to set up.

[Ian Murray]

I am tempted to ask the Minister if he has ever filled any of London’s fountains with Fairy liquid, but that can maybe be kept for private discussion. [Interruption.] Exactly—only for cleansing purposes.

One of the most frustrating elements for many people is the inconsistency of the decisions that have been made. Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has rightly criticised the First Minister both for mimicking the arrogance of the Prime Minister by failing to contact the Manchester authorities before announcing a travel ban and for its inconsistencies. Cases remain lower than they are in Dundee, yet Dundonians can travel all over Scotland while those living in Bolton, for example, are effectively banned from travelling to Scotland at all.

These varying decisions are having a devastating impact on key sectors. Take the wedding sector, for example. Yesterday I was contacted by a constituent whose wedding in Edinburgh is limited to 50 guests but will travel to London the following week to a wedding where guests are unlimited, and she was at the Glasgow fan zone last week with 3,000 other supporters. She is deeply frustrated, and I am sure the Minister can understand her anger. So does he agree that any covid inquiry should examine the consequences that have resulted from the refusal of both Governments to work together?

[Iain Stewart]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that to the best of my knowledge I have never filled any fountain anywhere with any domestic cleaning product.

Turning to the important points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, the issue between the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the First Minister is clearly not satisfactory, and I would urge them both to come to a very sensible arrangement to allow travel to resume between Scotland and Greater Manchester. The two Governments do work closely together. There are several meetings a week, whether between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the First Minister or the Health Secretary and his counterparts, to discuss all these arrangements. At the end of the day, the Scottish Government have the ability to make their own decisions, but a lot of them are co-ordinated—particularly, at the moment, on the travel corridors. Of course we constantly look at all these decisions and have to make often snap judgments in the face of new evidence, but we do so in a way of co-operation as far as is possible.

Draft UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 General Committees

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dame Angela—that is something that I have wanted to say publicly for some time. It is great to see you in the Chair. I thank the Minister for his presentation of the order.

The order is about devolving more powers to Scotland post Brexit, so I am very surprised that there are no Scottish National party Members here to celebrate that. It is a great disappointment to me; I thought that they would be here in their throngs congratulating the Minister on what the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) used to describe as a bonanza of powers going to the Scottish Government.

The Opposition supported the order when it was considered both in the House and in the Scottish Parliament, but I have a number of questions. One of the key things for the ESS is to ensure that the laws that the EU used to impose on the country for the benefit of environmental protection are the minimum standard in the future and not the ceiling under which standards can be reduced. The Minister is right that Scotland has a rich environmental heritage that must be protected and enhanced, and the ESS must ensure that. Of course, we also have COP26 coming up in Glasgow, which will probably be the last opportunity for the planet to be saved when major leaders come together to reach not just agreement and targets, but action points. Would it not be great if the lexicon of environmental and climate change vocabulary included not just Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris but Glasgow, which became the byword for climate change? We must ensure that.

One of the big questions for the Minister relates to governance. We know what happens in the Scottish context—no one would shy away from saying this publicly—in that the ESS is appointed by Scottish Ministers and funded by the Scottish Government, so how can we ensure that it has proper independence to follow through on the big actions and responsibilities required of it?

When the order was debated in the Scottish Parliament, the Labour Opposition tabled an amendment to give the ESS some teeth so that it could sanction those responsible when environmental protections and standards fail or regulations are thwarted by activities. The SNP and Conservatives came together to vote that amendment down for some reason, so what can the Minister possibly furnish us with as reassurance that the ESS will have some teeth to ensure that it can do its job properly?

The Minister reeled off the statutory instruments enacted under the Scotland Act 1998 Act and the list of laws and regulations that are made as a result, but in a post Brexit environment, we need to get both Governments not just to work together but to reach a more settled devolution arrangement across the country. In that way, both Governments can then work together for the benefit of the Scottish people and bodies such as the ESS can do the good job that it needs to do to protect Scotland’s environment and natural heritage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Just once, on something as important as live-saving vaccines, it would be nice to see the First Minister congratulate the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government on our highly successful UK-wide vaccine procurement programme.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to everyone who is commemorating on International Workers’ Memorial Day today, and also to wish the Secretary of State a very happy Ed Balls Day, which is also today.

On “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, the First Minister admitted that there has been no analysis done on the impact of separation on incomes—that is wages, livelihoods and, of course, pensions. It follows a long list during this election campaign where the SNP has avoided answering questions on currency, EU accession, jobs, deficit, debt, public spending, the parallels with Brexit and, of course, the spectacle of senior SNP MSPs saying last week that a border with England would be “desirable” because it would create jobs—a rare honest admission about a border with our largest trading partner. For two days in a row, respected think-tanks have warned that leaving the UK and giving up our share of UK resources means supercharged austerity.

Surely one of the strongest positive cases for the Union is the reality of separation. If proponents of separation continue to refuse to answer critical questions that fundamentally impact on people’s livelihoods, incomes and futures, what can be done to inject some much-needed honesty, integrity and truth into this debate, for the benefit of all Scots?

[Mr Jack]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that independence would have a whole series of negative consequences for the people of Scotland, not just on their pensions and benefits but on currency, border issues and armed services. The list is endless. There has been no assessment of those things, as I said earlier.

This is the time when we should be coming together for covid recovery and to rebuild our economy, not even considering an irresponsible independence referendum. I would very much welcome it if the Labour party, and the other political parties, showed a willingness to come together to work on how we can strengthen our Union.

[Ian Murray]

Anas Sarwar has said throughout this campaign that we need to unite the country to deal with this global pandemic.

Talking of honesty, integrity and truth, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his “let the bodies pile high” comment, when so many have lost loved ones due to covid? There have been more than 800 deaths in my city of Edinburgh alone. While he is apologising, perhaps he can tell us, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, who funded the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. Does he think the endemic sleaze in his Government, with continual questions about the personal conduct and integrity of the PM, strengthens or weakens the Union?

Scottish Independence Referendum

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) who opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thought he gave an excellent and measured speech. He had spoken to the petitioners and expressed what they were trying to achieve by this debate, which just shows the breadth of what they were trying to do. I was quite shocked—really shocked—when he said that the petitioners wish to remain anonymous because they fear the consequences of speaking out. That is one of the main reasons we should not have another independence referendum. It is hugely divisive; businesses, charities and third-sector organisations feel they cannot speak out and make their voices heard. Members of the public cannot speak out. There is division in families and division in workplaces. It is really shocking that the petitioners feel as if they cannot put their name publicly to this kind of petition.

We have just had another debate in the House that is all about process with none of the answers. Last Wednesday in the House of Commons Chamber, we had seven hours of debate and no answers about the proposition being made. That is one of the major reasons why the debate has turned into a debate about process, rather than the actual issues. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), talked about “meaningfully engaging”. There is no meaningful engagement at all in this debate, because none of the big questions are answered.

Let me give an example, which will be recorded in Hansard from last Wednesday. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who opened the debate, was challenged about some big questions on currency, the EU, borders, debts and the deficit—the list is pretty endless. He said there was no need to answer those questions at the moment, because they would all be addressed when an independence referendum is actually held. However, just two speakers from the SNP Benches later, we had a detailed analysis of how an independent Scotland’s asylum policy would operate. On the one hand, we have answers. On the other hand, we do not. I suspect that that is because the answers to the big questions are not forthcoming.

We have heard a number of times today, including from the petitioners and from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, that the Scottish Government could be not only answering a whole number of questions but looking at a whole number of really important policies for the Scottish people. My hon. Friend talked about food poverty, about energy poverty and about the education system catching up—is it not strange that for the first time in its history the Scottish education system is plummeting down the international rankings and we have heard nothing about that?

That is all at a time when the Scottish Government are using precious Scottish Government time in Parliament —just 24 hours before Parliament’s last full day—to introduce another referendum Bill. Not a Bill on educational attainment or food poverty. Not a Bill to ensure that the 220 people who were queued up in the snow and sub-zero temperatures in George Square are fed and given a home. It is not a Bill on poverty, or on how we grow businesses. It is not a Bill on any of those things, but a Bill to have another referendum. That is the only priority that the Scottish National party has and it is paralysing our politics. It is paralysing our Parliament and, as we have heard from the petitioners, it is poisoning our national discourse. Where is the debate about a fairer society? Where is the debate about some of these big questions?

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) spoke inaccurately, I think, when he tried to muddy the line between patriotism and nationalism. It is as if someone who is not a nationalist is not a patriot. That surely cannot be the case. We are all patriotic about our country, but it is possible to be a patriot and celebrate everything that is Scottish—I certainly do— without being a nationalist. Blurring that line is incredibly dangerous. The hon. Gentleman also talked eloquently, and he was right, about the damage that leaving the EU is doing to Scotland and the rest of the country. However, he did not spend any time telling us what the SNP’s plan would be for getting back into the EU. It is contradictory and impossible to deliver, and that is not being honest with the Scottish people.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) rightly challenged the SNP on the rewriting of history, which is really the only tool in its box at the moment: speaking about things that did not happen, making assertions about what other people have said and what the Scottish Parliament is for, and making the huge assertion that the SNP’s voice is the voice of the Scottish people. It is not. The Scottish people is much wider than that. I certainly would not suggest that I could speak on behalf of all the Scottish people. The SNP should not do so either.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) said no one was talking about a referendum at any time soon. Well, no one apart from the First Minister—and the Cabinet Secretary responsible for it, Mike Russell, and the SNP leader at Westminster, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). They have all talked about a potential independence referendum this year. Can you imagine, when most Scots are thinking about their jobs, worried about their livelihoods and concerned about their health and that of their family, friends and colleagues as we come out of probably the most serious economic and health crisis the country has seen in peacetime, going straight into an independence referendum? Here is a little bit of a conundrum for the Members who have said, “We are not talking about having it this year; we will wait until covid is over, because it would be too difficult at this time to have this big debate and get people to the polls while there is a pandemic on”—apart from the fact that there is a Scottish election on 6 May, with people going to the polls. That is more contradictory stuff from the Scottish National party.

We heard from the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). It is wonderful to see the screens in the new hybrid situation, because while he was talking about his Scottish heritage, and his pride in it, there were SNP Members shaking their heads. The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) shook his head as if that point could not legitimately be allowed to be made, because the hon. Gentleman is not living in Scotland and represents Darlington. He has every right to celebrate his Scottish heritage. We should all celebrate it with him. He is very welcome to tell us that he wants Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom because it is part of him, and of his family’s history. It is wonderful to see people’s reactions on the screen when such points are made, because it is clear that the issue is very much about being anti the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than about a proper argument. The hon. Member for Angus also said that the debate shows the worst of Westminster. The debate was called by the public. There is a Petitions Committee, and if a petition gets the relevant number of signatures a debate can be held. That is why the debate is happening.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) talked of sovereignty. He talked very much about the Smith commission and other issues like that. He is right to assert that the Scottish Parliament is not one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. Why not? Because the powers it has are not being used. It has the potential to be the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. It could use the social security powers that SNP Members seem to think it does not have. Sections 25 to 27 of the Scotland Act 2016, which came out of the cross-party Smith commission, mean that Scotland can essentially design its own social security system. What did the SNP Scottish Government do? They handed all the powers back to Westminster until at least 2024—eight years after the commission document was signed. Using the powers of the Scottish Parliament would make it one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. Not using them means it is possible to sit back and say, “We have no powers, and it is everyone else’s fault.”

We need to concentrate now on a national covid recovery plan. We need an NHS recovery. All those people who have missed out on treatments for cancer and other illnesses need to get their treatments and diagnoses. We need that to be at the forefront of everything we do post the next election. We need an education catch-up for all the kids that have been left behind. The education system, and the NHS, were in a poor place before the pandemic and are in an even worse place now. We need a jobs and business recovery. Scotland’s economy was in a bad place before the pandemic and is in an even worse place now. We need a climate recovery. All those wonderful climate targets that the Scottish Government set—it is great to set targets—will not be met. We were in a dreadful place with regard to climate targets before the pandemic, and we are in an even worse place now. We need a community recovery; we have a housing crisis and local services starved of cash, with billions taken from local council budgets. That was in a bad place before the pandemic, so we need a recovery now.

On what the Scottish Labour party wants to do, I can read from the speech of the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He talked about Scotland in a modern United Kingdom and the process of devolution going forward. There does not have to be a binary choice between the broken status quo and separation. There is another way that it can be done. This is about looking at the United Kingdom, at a post-Brexit Britain and at how it manages itself. On the consequences of independence and another referendum, he said that that is why the First Minister’s

“call for an independence referendum in the…next Scottish Parliament—perhaps even next year”—

this was in December—

“is so misguided. Given the damage and division this would cause”,

particularly during a pandemic,

“no responsible First Minister should contemplate it—and no responsible Prime Minister would grant it.”

Those are the words of the leader of the Labour party, and the new leader of the Scottish Labour party, Anas Sarwar, has been pretty clear that we will go into the 6 May election saying that we are setting aside every single bit of constitutional division to unite our country and put forward a national covid recovery plan to ensure that people do not need to worry about their health, their jobs or their livelihoods. Post the election in May their Scottish Government will have that as their sole focus.