Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The benefits of the Union go way beyond public spending. The strength and size of the UK economy creates opportunities for Scottish businesses, and around 60% of Scotland’s exports currently go to the rest of the UK. That is more than she trades with the rest of the world.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Health and Social Care have confirmed that the Government will break the law by overriding the Northern Ireland protocol. That would mean reneging on the withdrawal agreement—an agreement that the Prime Minister himself negotiated, brought to this House, voted for, ratified and campaigned on at the general election. This reckless move reignites the prospect of us crashing out of the European Union with no deal. The Prime Minister promised the British people an oven-ready deal. It now looks like an oven-ready no-deal. The Secretary of State himself has said previously that a no-deal outcome would “create damaging uncertainty” for the country and that he would never vote for anything that threatened or undermined the integrity of our United Kingdom. Does he think that reneging on an international treaty, breaking their promise on a deal and putting no-deal firmly back on the table strengthens or weakens the Union?

[Mr Jack]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his partner on the birth of their baby daughter, Zola, which is why he is currently on paternity leave.

I hope that I face even questions such as that from the hon. Gentleman for some time to come, because he is honourable, which is a lot more than can be said for many in his party—the hard left of his party—who have sought to smear and undermine him in recent days. In answer to his question, we absolutely do want a deal. We are in serious negotiations again this week because we want to get a deal, and that is our intention, but the withdrawal agreement was written on the basis that subsequent agreements could be reached through the Joint Committee, and that Joint Committee process is ongoing and we are committed to it. None the less, in the event that it cannot deal with any adverse implications for the Good Friday agreement, it is important that we have a position that creates a safety net to uphold our commitments to the members of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

We do need to speed up.

[Ian Murray]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind words about Zola, and if his Government could legislate for a minimum of six hours’ sleep for new parents, I certainly would be the first person in the Aye Lobby to support them.

The Secretary of State’s Conservative colleague and prominent constitutional expert, Adam Tomkins MSP, his own—now resigned—most senior Government lawyer and many on his own Back Benches disagree with him. He must surely realise that the UK Government’s recklessness only benefits those who want to break up the UK and the consequences of breaking up the UK would be dire for all of our constituents. As has already been mentioned, the Scottish Government’s own figures last week showed that the UK dividend to Scotland is an extra £15 billion a year—the entire budget of the Scottish NHS. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the focus of both the Scottish and UK Governments must be to protect public health, invest in our economy, and secure jobs and not to continue with this endless paralysing constitutional division?

[Mr Jack]

Well, Mr Speaker, as you have asked me to be brief, I shall answer that question with a firm yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State for the first of his two questions from the Front Bench.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker; thank you very much indeed.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the February outbreak of covid-19 at an international Nike conference in central Edinburgh. In a catastrophic error of judgment, the Scottish Government decided that the Scottish public would not be informed, despite that being contrary to Scottish public health legislation. The public could have helped with the tracing and used their own common sense, as the Prime Minister has said, to make choices about attending large events and gatherings. A BBC documentary reported that a lockdown then could have saved 2,000 Scottish lives. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the UK Government were informed; why the public were not told, given the subsequent disinfecting and closure of Nike outlets all over the UK; and how many UK lives could have been saved as a result?

[Mr Jack]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his rightful place on the Opposition Front Bench. I fear he spent far too long in the wilderness that was the previous regime’s Back Benches. That said, I must pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who I am pleased is making good progress in recovering from a very nasty bout of coronavirus.

On the shadow Secretary of State’s question, I believe that maximum transparency is important when it comes to matters of public health, because it is important that we treat the public as adults. To that end, I wish to make it clear that the Scottish Government informed Public Health England—an agency, as Members know—of one case of covid-19 on 2 March and two further cases on 4 March. I should also make it absolutely clear at the Dispatch Box that the chief medical officers of the four nations agreed, before there were any confirmed cases, that each Administration would announce their own cases and take their own decisions about what was appropriate to release and when they released it, so it is a matter for the Scottish Government and how they handled it.

[Ian Murray]

I accept that response from the Secretary of State, but the UK Government did have a responsibility, given that Nike outlets across the United Kingdom were closed and disinfected.

I thank the Secretary of State for his welcome and for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), whom I spoke to shortly after being appointed; he is back and fit, with his old sense of humour—he has not lost that, thankfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and I will work closely with the Government when they agree with us, but we will be a ferocious Opposition when we disagree. We should work collaboratively when we agree, but we will be ferocious when we do not.

In advance of a vaccine, the only way to ease lockdown measures is to test, trace, track and isolate. The key to that process is mass testing. Given that the UK Government consistently fail to hit their 100,000 a day target, and Scotland has one of the worst testing rates in the whole world, we need mobilisation of both Governments to have testing centres everywhere—mobile, workplace, home testing, in airports and so on—to make this strategy work. A “go it alone” policy, encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clumsy announcements, is counterproductive. What work is going on across both Governments to ensure not only that the capacity of testing is exponentially increased, but that there is a system in place for effectively testing and retesting the majority of the population, starting in our care homes?

[Mr Jack]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The testing capacity in Scotland is 12,000 tests a day. On Monday, they only used 4,559 of those. That is a matter for the Scottish Government, because health is devolved, and they determine what tests are undertaken. I want to make it clear that the UK Government have funded for the Scottish Government five operating drive-through test centres in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Perth. The Ministry of Defence is operating 30 pop-up units across Scotland. Again, they can go at the behest of the Scottish Government. There is plenty of capacity there. It is not being used. It should have been used more in care homes; I agree with him on that. There is a firm line between the Scottish Government being cautious and being slow, when in fact, they could be less cautious about easing the lockdown if they had been a lot quicker on testing.

Constitutional Law

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his warm welcome at the Dispatch Box. I would rather that we were debating the debacle of Scottish football today, given his experience, which I am sure would be more amenable to our constituents. Perhaps we will get to one of those debates in future when we are back to normal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and I appreciate the Minister’s warm welcome and his words about my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who had a very serious bout of coronavirus. He is now out of hospital and I have spoken to him. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he has not lost any of his dry wit and sense of humour. We look forward to him being back in this place as quickly as possible.

I also thank the Minister’s wife. I had not realised that she was a serving police officer. I thank her and her colleagues for all that they are doing to keep us safe during the crisis, and not just during the crisis; police and other support staff keep us safe at all times, across not just Scotland but the rest of the UK.

We will work constructively with the Minister, his team and the Secretary of State when they agree with us and we will be a ferocious Opposition when they do not. We will work genuinely constructively when it is in the interest of the people of Scotland, but we will certainly scrutinise and hold both Governments to account for their decisions, because that is what they get paid for.

There is no disagreement this afternoon with regard to the order, which facilitates the retribution orders that the Scottish Government have put in place. It is disappointing that it has taken a bit of time to get here, but there is no better time than now to reassess how we punish those who assault our police officers physically, mentally or, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, by spitting during the coronavirus pandemic. It is time to get the legislation in place.

Retribution orders are useful tools for punishment and deterrence, and the fund that is developed is there for victims in the police service, and other associated people within the police, to seek retribution and have support. It is right for them to get that. We wish only that we did not have to have that kind of support for our police personnel, but we do, and we hope that it will reduce over the years.

It is also important, at this time, to look at the people who might be given a retribution order and how the legislation might affect them. There has been a massive increase in the uptake of universal credit. The unemployment figures released today are not a surprise, but will be a concern to us all. For people in receipt of a retribution order, this order will allow the retribution order to be deducted from their benefits.

I have big questions to ask the Minister with regard to that. How will he ensure the affordability of those orders for benefit claimants, particularly when people are stretched, so that they will not be made destitute by them? Figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions last year revealed that a quarter of a million people across the UK had been sanctioned on universal credit, and 5% of those had been sanctioned for longer than six months.

Can we be sure that any deductions from benefits will be taken into account if someone is sanctioned, in order for them and their families not to be put into destitution? That does not in any way dilute the seriousness of why they were given a retribution order, but it is important that it does not put families into destitution. How can the Minister and the Secretary of State ensure that any changes in legislation at the Scottish Government level are analysed and assessed on the basis of how the order will now work, if people are having deductions from their benefits and pay?

As I said, we do not disagree with the order. Ultimately, compensation for the victims of any crime goes further than its simple monetary value, particularly for crimes of assault on police officers. It can be of great significance as a real recognition of the crime that has been committed against the victim, as well as acknowledging the suffering as a result of any offence. Therefore, this is a necessary statutory instrument that will allow the justice system to work for victims by allowing them to see that the perpetrator’s actions have serious consequences, and will play an important role in victims’ recovery. We are therefore happy to support the order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

If the hon. Gentleman can bring forward details of any citizens who have tried to register but not succeeded in doing so, I will obviously look at that. There have been many campaigns to encourage people to register, and I particularly commend the Daily Record newspaper for its efforts in that regard.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is a big advocate of the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. If he has such great confidence in that deal, why does he not have confidence in the people and allow them to decide whether it is a deal that they want?

[David Mundell]

The people of Scotland made their decision in 2014; the people of the United Kingdom made their decision in 2016.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I am not going to give way. Sit down.

It is very fitting that the SNP is using our Opposition day on 4 July, Independence Day, to defend the interests, the rights and the will of the Scottish people.—[Interruption.] Listen, it may not be Independence Day to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), but I will tell him this: the way the Conservative party is treating Scotland, our independence day is coming and it is coming soon.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that Scotland’s independence is coming. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I tabled an amendment to his motion—unfortunately, it was not selected, but we understand why. I wonder whether he would agree with that amendment to the motion on the basis that the Scottish people did have a vote in 2014 and they agreed to stay in the United Kingdom.

[Ian Blackford]

As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Of course the people of Scotland voted in a referendum in 2014 and I say to him and others who put their name to the amendment that, yes, we would have accepted it had it been taken this afternoon.

The fundamental issue, as many people have said, is that, when the polls opened in Scotland on 18 September 2014, between the hours of 7 o’clock in the morning and 10 o’clock at night, the people of Scotland had sovereignty in their hands. The difference between SNP Members and the Conservatives is that we believe the Scottish people are always sovereign. In the light of the change in the facts and the circumstances—those being that Scotland voted to stay in the European Union by a decisive majority, and that the wishes and the rights of the Scottish people are being ignored by a Conservative Government who want to drive us out of Europe—it is perfectly right that the people of Scotland have the opportunity to demonstrate their sovereign will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).

At one minute past midnight this morning, the SNP Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), no doubt still up late celebrating England’s win in the World cup, tweeted: breaking news, this is the very first debate we will have in Parliament on the claim of right. He obviously forgot that he had a debate on the claim of right, in his very own name, on 9 September 2016 in Westminster Hall.

I agree with many colleagues across the House that I would rather be speaking here this evening on issues relevant to my constituents and my constituency. The dilution of local policing across Scotland is showing a crime spree of house breaking and car breaking in my constituency. There is a GP crisis in my constituency. People cannot sign up to GPs. They are on waiting lists and are being kicked out of surgeries. People are waiting up to two years for operations when they used to wait only 12 weeks. The train service is in meltdown and we have an economy the Secretary of State was right to say is sluggish.

After all the debates we have had since 2016, and everything in between, we still have no answers to the big questions about what an independent Scotland would look like. We have had a Growth Commission paper that is as big an act of fiction as the original White Paper. I agree with the claim of right. The shadow Secretary of State was right. Labour invented this process and drove it on back in the late 1980s. The late great Jimmy Hood, if he were still alive today, would be championing bringing back the Scottish constitutional convention so we could resolve some of these issues—wouldn’t that be a bundle of fun, with 50-odd Scottish MPs on that particular body?

The claim of right states:

“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government”.

The Scottish people have determined their own form of government. They determined to vote in 1997 for a Labour Government who promised to bring a referendum on a Scottish Parliament. They voted overwhelmingly to deliver that Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers in the yes-yes vote. In the ballot box since then, they have delivered their sovereign will in choosing what they want to be achieved in terms of Governments and what they want to happen. Interestingly, they also do this at the ballot box for local government elections and lots of other elections.

I get so frustrated about these kinds of debates because it is about the sovereign will of the Scottish people for the Scottish National party, but only when it suits. The sovereign will of the Scottish people was to deliver a Scottish Parliament and stay in the United Kingdom. It was also the sovereign will of the Scottish people to deliver a Scottish Parliament where the Scottish National party does not have a majority, and that Scottish Parliament—if it is the sovereign will of the Scottish people—has over the last few years voted against the Government on fracking, cuts to the national health service, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, council funding, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, failing educational standards and local government cuts. And what has the sovereign will of the Scottish people received in return? Nothing from the Scottish Parliament—disregard the Scottish parliamentary votes; these did not happen; turn the other way; do not implement the will of the Scottish Parliament, which is the will of the Scottish people.

Let me say why it is frustrating that it is about the sovereign will of the Scottish people only when it suits the SNP. Look at local government: it has been completely and utterly diminished, demoralised and demolished by significant cuts from the Scottish Government, who have passed on 9% or 10% grant cuts from this place and doubled and trebled them for local government.

[Stephen Kerr]

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the 11 years of the SNP Government of Edinburgh has created a highly centralised state? The power grab that has gone on in Scotland is a grab to the centre by the SNP Government.

[Ian Murray]

I am glad to have taken that intervention, because it goes to the point—[Interruption.] People can start shouting, “Better Together!”, but I am going to stand up for the people of Scotland and my constituency, because I disagree fundamentally with what the leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), said during his speech. He does not speak for the people of Scotland. We are entitled to have a different viewpoint. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is right, because this Chamber, when the Scotland Act 2016 was given its Third Reading and Royal Assent, delivered one of the most powerful Parliaments in the world, but it is the most centralist Parliament in the world. Local government no longer exists in Scotland. It is merely an administrative arm of the Scottish Government.

Look at what we have seen today. An SNP leader of the City of Edinburgh Council wants to be given the powers to deliver a tourist tax in Edinburgh that would help hard-pressed Edinburgh Council ratepayers with all the issues that they are currently going through, and the Cabinet Secretary slaps him down on Twitter and essentially says, “No.” Where is the sovereign will of the Edinburgh people who put Adam McVey in as leader of the council under the single transferable vote system? I do not want an SNP majority-led Edinburgh Council—I want a Labour majority-led council or a Labour council majority in a coalition—but that is what the people delivered. That is the sovereign will of the people who went to the ballot box. I think that we have to reflect—I say this very publicly—on what happened in Aberdeen, when voters went to the ballot box and delivered the numbers in Aberdeen to give us what we have there. There is an incredibly centralist Government and that is why it is the sovereign will of the Scottish people only when it suits.

Let me turn to what the sovereign will of the Scottish people is actually delivering. Again, that only suits the SNP when it suits its case. The SNP refused to back a people’s vote in a referendum on the final deal from the European Union. There will be lots of different views across this Chamber—in fact, there are lots of different views among Labour Members about whether we should have a people’s vote. However, the principle for me is that, if we believe in the sovereign will of the Scottish people, why not back an additional vote for the Scottish people and people across the UK to decide on the final Brexit deal that the UK Government bring back, and then let the sovereign will of the Scottish people decide? No. The SNP reluctantly fudges it and says, “Maybe we would back it, maybe we won’t, but only if independence is on the table as part of it.” It is only the sovereign will of the Scottish people when it suits.

I simply say, on the sovereign will of the Scottish people and the convention, that it is written down. It is being delivered. It has been delivered and everything that will be delivered in the future, in terms of the sovereign will of the Scottish people, will happen at the ballot box when the people of Scotland go to vote. That is exactly what they have done. Before SNP Members start jumping up and down and saying, “What about the Brexit referendum?”, the rules of the game are as follows. There was a UK-wide referendum. People voted to leave. We are part of the United Kingdom. I hope that we do not leave. I always say, “If we leave the European Union”—I will do everything in my power to try to stop it, and if I cannot stop it, I will do everything in my power to try to soften it, but we are where we are. We cannot pick and choose votes when it suits us to pick and choose.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong point about the EU referendum. Does he recognise that it was based on the total number of votes across the United Kingdom, not on geography? So had the SNP joined Britain Stronger in Europe and proactively campaigned for remain, we could have got those few extra votes and kept us in. [Hon. Members: “We did!”] Not as part of Britain Stronger in Europe.

[Ian Murray]

I am sorry but I am not going to dance to the hon. Gentleman’s tune, because the Conservative party’s attitude towards Scotland at the moment is just as big a threat to the UK. It pushed through a referendum on Brexit, with the former Prime Minister betting everything on winning but losing. The attitude of the Scottish Conservatives is as big a threat to the Union at the moment. They are pushing through a hard Brexit as lobby fodder for the Prime Minister, rather than fighting for the interests of their own constituents. [Interruption.] I am happy for him to gesticulate and say, “Keep attacking the SNP,” but Government Members are just as bad on the sovereign will of the Scottish people as expressed at the ballot box. We were promised that Ruth Davidson would send Scottish Conservative MPs down to this Chamber to fight for the interests of Scotland, and not once has any of them taken a different view from the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister. So when Brexit happens and goes badly, you 12 will own it as much as the Prime Minister—sorry, the hon. Gentlemen will own it. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not own Brexit, because it will be owned primarily by the Scottish Conservatives.

On the theme of it being the sovereign will of the Scottish people only when it suits, I will finish with this. As we discussed, the SNP did not participate in this process, and they had no intention of ever participating in this process, regardless of the warm words we hear now, but now they grab on to this claim of right and talk about the sovereign will of the Scottish people, because it suits the SNP to do so. I suggest, very politely, that the UK Government and the Scottish Government desperately find a way to get around the table to improve the relations between two Governments so that they can at least try to work in the interests of Scotland, because while we have this flag-waving ceremony between the Conservative party and the Scottish National party, it is my constituents who lose out.

Sewel Convention

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely, it is painful. It is painful that the people of Scotland are seeing their powers taken back from them.

Rather than reassure the people of Scotland that the UK Government are committed to protecting our devolution settlement, the Scottish Secretary’s statement effectively turned Sewel on its head by saying that if there is disagreement, such as no consent on a legislative consent motion, the UK Government can proceed to legislate. That is cause for huge concern, and it is a pity he is clearly not that concerned, or he would have made sure to respond to this important debate.

Under the constitutional rules, this Government should not proceed without the Scottish Parliament’s consent. By constitutional convention and invariable practice since 1999, the Bill should not complete its Westminster stages in its current form without that consent. Despite the murmurings of the current Secretary of State, the Scotland Office stated back in 2005 that the UK Government

“considers that the continuation of the Convention is vital to the success of devolution.”

What has changed? The only thing that has changed is that the Scottish Parliament has not given its consent and the UK Government, showing utter disrespect, have decided to proceed.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

We all heard the Secretary of State’s statement to the House on Thursday morning. Can the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) give a commitment on behalf of the Scottish Government, and indeed on behalf of his party, that, if the Secretary of State were to convene cross-party talks, his party would take part?

[Ian Blackford]

Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. One of the things I would say to him, and to the Government, is that I do not believe it is in anybody’s interest not to have an agreement on this. We all have a responsibility to defend the powers and interests of the Scottish Parliament. I implore the Secretary of State to get back round the table. Let us resolve this issue. I do not want us to be in a situation where the Government in London take back responsibility for our powers, and they really must listen to the voices coming from around this Chamber and, indeed, from around Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be involved in this important debate and to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), although I take umbrage at his claiming in opening his speech that this debacle, which has actually been made by his own Government, is somehow the fault of democratically elected politicians going through the Lobby to vote for Lords amendments to a major piece of legislation. That is our democratic right. I am sure that many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents wrote to him last week to ask him to support the 15 amendments that came back from the other place, in the same way that many of my constituents wrote to me. That is what we committed to do and it is certainly what we did last week.

The blame for the House having only 19 minutes to deal with the devolution issues lies squarely with the Government’s programme managers—the Leader of the House and the usual channels—who decided to make it a six-hour debate, with a knife at three hours, so that the second three hours was eaten into by votes. They could have taken a completely different approach to the programme motion and allowed the votes to happen and then another three-hour debate after that. This travesty and devastation, and the grievance that has been given to certain parties in the House, is of the Government’s own making.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the answer did lie in the timetable. The Government could have protected the time for debating that string of amendments but they chose not to. Does he agree that, especially considering the nature of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to suggest that this House should somehow have to choose between debating the amendments from the other place and voting on them is quite ridiculous?

[Ian Murray]

It is quite ridiculous, and I cannot help but feel that the programme motion was put in place for that very purpose. The Government would have known that the House would divide on the vast majority of those amendments, such that that three-hour knife would, by the nature of the process of amendments coming back from the other place in ping-pong, reduce the time available for debate.

I shall come to why it affects the Sewel convention, but the reason why everyone is so frustrated and angry about the process is that the Secretary of State—I will not get into the personal politics; I disagree with his politics fundamentally, but he is an honourable man and has always dealt with me fairly, and I think he will perhaps look back and regret some of the Government’s actions in this process—promised at the Dispatch Box, on several occasions, that this elected House would get to debate the amendments on devolution that were being put to the other place. He promised that the amendments would come in Committee, and they did not, and that they would come on Report, and they did not. His own Back Bencher, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who is in his place, said that he would reluctantly back the Government’s position on the Opposition amendments, after he was given assurances by his own Front Benchers that the amendments would come on Report.

The very fact that the amendments have been tabled in the other place, meaning that the elected House has been unable to debate them or, indeed, have any kind of say in them, has left us with a grievance to exploit, because we have not even debated on the Floor of this Chamber the fundamental issues relating to the Sewel convention, the individual parts of the amendments, the impact on the Scottish Government, the impact on the Scottish Parliament, the impact on the UK Government or the impact on UK-wide frameworks that are being put in place as part of the process.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the programme motion, but on the vote itself, he tried last week to justify Labour’s abstention by saying that had we defeated the Government on the amendment, it would have reverted the devolution clause back to an even less satisfactory position. Is it not the case that had we defeated the Government, the Bill would have gone back to the Lords for further amendment, so we could have made the amendments that we were looking for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman misinterprets the Labour party position; in fact, misinformation is the SNP’s role in this debate. I am clear about our position. The amendment tabled in the House of Lords would get us to around 80% of where we would like to be. The old clause 11 was deficient, as everyone in this House—including the Secretary of State himself and the Minister for the Cabinet Office—has said. There has been a process of negotiation, and in such a process one cannot always get what one wants. I would have liked the Government to go much further, but on the basis that the amendment was in my view 80% acceptable, it did not seem right to vote for it or to vote against it. That is a principled position to take. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is completely and utterly fundamentally disingenuous to claim that powers are being taken back from the Scottish Parliament. It is equally fundamentally disingenuous to say that Brexit will be a powers bonanza. Both positions are wrong. The powers of the Scottish Parliament will not increase by one iota as a result of this process, and the number of powers that will be taken from the Scottish Parliament as part of this process is zero. Because the Conservatives and the SNP have it in themselves to continue to fight with each other because it is politically expedient for them to do so, all these kinds of arguments and the pragmatic approach to this process are lost.

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

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I will give way to the hon. and learned Lady, my constituency neighbour, if she wants to dispel the myth and agree that the Scottish Parliament will receive no fewer powers than it has and will have no powers taken from it as part of this process.

[Joanna Cherry]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously disputing the fact that, as a result of the amendments passed last week, 24 powers will be taken back to this Parliament for up to seven years and that, at any time during that seven years, the UK Government can alter them as they see fit? Has he read the amendment and is he seriously disputing that?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. and learned Lady’s question touches on the bit of the amendment from the House of Lords that we disputed. In fact, if she looks at our Front-Bench amendment in this place—[Interruption.] I do not understand why the behaviour of the Scottish National party has to be so hostile when I am actually on its side for the vast majority of this issue. There is no respect in this Chamber for people who want to make their points.

I agree 80% with the amendment that came back from the House of Lords. This is the bit that I do not agree with. In fact, the shadow Secretary of State put forward an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments that stated the very fact that this was where the contention lay with the sunset clauses. I have the 24 areas of legislation in front of me, and I would like to say to the people of Scotland who are perhaps watching this debate that we do need UK-wide legislative frameworks on some of these matters, because it is important for the operation of Scotland, the UK Government and the UK economy. For example, let us look at environmental quality and standards in chemicals. Nobody could possibly suggest that, in the pragmatic world in which we live, we do not need both Governments to come together and propose a proper UK framework for that kind of issue. That is just one of the 24 issues—there are 153 issues—that has come up in this particular process.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will not give way again to the hon. and learned Lady, because others wish to speak. She will get her opportunity to speak in this debate.

We must take the politics and the heat out of this debate. During the statement last Thursday, I asked the Secretary of State whether there was any possibility of people continuing to talk on this matter. He said that he was willing to talk, but that the Scottish Government will not move from their position. In reply to my intervention a few moments ago, the leader of the SNP said that the Scottish Government, in his view, would be willing to talk. When can we possibly get both Governments around the table to try to flesh some of this out? The nub of the problem—one of a number—is that the Joint Ministerial Committee does not meet regularly enough. As was said by Lord McConnell, who set up this particular process, it should have been scrapped a long time ago. During the passage of the Scotland Bill in 2015 in this Chamber—all the SNP Members were here—I put forward amendments from that Dispatch Box to put the JMC on a statutory footing to allow minutes and agendas to be published publicly, so we did not get into this situation of “he said, she said” and the whole matter becomes a political football.

When the Minister gets to the Dispatch Box, I urge him to give a clear commitment that every single piece of communication that has happened in the JMC with regards to the devolution amendments is published. I shall tell him why he should do that. While this whole process is secret and while people are kept in the dark about who said what and who agreed to what, all we get is: this is a power grab, or this is a powers bonanza. The people of Scotland then have to decide which one is the most appropriate. As the compromise was made, I want to know, and the people of Scotland want to know, how far apart the two sides are. Is it the case that it is two minor things on which the Scottish Government are deliberately withholding consent, because it is not in their interest to give consent? I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) that the Scottish Government never intended to give consent, even if they got 100% of what they wanted. It is not in their political interest to do so. Let us have a little bit of transparency about this process, so that we can see, in black and white, where the gap is and how we are able to bridge that gap.

[Jamie Stone]

Further to my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with my suggestion that many of us will not be on Joint Ministerial Committees, but that some sort of Back-Bench liaison, cross-party body of MPs and MSPs would be constructive for the future operation of both Parliaments?

[Ian Murray]

I think that it would be constructive. If this process has shown anything, it is that the inter-governmental relationship between two Governments when they are of different colours does not work. The consequences of it not working is not that the Secretary of State cannot get what he wants, or that the First Minister cannot get what she wants, but that it is bad for the people of Scotland. We cannot have an orderly withdrawal from the EU—if that is what happens and let us not get into the issues of whether or not we will leave the EU; I have my own views—unless we have a proper structure in place where both Governments can be confident, and the people of Scotland can be confident, that both Governments can work together. It is in both Governments’ interests to fight over these particular issues, because they cannot resolve some of the major problems with regards to leaving the European Union. Therefore, a fight between flags, between the Conservatives and the Scottish National party, suits both political agendas down to the ground while every other issue ends up being on the agenda.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I will not give way, because we will run out of time. I would hate it if the hon. Gentleman had to walk out because he was not able to get his say in this particular debate.

I will make two other brief points. I think that we are all in the same place in this Chamber in terms of what we want to try to achieve. If we leave the European Union, we want to be able to have a legislative framework in front of us that works for the things that we need it to work for. It is quite clear from the people who speak to me that we cannot have different frameworks with regards to the movement of animals across the UK, because we need the UK internal market to work. We cannot have different food labelling or we will have a situation like I have in my constituency where we have a wonderful Mexican deli which imports all this stuff from Mexico but has to relabel it with all the different labels. We could not possibly have that situation, so we do need some UK-wide frameworks that work and operate for the UK internal market. It is not in the SNP’s interests to make that work, because it wants out of the UK internal market. That is part of the problem that we have here with the politics. It comes down to the nub of the issue, which is: are the UK Government right on this particular issue? I do not think they are. They could have gone much further and they have made a hash of it and they are architects of their own misfortune. But are the SNP Scottish Government willing to move to be able to get an agreement on this? I think the answer to that is no. In the absence of two parties that are willing to talk to each other or willing to compromise, where does it leave us in terms of the overall devolution settlement?

I will finish on this. When he set up the Sewel convention, Lord Sewel said quite clearly that it should not be used for major policy issues on which there is a major political disagreement, and we are seeing that play out now. I do not know how we can get to a place whereby the Scottish Government can give this a legislative consent motion. I suspect that if clause 15 and schedule 3 were deleted from the amended Bill, they would still not give the legislative consent motion because it is not in their interests to do so. In the absence of two Governments willing to work together, how do we get to a position where this Bill can be passed and the Scottish Government can say that they will give it legislative consent? This is no power grab and it is no powers bonanza. Both Governments should tone down the rhetoric, get back round the table and think seriously about making sure that the JMC operates properly in the future and that it is transparent about its minutes and agendas.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Sewel Convention

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

That is an excellent question, because I have twice heard the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) say that powers will be stripped from the Scottish Parliament. However, not one power that the Scottish Parliament currently exercises will be stripped. Over 80 new powers and responsibilities are coming to Holyrood and, yes, I call that a “powers bonanza.”

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for taking up my invitation in my point of order yesterday to make a statement to the House today. I want to ask him a serious question to try to take some of the heat out of the bluff and bluster from both sides of the House. As I understand it, the Scottish Brexit Secretary signed off or agreed with the proposals during meetings, but they were then vetoed by the First Minister. That suggests to me that a deal could be done and that compromises could be made by both sides. Will the Secretary of State now do everything in his power to get all sides back around the table to find the distance that they can go between compromise and getting a deal?

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgement of the statement, which was the right thing to do given that the opportunity to have a debate today had been declined by the leader of the SNP following yesterday’s stunt. I am still committed to getting agreement, and I welcome the recent interventions of Professor Jim Gallagher and Gordon Brown, who were genuinely looking for a settlement. We reached out to Michael Russell to see whether he was willing to engage with that process, but I am afraid that the clear message was that the Scottish Government’s position is as it was the last time we spoke and is as it was a year ago and that there is no scope for compromise. I am always willing to talk, and if there is any prospect of getting an agreement with the Scottish Government, I am open to doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I would point out that those figures were produced by the Scottish Government themselves. Trade within the UK is worth four times as much to Scotland as its trade with the EU. When “Scotland’s place in Europe” was published last week, it disappointed me that that fact was not recognised.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he thinks is wrong with the devolution powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and how he would like to see them fixed? Or is it that, in this week of Burns celebrations, he is just the great puddin’ o’ the chieftain race?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman always has an interesting take on events, but I am clear that we want to work with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, and with the Scottish Parliament, whose Finance and Constitution Committee has set out its views on clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. I want to reach agreement with them, so that the Government will recommend a legislative consent motion.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 180642 and 168781 relating to a referendum on Scottish independence.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, in what I am sure will be an interesting and lively debate. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing me introduce the two petitions before us. The petitions are diametrically opposed, representing opposite views on essentially the same issue—Scottish independence and how that should be determined. One of the petitions is entitled, “Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen”, and it reads as follows:

“We in Scotland are fed up of persecution by the SNP leader who is solely intent on getting independence at any cost. As a result, Scotland is suffering hugely.”

The other is entitled, “Agree to a second referendum on Scottish Independence”, and it reads as follows:

“The actions of the UK government after the Brexit vote do not align with the people of Scotland. We are not bigoted. We are not racist. We welcome everybody based on their contribution, not on where they come from. The UK government does not behave in this way and so we must LEAVE.”

Petitions by their nature express a grievance, as both petitions make clear. It is not possible simultaneously to support the premise of both petitions, as my electronic mailbag has demonstrated over the last few weeks in the number of emails I have received supporting or opposing either position. I have selected a few representative excerpts that sum up the debate among my constituents and to give a flavour of what has been said. One says:

“I ask you to argue that the sovereign will of the Scottish people must be respected.”

It is interesting that although that point was made by somebody who opposes an independence referendum, very similar points were made by those who support one. A constituent said:

“I would ask you to take a motion to investigate precisely whom effected a constituent coup, that precluded the majority from being respected.”

Again, I directly quote a no petitioner, but similar points were also made by those arguing in favour of an independence referendum. Another said:

“the people voted to remain part of the U.K.”.

That is a historically factual position. Another email said:

“I would like to remind you that NO means NO.”

I will come back to that point. One said:

“I strongly urge you to continue to investigate keeping Scotland in the EU.”

That was a very common feature, again from both sides. Another wanted to work

“to help attract skilled workers to create a better and diverse Scotland in the future.”

Other emails stated:

“There is a democratic deficit, seen by such things as EVEL; there is a need for independence”,

and

“Brexit has caused a material change and our views are being ignored.”

It is, however, possible simultaneously to oppose both positions, as several correspondents suggested. That is best expressed by the following quote:

“Scottish independence and Scottish sovereignty don’t require the permission of Westminster. They require ours”—

a view that I have considerable sympathy with.

There is quite a range of varied opinions. It is quite clear from just that snapshot, which I hope flavours the arguments of both sides of the debate, that the underlying thought process clearly is whether someone supports self-determination, and how they think that would be best determined.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Quite rightly, he makes a balanced argument for the positions of the two petitions, but before he moves on to the substantive part of his argument, will he tell us how many people signed each petition?

[Martyn Day]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Library briefing as I cannot remember the exact figures, but significantly more signed the petition opposing independence than signed the one in favour. However, what is more important in the debate is democratic mandate, which I will come on to and which changes that dimension considerably.

Without any doubt, the strongest and most repeated argument of constituents opposed to another independence referendum is basically that the matter has been determined and that “NO means NO”, as I quoted earlier. However, circumstances change. People have the democratic right to revisit any decision or policy if they wish at any election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

As I have said a few times, circumstances change. The 2016 election gave a mandate. That was reinforced by a vote in the Scottish Parliament—I hope that everybody respects parliamentary sovereignty—and further reinforced by the election of 35 SNP MPs to this House earlier this year.

[Ian Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings when the hon. Gentleman is making such a powerful speech, but given that he is presenting the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I wonder whether he will at any point get to the arguments for why we should not have a second independence referendum.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I am not sure that that is a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point none the less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I am slightly disappointed, as are many hon. Members, by the introduction we heard from the member of the Petitions Committee. I did not hear one argument for our not having a second independence referendum. Given the balanced way that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) could have made his case, I should have thought that he might have spent at least 55% of his opening speech on that argument.

Here is the bombshell: 2 million is larger than 1.6 million, and 55% of the Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. I have no truck with the SNP as regards its continuing to agitate for a second referendum—that is why it exists—but I would hope it would realise the impact that has, not only on the Scottish economy but Scotland as a country. When people went to the polls and made their democratic choice to stay part of the United Kingdom, that should be respected, and for a number of reasons. First, it is democratic, but secondly, we were promised by the proponents of an independent Scotland that the referendum would be “once in a generation” or, indeed, “once in a lifetime”. When proponents said that and people went to the polls and put their cross in the box, whether yes or no, they should have been able to trust what people had said. I will not come on to what many Conservative Members did during the Brexit referendum, but people should be able to trust what people are saying during referendums and take that forward on their own basis.

I come at the debate from a slightly different perspective from people who have spoken already, and that is the perspective of jobs, livelihoods and prosperity in my constituency. Some 66% of my constituents voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, which is something I promised to respect—as did many other hon. Members here—not just at the 2015 general election but also the 2017 election; it was very much the question on the doorsteps in ’15 and ’17. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk says that the SNP won the 2017 election, but he should be marginally more humble about that result and not take the Scottish people for granted. If the SNP won the election, as he claims so emphatically, why is it not holding a second independence referendum if it feels it has that mandate?

There is a lesson in here for the Scottish people. Regardless of the First Minister, the entirety of the Yes campaign or the SNP—I appreciate that there are nuanced differences between those groups—if a second referendum is put on to the back burner, or even if the First Minister stands up and says we will have no talk of a second independence referendum, what will bring it back on to the front burner? People voting SNP in other elections. We have heard this afternoon that that is where the SNP sees the mandate as coming from, so a second referendum will never properly be on the back burner while the SNP continues to agitate for it.

Let us look at the economic case in terms of jobs and livelihoods. Scotland lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom in growth, jobs and the sustainability of the economy, and investment is not as high in Scotland as across the rest of the United Kingdom. That economic case for a second independence referendum is completely shot. Constituents come to me all the time and say, “We’re three years on from the independence referendum, and five to six years on from the start of this process, and we still don’t know the answers to the fundamental questions. What happens to our pensions? What currency will we use? What will our lender of last resort be?”—and, and this is a crucial one, because it is a key argument of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk—“Will we or will we not be part of the European Union?”

I still do not know the Scottish Government’s position on the European Union. They know they have to play to a number of people who voted yes to independence and voted to leave the European Union. They know they have to play to that base, in terms of whether Scotland will go back into the European Union—[Interruption.] If somebody from the SNP wants to intervene and tell me whether it is the Scottish National party’s position to go back in as full members of the European Union, I am happy to give way.

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

One of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who I was on the radio with said that if Scotland voted no in 2014, it was a vote to stay in the European Union. Where does that promise stand now?

[Ian Murray]

There has been a democratic vote, and a democratic petition on how it went has been put to the Petitions Committee, and I wish we were analysing that.

I will finish, because I want to leave other hon. Members time to speak. It is quite clear in my own constituency that 3,622 people took the time and effort to sign a petition to say that they do not want a second independence referendum, because of all the issues around the economy, culture and taking Scotland forward. They have made that decision already. Only 500 people in my constituency voted for a second independence referendum. We must listen to the public and hear what they are saying. For the sake of the Scottish economy and for the future livelihoods and prosperity of my constituents, let us say no to a second referendum and take it off the table permanently.

Scotland Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

The Government made substantial amendments to the Bill on Report in this House. The Lords amendments are largely technical, but nevertheless include important provisions related to the fiscal framework and responsible parking. I am pleased that they were accepted in the other place. I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s description of the road traffic changes had me mesmerised. I could have listened to him all evening. We thank him for that.

It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition. I am not going to pretend that the passage of the Bill has been entirely enjoyable, smooth or stress-free, but we are where we are and it has definitely been worth getting to this place. Every Member of this House and the other place should be incredibly proud of what has been achieved in such a short time. Some will say the Bill does not go far enough, and some will be disappointed that it does not contain what they wanted, but I think today marks a historic day in the devolution journey of our Scottish Parliament.

When this Bill is passed—there is no longer any doubt that it will be passed today—Scotland will have one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. That is what the Labour party has always wanted from that process. It was the former Prime Minister, the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who devised the vow that promised more powers. Let us pay tribute both to him and to the Daily Record for publishing it at the time. [Interruption.] I knew I would get a reaction to that. If only I had said The National, the response from the SNP Benches might have been different.

That paved the way for the Smith commission, skilfully chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, who managed to negotiate cross-party agreement on the form that those powers should take. That in turn laid the foundations for the Bill before us today. It has now passed through this place and the other place. A revised fiscal framework has been agreed, crucially with the Barnett formula at its heart. As promised, the vow has been delivered, with Barnett protected. That was always a Labour party priority, as we recognise the integral role played by the Barnett formula in maintaining public spending in Scotland. That said, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies astutely observed, during the fiscal framework negotiations it was, ironically, the SNP Government who insisted upon Barnett as sacrosanct. With the zeal of the convert, they argued vociferously for an approach

“which ensures the ongoing pooling and”

sharing

“of some proportion of ‘devolved’ revenues across the UK.”

Of course, as long-standing advocates of the Barnett formula and the principle of pooling and sharing resources that it enshrines, we gave the Scottish Government our full backing in those negotiations. I wonder whether that now means that the Scottish National party has renounced its No. 1 policy priority of full fiscal autonomy—perhaps we will hear this evening.

However, at least for the time being we have an agreement. The irony is that this Bill will wing its way to Her Majesty to receive Royal Assent, hopefully later tonight, on the eve of what would have been separation day in Scotland. It creates one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, as opposed to the White Paper prospectus promised by the SNP in 2014.

Some of the Lords amendments speak directly to that agreement, delivering, for example, the strengthened borrowing powers and the enhanced fiscal oversight of Scotland’s public finances that this fiscal framework provides for. Now that the last impediment to the Bill has been removed, we must focus on the powers that the Scottish Parliament is receiving. As the Secretary of State has said, the legislative consent motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.

Given that today is the last day of the current Scottish Parliament, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to all the MSPs, from all parties, who have served since 2011. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will say a word or two about those MSPs, particularly Labour MSPs, who are retiring from the Scottish Parliament, having done so much in the process of getting this Bill here today. They include Hugh Henry, Duncan McNeil and Richard Simpson, who have served since 1999. There is my old university friend Richard Baker, who was first elected in 2003, and Margaret McDougall, Graeme Pearson and Drew Smith, who were elected in 2011. They all retire with our best wishes, especially Malcolm Chisholm, who was also a long-standing Member of this House. He retires leaving a distinguished record of public service to his constituents. We wish him well. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is not in his place. The Scottish Parliament’s loss is this place’s gain. Are we not lucky indeed?

With the passing of this Bill and the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, we can today lay the old arguments of the referendum to rest, alongside any doubt that the vow has not been delivered. The conversation must now move on to how these powers are used—or not used in some cases. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves what those powers are, because they are considerable, and their Lordships looked at them in great detail, for which we thank them. The Scottish Parliament has power over rates and bands of tax on all non-savings and non-dividend income. That means it can put taxes up or bring them down; it can increase or reduce the thresholds at which the different rates are paid; or it can choose to do nothing and keep things pretty much as they are, short of affording a tax break to higher earners—champions of the status quo perhaps—even if, in so doing, some people are abandoning a manifesto pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate for those earning over £150,000. That is what some have chosen to do, but that is not what we would do

I wonder how commentators have looked on that process. Owen Jones, who is often quoted by the SNP Members now beside me, called it

“a huge blow to their credentials”.

What does the Scottish Trades Union Congress think of the Scottish Government’s grand plans for devolved taxation in Scotland? It calls them

“a disappointingly timid approach to tax policy…Breaking the consensus on increasing the additional rate is difficult to fathom.”

It said it was an approach that is

“difficult to reconcile with the Scottish Government’s”

so-called

“social and economic objectives.”

For the past five years, many people had the mantra “more power for Scotland.” Today, when the Bill is passed, we will have a powerful Scottish Parliament—power not as a point of principle, but power to be used for positive, progressive change. I can tell the House, in no uncertain terms, that the Scottish Labour party will not settle for power for power’s sake. We will not settle for the political choice of austerity. This Bill goes straight to the heart of how we would do that. We will oppose austerity in the UK and we will oppose it in Scotland, and when we get into government we will reverse it. We will build a better and fairer Scotland for all, and taxation will not be our sole tool for doing so.

Lords amendment 22 strengthens the borrowing powers available to the Scottish Government, as agreed in the fiscal framework, allowing them to invest more in capital infrastructure or to smooth out fluctuations in devolved taxes.