European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Ian Paisley

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

If that is not the case for financial services—I can see the Minister shaking his head to indicate that it might not be—perhaps I can turn the Minister’s attention to the Scotch whisky industry. Is that a sector that the Government are determined to throw under the bus? What about our wonderful Aberdeen Angus beef sector? Will the country be flooded with antibiotic beef to allow us to get a deal with the US, which may be contradictory to our deal with the EU? If the Minister is saying no to all those sectors, which sectors will he throw under the bus? The Government and the Department have drawn red lines that the chief negotiator for the European Union has described as contradictory to the aspiration of keeping financial services in the passporting arrangements with the European Union.

[Ian Paisley]

The only red lines from the Labour party that I have read about recently are these. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said that we must leave the single market to respect the referendum result. The shadow spokesman on Brexit, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), has said that we must leave the customs union because it would be “a disaster” to stay in it. That is the only controversy I can see here.

[Ian Murray]

Nobody voted to leave the single market and customs union. As the Chancellor has said, nobody voted in the European Union referendum to make themselves poorer. If the shadow Chancellor wants to walk through the Lobby with the Conservatives to take us out of the customs union and the single market, I certainly do not agree with him on that. I have been elected to represent a constituency that voted 78% remain and that is dependent on financial services, small businesses and the very healthy Scotch whisky industry. It is incumbent on me to defend my constituents’ interests from a Government who would be quite happy to throw sectors under the bus to get a trade deal from any country anywhere in the world, even though we already have 57 free trade deals that benefit all the sectors that I represent.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Ian Paisley

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

That is my point about the constitutional crisis we are in. It seems that the only way to follow the discussions between the UK Government and the EU is on Twitter. Journalists seem to know what is happening before hon. Members. We are getting a running commentary from the Government through press releases, but there is absolutely no proper consultation with the devolved Administrations.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I will give way to my friend from the DUP, because I think he might have something interesting to say.

[Ian Paisley]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks I might have something interesting to say as I know that he always has something interesting to say. On the general point, I do not think that anybody should get their news constantly from Twitter. Specifically on the amendments, is not the key point that we must show discernment and skill and not fall for the spin, whether that comes out of Dublin, London or Brussels? Let the negotiations run and let us see what comes out of them at the end.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more, but why not bring some of that to the House, rather than leaving it for commentary on Twitter? Journalists following the Prime Minister seem to know much more about what is happening than anybody in the House. If the Prime Minister were to fly home—Ministers can get back from foreign countries very quickly, as was demonstrated over the summer—come to the House and let us know what was going on, we would not need to stand here and speculate. The hon. Gentleman made an intervention about regulatory harmonisation. I think he let the cat out of the bag when he mentioned that the DUP was firmly against regulatory harmonisation in the island of Ireland, and that is why this is so important across the rest of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I will answer that directly when I talk about the Law Society of Scotland’s possible options. We could devolve everything and then put agreements in place, if the JMC and intergovernmental relations worked properly. There are therefore several other options, and it is not just me saying that, but many of the organisations that have commented on the Bill.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his amendments? Is he suggesting that some parts of the UK should be treated differently from others? Should London have a different and better deal than, say, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast? Should not we all, as UK subjects, be treated the same?

[Ian Murray]

I agree that all parts of the UK should be treated similarly, which is why I have always championed the UK’s staying in the single market and the customs union. That would allow us to leave the EU while keeping the regulatory harmonisation required—the very regulatory harmonisation that the hon. Gentleman railed against just a few moments ago—and keeping the UK single market operating within the EU single market.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Ian Paisley

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

At the end of this debate, has the shadow Secretary of State any inkling whatsoever of when the Barnett formula calculations for Scotland would cease and what impact that would have on the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Ian Murray]

The Barnett formula would cease as soon as the powers for full fiscal autonomy were transferred. That is something everyone should be aware of. The hon. Gentleman has consistently challenged SNP Members to say what the cost of full fiscal autonomy would be for the ordinary Scottish person in the street, and we are yet to have an answer. We have been told, “Let’s get the principle of full fiscal autonomy together and then work out the consequences later.”

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Ian Paisley

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

May I start by offering my congratulations to you, Mr Speaker? This is the first time I have been at the Dispatch Box since you were elected as Speaker. It is a tremendous pleasure to see you back in the Chair, especially after the events on the last day of the last Parliament.

I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the new Secretary of State, and not on his Castroesque speech—he spoke for nearly an hour—but because he has always been helpful, courteous and kind. I hope we will continue in that spirit now he is Secretary of State. The House may not know this, but we share something in common. We both share the distinction of being the most difficult choices that our party leaders had when choosing someone for our respective roles. I hear the Prime Minister mulled over the list of potential candidates for Secretary of State for hours before deciding on the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he will be a wise choice.

It would be remiss of me not to extend my congratulations to the Scottish National party Members on their unprecedented result in Scotland. There is a heavy weight on their shoulders—by the looks of it, on the end of their third Bench as well—to deliver the considerable promises that they made to the Scottish people during the election campaign. I say this sincerely to them: the political enemy in this place is on the Government Benches, and I hope that they will remember that in the coming years. Where we agree, I will endeavour to work with them and I hope that they will reciprocate; where we do not, and where scrutiny and principled opposition are required to hold the SNP Government to account in Holyrood, I will be a strong voice in such scrutiny. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, does not seem to be starting off on the right footing.

I want to pay tribute to my many colleagues and friends who lost their seats in Scotland at the general election. They should all be thanked for their unstinting commitment to serving their constituents; they will be a big loss to this place and I wish them all well. No one epitomised that dedication to public service more than my predecessor as the Opposition’s spokesman, Margaret Curran. She worked day and night in this place and beyond to stand up for the interests of Scotland and her constituents. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for that strong voice and for the position we are in today with the Bill.

Today marks a momentous point in Scotland’s devolution journey. Whatever the outcome of the general election, the Bill would have been in the first Queen’s Speech, regardless of who was sitting on the Treasury Bench. In 1997 one of the first acts of the new Labour Government was to present a Bill to the House to deliver the referendum that gave us the Scottish Parliament. That was a promise made then and kept then; we should bear that in mind when debating the Bill today. The Labour party is and always will be the party of devolution.

“There will be a Scottish Parliament”—the words of the father of Scotland, Donald Dewar. When he uttered those words, however, it signified a journey in devolution. That journey has seen Scotland recently travel through an extraordinary democratic process. The referendum was a once in a generation—once in a lifetime, depending on who is speaking—experience, marking a defining choice about Scotland’s membership of the United Kingdom. It was a no vote, but it was not a vote for no change. We can draw a constitutional lesson from that: Scotland wants to be in the United Kingdom, but it wants to be unique and able to make its own political choices.

Labour argued passionately for Scotland to remain in the UK and we won the argument. Perhaps we sacrificed our own party’s interests in doing so, but it was certainly the right thing to do. It is important to understand what the agreement was, why Scots chose to stay in the UK and why it is so important for the Bill to deliver for Scotland. It is therefore worth putting the Bill in its constitutional context.

Over the past year we have had a debate about Scotland’s place in the world and how, in an uncertain international environment, Scotland’s interests are best served as part of a larger country and stable Union; a debate about Scotland’s economic interests, with more opportunities for jobs, for businesses and for investment as part of the wider UK; a debate about sharing economic and financial crisis risks, whether in the rebuilding of the Scottish-domiciled banks or the shared risks from the ups and downs in the oil price; a debate about shared tax and spending resources, about how Scotland can take greater control over tax and spending while maintaining the UK-wide pooling and sharing of resources that guarantees pensions and benefits, and safeguards Scotland’s public services; and, most importantly from a Labour point of view, a debate about social solidarity, about sharing across the territory of the United Kingdom so that together the nations of the UK can work together for the benefit of everyone who lives here.

In the end, this is about our sense of belonging: we are not simply Scots on our own, but part of a wider family of nations in the United Kingdom. The lesson of the referendum campaign is that those links remain powerful and valued by most Scots. However, it is clear that securing Scotland’s place in the UK is simply not enough. That is why the Bill really matters, because it guarantees not only economic benefits and UK social solidarity, but the scope under devolution to do more, to make different choices and to set a different course for Scotland, distinct from a UK agenda that might not always be—today certainly is not—in accordance with the public opinion of Scotland.

The Bill will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world—not my research, but that of the Scottish Parliament itself—with responsibility for more than 40% of tax revenues and more than 60% of public spending. Critically, the Bill provides more accountability. Lord Smith said that the agreement had the potential to increase financial discipline, promote greater budget transparency and enhance the debate on fiscal policy in Scotland. That is important, because the Scottish Parliament already has devolved responsibility for many of the areas that are critical to the day-to-day life of Scots: health, education, housing, justice, transport, economic development, local authority and business rates, 10p of income tax and all immovable taxes, borrowing powers and much more besides.

The problems in Scotland with accident and emergency waiting times, lower educational attainment and a crisis in housing show that the more important debate in this House is about how powers are utilised, rather than where they lie. After this Bill is passed, the Scottish Government, as the most powerful devolved Government on earth, will have immense power to change our society for the better—to create a fairer Scotland and a fairer country—but the Bill will also ensure that Scotland continues to benefit from the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom.

What is required now is the imagination and political will to deliver on that potential. That political will has always been a Labour priority, as demonstrated through the Calman and Smith commissions, to deliver progressive change for Scotland. The question becomes: will it be the SNP’s priority to start using new powers as a responsible Government or will it continue with a politics of grievance and blame? It appears to me from today’s exchanges that the SNP is desperate to be disappointed before the Bill has even started its passage through this House.

Labour has always been committed to ensuring that the infamous vow, negotiated by the cross-party Smith commission, was delivered in full. May I take this opportunity to thank Lord Smith of Kelvin and the 10 commissioners for their sterling work in getting us to where we are today? The Bill meets the commitment on the timetable and Labour will ensure, through the Bill’s passage in this House, that the legislation promises are also met in full, both in substance and in spirit. The original purpose of devolution was to keep the social solidarity that comes from being part of something bigger while recognising the uniqueness of Scotland’s role in the UK.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that one secret of devolution, and of this kingdom, has been parity for all of our peoples across all of the nations that share this kingdom and that the break-up of parity in social welfare payments alone has had the most destabilising impact in Northern Ireland? Indeed, more interest is given to the levels of disability living allowance than to the levels of IRA activity in Northern Ireland. Will the change to welfare payments affecting Scottish people also have a destabilising impact, not only on Scotland’s place in the Union, but on our place together as a people?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for the intervention, because the hon. Gentleman is describing devolution—that is how it works. It is up to individual Parliaments to make the choices, within the powers they have, on how they want to serve. Under a democratic system, the people will decide at the ballot box whether or not those decisions are ones they wish to vote for. Unfortunately, when there is devolution there will be disparities across the nations of the United Kingdom, but the important point is that the United Kingdom stays together.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Murray and Ian Paisley

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and we will take that debate forward to Committee. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been downgraded under this Government—indeed, the Beecroft review recommended that it be scrapped. We must be vigilant and ensure that the great work done by that authority in saving lives and stopping exploitation continues, and we can debate that in Committee. If I look towards the Whips, perhaps my hon. Friend will join us on that Committee to make those points—his name is being jotted down as we speak.

I was talking about the huge impact and value that supermarkets bring to our economy. The groceries market was worth nearly £157 billion in 2011, and it provides significant choice and good value for customers, which is vital. A number of supermarkets in my constituency do a tremendous job through investment in our high streets, job creation, and supporting community projects, and I am grateful to them for that positive role. I also place on record my thanks to Sainsbury’s at Cameron Toll in my constituency for its continued support for my schools Christmas card competition. Likewise, farmers and small suppliers play a critical part in achieving economic growth. It is an incredibly difficult time to be a farmer or small supplier in the UK—there have been increases in feed prices, not to mention the difficulties that many small and medium-sized enterprises have experienced in accessing finance. We should set retailer abuses against that backdrop.

We should acknowledge that retailers have done much to clean up their supply chains, but we know that abuses by retailers against suppliers still occur, and that evidence supports the need for a groceries code adjudicator more than ever. FoodDrinkEurope, the European federation, surveyed businesses from around Europe anonymously. It asked whether businesses had been confronted by various situations, and the survey gives us a picture of the situation in the UK. Seventy-seven per cent. of businesses said they had experienced non-respective contractual terms; 75% said they had experienced de-listing threats to obtain unjustified advantages; and 60% said they had experienced unilateral deductions to invoices. Only a very small number of the businesses interviewed—3%—said that they had done something other than discuss the situation with their customers. When asked why, more than half said they did not believe in the effectiveness of the remedies by public or legal authorities, and 44% said they were afraid of commercial sanctions. In one case of which I am aware, the supplier—a salad grower based in Yorkshire—said:

“The retailer has reneged on a commitment to cover the costs of packaging should they terminate dealings with me at short notice—despite this being confirmed”

on numerous occasions in e-mails.

[Ian Paisley]

Given those statistics, does the hon. Gentleman believe that food producers will feel emboldened to come forward and make their complaints if no financial penalty is front and centre in the Bill?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need proper sanctions—we need to take the carrot-and-stick approach. Without proper fines in the Bill, the adjudicator could, as the Minister said, be a toothless dog or tiger. I will come to that shortly.

There are times when a market needs intervention to make competition work well, particularly if players in that market become too powerful. Roughly 3.6 million people are employed in food production in this country, and making competition in that market function more fairly through the introduction of the adjudicator is ultimately good for growth and for those jobs. It will undoubtedly also be good for consumers in the long term. Because the choice of products is supported, small suppliers and products will not be driven from the market by anti-competitive practices, which hon. Members have mentioned. The choice of retailers will also be supported, because small retailers will not be driven from the market by the disparity in buying terms, which can be exacerbated by anti-competitive practices. Suppliers will be better able to plan their businesses, yielding efficiencies. Critically, they will be able to invest in innovation, new products and product quality. Finally, more competition will hopefully bring down prices.

The benefits of a strong adjudicator are clear, but fundamentally the Opposition’s major concern is that the adjudicator will be toothless. The adjudicator must have teeth to tackle the breaches of which all hon. Members are aware.