Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future
Ian Murray Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
A very happy St Patrick’s Day to you and everyone in the House, Mr Speaker.
I am sure that you will have been as astonished as I was, Mr Speaker, to hear that the SNP was using one of its irregular Opposition day debates to talk about independence. Indeed, even the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said that this was a very rare debate for the SNP. You could have knocked me over with a feather, Mr Speaker, and that is no mean task with my extra 10 lockdown kilos. It is not as though there is not anything for us to debate today. You would not think that we were in the worst health and economic crisis since world war two.
Why does the SNP want to turn the Scottish election in May into a referendum on whether or not we have another referendum? Because it cannot defend its atrocious record in government for the last 14 years. SNP Members have no defence at all and nothing to offer. In 25 minutes of opening speech, there was not one positive policy about how to deal with the problems in Scotland. We have had the sheer arrogance of the SNP making assumptions about the election result without a single cross being put in a single ballot box anywhere in Scotland. However, we no longer hear the cry of “22 polls in a row in favour of separation” when it is now four in a row in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom, the one today being 57% to 43%. They are being found out.
We could have been debating all sorts of major issues today. We could have debated our democratic institutions in Scotland, whether the Scottish Government legislative settlement needs to be improved, and telling MSPs to properly hold the Scottish Government to account. The Minister made those points yesterday.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The poll today shows that only 46% of the Scottish electorate support independence. A few months ago, it was 58%, so it is down 12%. I say very gently to my brothers and sisters around me, my Gaelic friends: the poll that really matters is the last one. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the reason this has happened is in part due the covid vaccine roll-out? To everyone, it has expressed across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that together, we are better. Does he agree?
Ian Murray
I am sorry that I did not quite hear the hon. Gentleman—the intervention king—so I apologise, but he is right. I think the reason why the polls have moved is that the SNP has arrogantly assumed that the Scottish people want independence, so people have started to ask the big questions, to which no answers have been forthcoming. People realise, with the vaccine roll-out and the covid support, that we are much better and much stronger as a nation working with our partners and friends as part of the family of four nations of the UK.
Jacob Young
The Member from Edinburgh said that the independence referendum will be on page 1 of the SNP’s manifesto and that “no independence referendum” will be on page 1 of the Conservative manifesto. What is Labour’s position on a referendum and on what page will it be in its manifesto?
Ian Murray
It will not be in our manifesto because our manifesto will be a covid recovery plan for the nation.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not here to debate what referendums might be in parties’ manifestos. Otherwise, we will be here a long time, and which election would we start with?
Ian Murray
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Just for the record, there are Members for Edinburgh East and for Edinburgh South. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East does not represent the whole city, despite the fact that the SNP thinks that it represents the whole of Scotland.
Let me go back to what we could be debating today. We could have debated the dreadful picture that everyone will have seen on social media from George Square in Glasgow last month, where 220 people were queuing up in sub-zero temperatures in the snow to get food from the soup kitchen. A photo says a thousand words, and those words were that both the UK and Scottish Governments are failing the people of Scotland who need their Governments the most. But, no, we are not debating that.
We could have debated universal credit and the £20 uplift becoming permanent, extending it to legacy benefits, removing the rape clause and helping those most in need.
Ian Murray
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
We could have debated the First Minister’s so-called top priority: education. But the SNP cannot defend the widening educational attainment gap, thousands fewer teachers, a lower spend per pupil than in 2007, Scotland plummeting down the international rankings, or Scotland’s education system being behind England for the first time ever—behind Tory England for the first time ever. They will not even publish the OECD report into Scottish education before the election—I wonder why. We could have debated education and our children’s future, but no.
We could have debated why, even before covid, the SNP Scottish Government had not met their own legal NHS waiting times targets since 2012. They have broken their own law 360,000 times in the process, but no.
How about international issues? We could have debated Myanmar and the atrocities in the coup, Yemen and the worst humanitarian disaster the world has ever seen, or Scotland’s wonderful partnership with Malawi, but no.
We could have debated how Scottish businesses recover from covid and how we can support those sectors in hospitality, tourism and culture that will take longer to recover and have been hardest hit. What about the 3 million excluded from any Government support? We could have debated that, but no.
We could have debated how Scottish taxpayers are on the hook for over half a billion pounds to fund a 25-year guarantee for a failing business that owned an aluminium smelter and a hydropower plant in Scotland, but no.
We could have debated last month’s Audit Scotland report, which says that billions of pounds of covid support funds are unspent by the Scottish Government and audited what they are spending them on, but no.
We could have been having a debate about COP26 and climate change, but no.
We could have celebrated the success of the vaccine roll-out—all the nations of the UK working together with our wonderful science and research and development sectors—but no.
We could have even debated how the Tories are a bigger threat to the Union than any nationalist. They got us into this mess by playing fast and loose with the UK constitution in the first place, bringing us Brexit, English votes for English laws, cronyism, wasting £37 billion on Test and Trace. We could have debated how they have nothing to offer Scotland but waving their own flag, but no.
We could even have debated how to eradicate child poverty, but no. The SNP uses its precious parliamentary time to debate another referendum—quelle surprise. Surely if SNP Members want to turn May’s election into a referendum on having another referendum, they could at least put their cards on the table and be straight with the Scottish people. Even the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said on several occasions during his speech, “Let us be honest with each other,” so let us make this a great opportunity for them to use their speeches to tell us what their separation proposition means. Let us be honest with each other.
On EU accession, how, when, why? How will they meet the criteria? On borders, will this be determined by the trade and co-operation agreement that has just been signed between the UK and the EU? The Health Secretary said on “Question Time” two weeks ago that it would not.
Tommy Sheppard
All these questions will be discussed and decided upon if and when we get to a referendum campaign and a referendum vote. What is at stake on 6 May is who should make the decision on whether that process happens—whether people in Scotland have a right to even choose to make that consideration. That is a different matter. What is the hon. Gentleman’s view on that?
Ian Murray
When I pose the challenge to the hon. Gentleman, “Let’s be honest with each other” the answer comes back, “No”. What is at stake at the elections on 6 May is how Scotland recovers from the worst health and economic crisis since the second world war. To plunge the country into another divisive independence referendum debate, while people are more worried about their lives, their livelihoods and the health of their friends and their family, is absolutely deplorable.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically excellent speech. What he says about the timing of the referendum is something that polling is clear about. While the polling has moved up and down on the subject of whether there should be independence, it is absolutely clear that even the majority of those who are in favour of independence do not think that we should have a referendum right now. What are those people supposed to do when they go to vote in May? If they vote for the Scottish National party, they will be seen as having endorsed a referendum that they themselves do not think should happen right now.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head because the priorities of the Scottish people are health, education, covid recovery, the economy, jobs and livelihoods. That is what is important to the Scottish people and poll after poll after poll shows that.
Let us be honest with each other. On the oil price, $114 a barrel was underpinning the entire Scottish economy; it has been less than half of that since the last referendum. On deficits and debt, how will they be dealt with? On pensions, SNP candidates in constituencies up and down Scotland are delivering leaflets promising pensioners that they will double the state pension. Let us be honest with each other. And how would the SNP work with the rest of the UK with regards to the EU?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
For a start, if we are going to be honest, it is quite clear that, due to the covid restrictions, we do not have people out delivering leaflets right now. If we are talking about honesty, will the hon. Gentleman answer this question: if the voters vote for parties that have a referendum in their manifesto, should that referendum happen to reflect the will of the Scottish people? Will he give us an honest answer?
Ian Murray
I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman. The leaflet was delivered in Dumbarton and was posted on social media by the person who delivered it, so that is being honest with each other. Let me just say to him that I am very much in the same place as Sir John Curtice —we cannot extrapolate a single issue from a general election. It is disingenuous to suggest that we should turn this major election, the most important I think in Scotland’s devolution history, into whether or not we should have a referendum on another referendum.
Ian Murray
Let me make a little progress.
Let me go to the biggest issue of all—currency. We have heard the same old arguments from the SNP time and again, so perhaps they can tell us something new. Let us be honest with each other. What on earth would the people be voting for? Let us take this issue of currency. If any SNP Members want to intervene on me and tell me what the answer is, I will give them the Floor for as long as they like.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the Leader of the SNP in this House, promotes sterlingisation. He says that people should not worry—we will keep using the pound until such time as six tests are met, however long that would be. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) tells us that they will only keep the pound for a few months. The SNP’s Deputy Leader, Keith Brown, says that they will keep the pound for less than five years. Andrew Wilson, the head of the SNP’s Growth Commission and a former SNP Finance Minister, says that it could be decade before we give up the pound. Does any SNP Member want to tell us exactly how long we will keep the pound? Is it a few months? Is it five years? Is it 10 years? Is it indefinitely? Will we keep it at all? Let us just be honest with each other if the SNP wants to turn this debate into a referendum on whether or not we have a referendum.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case on the lack of clarity from the Scottish National party. But what he needs to be clear on to the Scottish people when he goes to the polls on 6 May is whether his party backs a referendum or not. We have been honest. SNP Members have been honest about what they want. Will he now be honest and say what his position is?
Ian Murray
The answer to the question is no.
On interest rates—[Interruption.] The Conservatives do this all the time. They deliberately misinterpret the Scottish Labour party’s policy in order to feather their own electoral nest. That is why they are putting the Union at risk and why they are a bigger threat to the UK than any nationalist.
Let me turn to the interest rate question. For as long as we do not have our own currency, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is in the Chamber, thinks that we will still have a monetary and interest rate policy, but his own SNP Minister for Energy, Paul Wheelhouse MSP, said that, without a central bank or lender of last resort, we would have to take whatever interest rates were set. Can any SNP Member intervene and tell us who is right—the hon. Member for Glasgow East or the Scottish Government Minister?
That leads us to exchange rates. Let us try another one. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said that
“when we do have our own currency it has to be pegged against the pound sterling”,
but the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) suggests that will not be the case because we would need to meet the exchange rate mechanism rules to enter the EU. Again, what is it? Is it that we would have to take our own exchange rate mechanism to qualify for the EU, or would we be pegged to sterling? Maybe the answer is none of the above. Could it be the euro, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, or maybe Bitcoin, as the former SNP Member for East Lothian, George Kerevan, said—or, worse yet, our flexible friend? Will we all use our credit cards as if we were on holiday, as the SNP MSP Emma Harper suggested in a TV debate, when she said that we did not need a currency at all because we all used plastic anyway?
The position of SNP parliamentarians on these matters would be hilarious, were it not so serious. They want to take us out of the UK, regardless of the economic and social chaos that this would cause. This is about people’s jobs, mortgages and livelihoods. It is about our communities.
If SNP Members insist on focusing on separation instead of on how we get people back to work, how we lift families and children out of poverty, how we restart and properly value our NHS and how we lead a national effort to recover from this pandemic, they should at least be straight with the Scottish people about how separation will affect their jobs, livelihoods, health, education and opportunities for the future. They refuse to put forward the details of the separation proposition because the answers to these big questions are either unpalatable to the public or they actually do not know the answers.
Ian Murray
I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I have taken longer than I expected to.
Let us go back to the question that was debated earlier: when would that referendum be held? The hon. Member for Edinburgh East said—let us check Hansard—that no one is saying it would be this year—no one except the First Minister when she set out an 11-point plan to potentially deliver even an illegal referendum this year.
Ian Murray
I will when I have finished this point.
Mike Russell, the SNP Constitutional Minister and President of the SNP, said before Christmas, and the SNP leader in this place, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, said just a few weeks ago, that the referendum could happen this year. Does anyone honestly believe, whether they are yes or no, that it would be in Scotland’s interests to have a referendum on separation instead of a laser-like focus on covid recovery? But that is SNP Members’ only priority. If it were not their priority, they would not put it on the ballot paper. If it were not their priority, they would not be using the valuable four days until the Scottish Parliament goes into recess for the election to bring forward another referendum Bill. The First Minister says she wants to be judged on her covid record, so which one is it? While most Scots are worried about their jobs and livelihoods, about their health and that of their family and friends, about the future for their children’s education, and about how the NHS will catch up with cancer and other treatments that have been paused during covid, the SNP goes on about the constitution.
We cannot rely on the UK Government to deliver a recovery that works for everyone. We have seen that already. They just want business as usual, looking after their neighbours and friends rather than the country. They want to defend a broken status quo, rather than trying to fix it for the future. That is why the Scottish election must be about what the new Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, is proposing: delivering a national recovery plan that at its heart is about creating jobs, catching up on education and rebuilding our NHS, so that we never again have to choose between treating a virus and treating cancer. That is what we will be putting forward: a jobs and economic recovery plan; an NHS recovery plan; an education recovery plan; a climate recovery plan; and a communities recovery plan. These are the priorities of the Scottish people, far and above all else.
Ian Murray
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have mentioned him during my speech.
David Linden
I sit on the Back Benches, watch the hon. Gentleman, the lonely Scottish Labour MP at Westminster, and find myself reflecting every now and again about his once great party. I was party campaigning in a Labour seat in 2001, when it took 65% of the vote. Has he ever reflected on why his party is represented as it is at Westminster, given its intransigent policy against independence and against Scotland having the right to choose?
Ian Murray
It is called having principles. The hon. Gentleman ought to try it sometime. We are against independence because it would be bad for the Scottish people, and that is why SNP Members have to answer these questions. They cannot just decide that they are going to move their principles and damage the Scottish economy, Scottish society and Scottish culture on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Anas Sarwar will get Scottish Labour back on track with his optimism and his positivity.
As we come out of this pandemic, we must focus on solutions that ensure that Scotland comes back a better, stronger and fairer nation than the one that went into lockdown last year. The SNP wants to go back to the same old divisive discussions, while Labour in Scotland is looking to the future, not separation and not defending the broken status quo. In just a few short weeks, Anas Sarwar, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has shown that we can be a credible alternative. Scots do not have to choose between the divisive politics of the SNP—[Interruption.]—the divisive, arrogant politics of the SNP that I hear behind me and the Scottish Tories’ status quo.
Not one vote has been cast yet. Now more than ever, Scotland needs its powerful Parliament to deliver a strong NHS, take action on the jobs crisis, deliver a national care service and treat poverty as the health and economic emergency that it is. Scotland needs a Government who do not just say that education is a priority but really show our children and young people that we are committed to giving them the future they deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The House will be aware that a great many people wish to take part in this important debate. Members will be accustomed to a time limit of three minutes, but in this very important debate, we will begin with a time limit of four minutes.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iain Stewart
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The new free trade agreements we strike, such as those we are currently negotiating with the US, Australia and New Zealand, on top of the ones we have already done, will grow our GDP, increase our trade with the rest of the world and create new opportunities for our exporters. This is particularly true for the Scottish food and drink sector.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) [V]
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, as we have heard, and we should use this day to remember the horrors of the holocaust by lighting a candle in our windows at 8 pm tonight, as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust has asked us to do. I am sure that the Secretary of State will join us in that. Also, I wonder if I may just wish my fellow shadow Scotland Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), all the best, as his wife is due to have a baby in the next seven days.
One of the jewels in the crown of the Scottish economy is the Scotch whisky industry, and distillers are deeply angry that they continue to pay the price for a trade dispute with the United States that is not of their making. They are losing £30 million a month in trade with the imposition of tariffs, and that is on top of the collapse of their markets due to covid. No progress has been made, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government are fully singing from the same hymn sheet to end tariffs on Scotch whisky?
Iain Stewart
First, may I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on the holocaust?
On whisky, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a vital industry for Scotland’s economy and the tariffs are hurting. Britain unilaterally made a bold and generous offer to the US to try to break its impasse with the EU. Unfortunately, we were not able to secure a deal with President Trump before he left office, but I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade yesterday, and she reassured me that it will be her top priority in engaging with the new Biden Administration.
Ian Murray
The UK has taken all the tariffs off US products but there are still tariffs on Scottish products, so I hope they are able to resolve this soon. Of course, trade deals with other countries will not make up for what we have lost by leaving the EU. Day after day, we see chaos at our ports, exporters being overwhelmed by paperwork and, as a result, Scottish businesses being damaged. This Government’s lack of planning and no provision for services, matched with growing bureaucracy at our borders, is severely hampering our industries. The Prime Minister said on Christmas eve that the EU Brexit deal would mean
“no non-tariff barriers to trade”.
That is demonstrably false. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to Scottish exporters, who are completely hampered by the very non-tariff barriers to trade that the Prime Minister said would not exist? What are the Government doing to resolve these issues today?
Iain Stewart
First, on the US point, there was an impasse with the EU, and we decided it was the right move to make a unilateral offer to try to break that impasse. I hope the new Biden Administration will engage positively with us on that.
Secondly, I do not think it is fair to paint a picture of chaos and tailbacks at the ports. The traffic is flowing freely at most ports. There have been some short-term issues with paperwork, and any new system has some short-term bumps, but we are engaging directly with the exporters affected. We are providing compensation, where necessary, and what we need is some confidence across all sectors.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
In which case, I call the shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in recognising that it is the 11th day of the 11th month, lest we forget those who gave their lives so that we could live freely today. We will always remember them.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not congratulate President-elect Joe Biden on his wonderful election in America. Given that in a recent poll 75% of Scots said that they would vote for Joe Biden, they have eventually got the Government they would have voted for.
The announcement this week of a potential covid vaccine is incredibly positive. While it certainly does not mean, of course, that we have reached the end of this crisis, it does perhaps signal some hope for the public. If the vaccine is approved, the country will face an unprecedented logistical challenge. If mass vaccination is to be done successfully, we will need all levels of government working together. However, a poll just yesterday found that two thirds of Scots were dissatisfied that the Scottish and UK Governments do not work together and a majority wanted closer co-operation. So can the Minister inform the House: what work are the UK and Scottish Governments undertaking together to build an infrastructure that will be able to distribute and administer any future vaccines to everyone?
Iain Stewart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. Referring to his initial comments, I was delighted that President-elect Biden spoke to our Prime Minister ahead of any other European country, contrary to what some of the naysayers in the media were predicting.
The hon. Gentleman’s substantial question is a very important one and it illustrates the extent to which the UK Government and the devolved Administrations can and should work together. The vaccine—as he said, we are not quite there yet, but it gives very strong hope—is purchased by the UK Government on behalf of the whole UK. The distribution, the prioritisation of the vaccine will be a matter for the devolved Administrations. However, we are in regular contact and stand ready to assist with any logistics that will be required to make sure that it is distributed on the basis of clinical priority and not any other needs.
Ian Murray
I appreciate what the Minister said, but I think the public would look on it very unfavourably if both Governments did not work together to ensure that this vaccine is distributed.
But we also must not lose sight of today’s challenges. While the Chancellor’s latest plan to extend furlough until March is very welcome, there remain millions of people across the UK and in Scotland who have not received any support as lockdowns continue. The 3 million taxpayers excluded from Government support include countless self-employed, pay-as-you-earn freelancers, and many, many others. It is understandable that there may have been some cracks in hastily designed schemes announced in March, but not to fix those and to continue to exclude millions from any support is inexcusable. I raised this with the Secretary of State in this House on 1 July and 7 October, so, for the third time: will the Scotland Office demand that the Chancellor reconsiders and provides support to those taxpayers left without any help from this Government?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman’s question would have greater potency if furlough was indeed the only scheme that was available, but a wide range of support is available for businesses and individuals across the UK, including bounce back loans, tax deferrals, mortgage holidays and the like. In addition, the Chancellor has provided to the Scottish Government unprecedented levels of support, going up by an additional £1 billion. It is up to the Scottish Government, if they wish to provide additional support over and above the UK-wide schemes, to ensure that they have the resources to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) [V]
Businesses across Scotland, particularly in the hospitality, tourism and culture sectors, are still closed or nowhere near back to any sort of normality. With additional restrictions being reintroduced as cases have rocketed in Scotland, things are only going to get worse for those sectors. The high-profile case of Cineworld is the latest in a very large number of hammer blows to Scottish jobs. The Government do not seem to see that the health and economic responses to covid are one and the same thing. What message does the Secretary of State have for workers on the precipice of losing their jobs and business owners on the verge of losing their viable businesses, or is it simply the flippant response, as the Chancellor said yesterday to the culture sector, that they simply have to retrain and get new jobs?
Mr Jack
In this pandemic, the Chancellor has been very clear that he cannot save every business and every job. The hon. Gentleman mentions Cineworld. Independent cinemas were supported through the culture fund to the tune of £97 million in Barnett money. As I said, sadly we know we cannot save every business. Retraining programmes and the kickstart scheme are being put in place, and we have reduced VAT for hospitality, leisure and tourism to 5%. To protect the Scottish economy, I encourage the Scottish Government to make the restrictions coming forward as local as possible.
Ian Murray [V]
I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but the reality on the ground is that the Chancellor’s measures simply do not go far enough to protect jobs. The employees and businesses in the sectors hardest hit will need more support, and what they are getting from the Chancellor’s announcement is less support.
Another area critical for jobs is the Scotch whisky industry. This week marks one year since the United States announced a 25% tariff on Scotch whisky. Figures from the Scotch Whisky Association show that that has led to a devastating 32% drop in US Scotch whisky exports, costing a massive £360 million. Given the thousands of jobs in the industry that this supports, rather than the Secretary of State just telling us that he will raise the issue again with the International Trade Secretary, what is he actually going to do to encourage the US to lift the tariffs on Scotch whisky, or is this just another example of what his new Scottish Conservative leader describes as the Tories not caring about Scotland?
Mr Jack
The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue not just for the whisky industry, but for biscuits and cashmere. I am pleased that biscuits are now off the tariff carousel. The Boeing-Airbus dispute has been many years in the making. It is unfair. It is harmful to both industry and consumers. However, in the trade talks that have opened up with the US, we have now got agreement to have a bilateral discussion—in other words, not using the EU negotiators anymore—with the US. The good news I can tell him is that we have moved to a new phase. The Secretary of State for International Trade this week is starting discussions to try to resolve this problem.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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?
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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—