Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the SNP on bringing this debate to the Chamber. I also pass on my thoughts and best wishes to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who signed the motion. He is not with us today because he has lost his father, so our best wishes go to him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
When I learned of and read the motion, I got quite excited, because I thought that I might finally agree with one of my SNP colleagues’ motions. It starts off, rightly, by highlighting the disastrous impacts of this Tory-created economic crisis, but I am sorry to say that it ends in a rather familiar way, with their one-size-fits-all and only answer to any question: independence. I will come to that later, but let me go through the first part of the motion.
To start with the Secretary of State’s contribution, I did not hear an apology for what the Government have just done to the UK economy. The Conservatives once claimed to be the party of economic competence, but they have now created absolute chaos. Let there be no doubt that the Conservatives have crashed the British economy. Their now junked mini-Budget—well, partially junked, because they have kept the scrapping of bankers’ bonuses—which was mini only in its connection with reality, has exacerbated an already burgeoning crisis. That crisis was born from catastrophic decisions made over the past 12 years, including when the current PM was Chancellor.
As the motion outlines, the pound is at a record low, mortgage rates are through the roof and inflation continues to spiral out of control. I know that for many on the Conservative Benches, those are just indicators—numbers on a screen—but they show an economy tanking as a result of their incompetence. This is not just about numbers; it is about the quality of life of millions of people up and down the country. It is about the unimaginable stress caused to families, who were already stumped by how they would make ends meet. They find their mortgage rates shooting up and energy prices rocketing, and they are staring at their supermarket receipts, wondering at how few items they got for such a high cost.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Member makes some great points about the catastrophe we are involved in due to being in the UK. On that basis, would he prefer an independent Scotland with a Labour or an SNP Government, or a Scotland inside the UK with a Tory Government? Which is it?
Ian Murray
I prefer Scotland in the UK with a Labour Government. What an absolutely ridiculous and pointless intervention from a ridiculous and pointless Member of Parliament. [Interruption.] Is that unparliamentary, Mr Deputy Speaker? Okay, I apologise. [Interruption.] I just said I apologise.
A family came to my surgery last week to say that their fixed-rate mortgage of 1.79% was expiring. Given the increases in interest rates, they were expecting to pay and had budgeted for 3.5%, but they were quoted more than 6.5% and they simply cannot afford it. What was it all for? To give unfunded tax cuts to the richest. Make no mistake: the Tories crashed the economy from Downing Street and it will be paid for by ordinary people, either through their pay packets or through austerity.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we ask a question of a colleague in Parliament who finds it difficult to understand, is it in order that he responds with insults?
Ian Murray
I am glad that the hon. Member has accepted it, from whichever seat he is now sitting in.
As I was saying, what has happened will be paid for by ordinary people either through their pay packets or through austerity, because the Government U-turns and change of Prime Minister cannot undo what has been done to Britain’s reputation. Our institutions have been undermined, our standing on the world stage has been diminished, and our credibility as a place to invest has been damaged. The devastation will last for years, maybe decades. As the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said in his opening speech—I will quote him as accurately as I can—that comes with “massive, massive costs”. But one of the other massive costs would be the break-up of the United Kingdom, because there is no doubt that this Conservative Government are as big a threat to the Union as any nationalist sitting by my side here.
Who have the Conservative party turned to to put out the fire? The arsonist himself. Let us not forget that even before this abject disaster, the now Prime Minister, as Chancellor, delivered the highest tax burden on working people in 70 years, the highest inflation in 40 years and the highest of any G7 country, the largest fall in living standards since records began in the 1970s, continued low growth and stagnant wages.
We have a Prime Minister who increased the tax for everyone else while he did not think his family should pay it; a Prime Minister who, while every single person in this country suffered under lockdown, was fined for partying in Downing Street; a Prime Minister who left a loophole in the windfall tax so that billions of pounds that could have been put into public services to help people with their energy bills were left on the table; a Prime Minister who lost tens of billions of pounds to covid fraud and shrugged his shoulders; a Prime Minister who was so weak in dealing with the cost of living crisis that he thought that the best and only response was to increase everyone’s national insurance; a Prime Minister who was, as a Member of Parliament, more of a US resident than a UK citizen; a Prime Minister who always puts his party first and the country second; and a Prime Minister without a mandate to govern. As the Leader of the Opposition so aptly put it, in the only competitive election in which the Prime Minister has stood, he was trounced by someone who was in turn beaten by a lettuce.
Ian Murray
The big difference will be having a stable economy. The big difference will be growth. The big difference will be a laser-like focus on child poverty. The big difference will be trade. The big difference will be making this country work. The big difference will be repairing our relationship internationally, including with our EU partners. Those are the big differences. We will have a constitutional settlement fit for the 2020s, instead of ripping Scotland out of the United Kingdom with all the problems that that may cause.
If my attack on the Conservative party has upset SNP Members, wait until they hear the next few pages of my speech. While I am speaking of having no plan, let me turn to the second part of the SNP’s motion, which I certainly disagree with: the prospectus for independence. The much-anticipated paper appeared a few Mondays ago, after years or even decades of no credible economic answers from the yes movement. Unfortunately, even with all these papers, the wait continues.
Let me turn to a few of the big themes. They may seem a little like déjà vu in this House, but we still have no answers. The first, and probably the most obvious and important, is currency. SNP Members have had more views on the currency of an independent Scotland than I have had fish suppers—and I can tell you I have had a few, Mr Deputy Speaker. Their latest wheeze was revealed last week. Immediately after having voted to leave the United Kingdom—in their hypothetical scenario—an independent Scotland would take back control with a radically different economic approach and keep the pound. So the Bank of England and the UK Treasury would still set the fiscal rules; all that would change is that we would have no say whatever over them.
The economic levers that SNP Members continually bleat about would be left in Westminster. Would that just be temporary, though? They say yes, because they would introduce a separate Scottish currency, the Scottish pound. We might ask how long that would take, but they do not tell us. At first, people would pay their mortgage in the same currency in which they borrowed it, but at some point during the lifetime of their mortgage, the currency would probably switch to one that does not currently exist. One thing I know from discussions with my own mortgage provider is that if people borrow in pounds, they will pay back in pounds, regardless of the value of any new currency.
The SNP chair of the Sustainable Growth Commission—a commission that has now been junked and barely mentioned—has said:
“The risk would be that the currency would come into being and then quickly devalue…That would have an effect on people’s income”.
Just listen to that sentence. After the mini-Budget, we know all too well what happens when a currency devalues so quickly. According to the eminent economist Professor MacDonald of Glasgow University, that devaluation could be as much as 30% on day one. That is a 30% reduction in income overnight, but everyone’s borrowing would stay in pounds.
If SNP Members will not listen to economists or experts, perhaps they will listen to someone they know better: the First Minister herself, who said that using the pound is in the long-term interests of Scotland. She said that for years. It has now been junked.
A new country and a new currency would also mean a central bank, but not one like any other central bank that exists in the economies of the world. At first, for an indeterminate period, it would be a central bank operating with another country’s currency. The First Minister claimed at the launch and the press conference that the central bank would be a lender of last resort and would stand by things like the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which guarantees up to £85,000 in someone’s bank account if a bank goes into liquidation or disappears. So we would have a central bank as a lender of last resort, standing by things like the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in someone else’s currency, but with absolutely no control over monetary policy.
The Scottish Government paper says that a greater emphasis would be placed on fiscal policy to ensure the strength of the economy. Surely that is shorthand for greater austerity. I will come back to that issue later.
Ian Murray
Let me just finish this point, because it is really important and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer it. According to the paper, when the new currency is established after an indeterminate period, the planned reserves will total just $14 billion—a fraction of what similar small nations require. In the Scottish Government’s first paper, they drew comparisons with lots of other small European countries, so let us compare some currency reserves. Denmark’s currency reserve is equivalent to $82 billion, Norway’s to $84 billion and Sweden’s to $62 billion, and those are all established currencies with a track record and a borrowing record. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us how that makes the case for borrowing to create massive reserves.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has just pointed out the reserves of independent countries, so he can obviously tell us the reserves of Scotland, if it is doing so well in the Union. If Scotland becomes independent, will Labour Members come forward with policies, or will they pretend they are like the Tories and refuse to play? Will he try to get into the House of Lords, or will he want to be a politician in Scotland after independence? What is his position? Under devolution, five parties come forward and present their views to the public. I imagine that that will be the same after independence—or are Labour and the Tories saying, “We’re taking our ball home—we can’t play any more”?
Ian Murray
Mr Deputy Speaker, honestly! We want a sensible debate, but according to the hon. Gentleman I am taking my ball home and going to the House of Lords. I suspect that the reason he is so animated is that his seat might become a Labour seat at the next general election. Let me tell him my prospectus for Scotland: my prospectus is that Scotland stays in the United Kingdom with a UK Labour Government. That is my policy. He seems to forget that this is his motion, not mine: I am replying to an SNP Opposition day debate on a motion tabled by SNP Members in their own terms.
I was talking about the reserves of other countries. The SNP’s approach to creating Scotland’s reserves, which would be a fraction of those of other countries, is to borrow. The SNP’s proposition for independence is to continue to use the pound while setting up its own central bank, being a Scottish lender of last resort and borrowing tens of billions of pounds to create reserves for a new currency. The very foundation of the new state would be built on unfunded, unforecasted borrowing. It is like someone trying to build up their savings by using a credit card. We know it is bonkers, because the UK Government have just demonstrated how bonkers it is, and SNP Members know it.
Ian Murray
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman up to a point, but I wish he would not refer to the UK Government’s largesse or Westminster’s largesse. It is this Conservative Government’s largesse, and if we want to turn the UK around and keep the UK together, we have to replace this rotten lot with a UK Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, however: the list of failures of Scottish Government policy is the length of your arm, and I would be here until 7 o’clock this evening if I went through them all. That includes the failures in my own constituency, where it is impossible to get a GP appointment. The Health Secretary tells me there is no problem, although NHS Lothian has said that health services and GP services in my constituency are failing—and I quote that directly from one of its reports.
Let me now turn to the subject of the European Union, because we have heard a lot about that. I remind the House—including my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, who made some great points about the EU—that when the Division bell rang on our efforts to find a way through a deal with the European Union, we would have won on the customs union had the SNP not abstained. And let us not forget that when the Division bell rang on 12 December, after the general election, when the offer on the trade and co-operation agreement was “take it or leave it”, SNP Members voted for no deal. That is their record here: they talk a good game, but they do not deliver when they should be delivering.
Much like the experience of some Conservative Members in recent years, the response from Brussels has not fitted the preconceived fantasy. At the aforementioned press conference, the First Minister rejected the idea that Scotland would join the euro, saying it was
“not the right option for Scotland”.
Nonetheless, she added, Scotland would have no problem with joining the European Union. That is awkward, is it not, because the EU does not seem to agree. The law does not seem to agree. Officials have insisted, and the treaties state, that any country wishing to join the EU would legally have to commit to the euro. I wonder whether any SNP Members can shed any light on the Scottish Government’s position—but let me answer my own question, because I am more likely to get the answer than I would be if the SNP answered it.
The paper says that an independent Scotland would use the pound for an undetermined period, then borrow tens of billions—which may be an inadequate amount—to support a new currency, only to have to legally commit to joining the euro at some point in the future. The SNP has more currency positions in this paper than we have had Prime Ministers since the summer. If the mini-Budget has demonstrated anything, it is that the markets take a dim view of fantasy economics. What an economic catastrophe for Scottish people’s mortgages, borrowing, pensions and wages!
Before SNP Members start jumping up and down, as they have already, saying that some EU countries do not use the euro, let me repeat that every new member of the European Union must legally commit to joining the euro. That is written in an international treaty, which is international law. But here comes the conundrum for the SNP. The paper that has been presented by the First Minister does several things; are she and the SNP saying (a) that they are not willing to abide by the EU rules on the euro? They have already said that they would not join the exchange rate mechanism. They would play their games: they would say they would do it, and would not. Is that the policy, or is it (b)? If it is not joining the euro, they are essentially saying that a separate Scotland would sit outside the rest of the UK and the EU with a different currency.
Ian Murray
That position is surely not in the best interests of Scotland—but I hear someone shout, from a sedentary position, “Got it in one.” So SNP Members want to create a border with our biggest trading partner, and to create a currency border with what they say will become their biggest trading partner, and Scotland will be sitting with a separate currency, a different currency, outwith both. What they are doing—and this is key to the whole argument—is cherry-picking EU rules, which sounds more like Farage “cakeism” than a credible proposition for any country. They want to take all the good things but none of the bad, and they have no way of squaring that circle.
Ian Murray
I said I would give way to my neighbouring colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but she is no longer here—
Ian Murray
She has given up; she has no answers to these questions either.
It is little wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies—much quoted by the First Minister in the last few weeks, and rightly, because of the mess this Government have made of the UK economy—has also slammed the SNP’s position. The IFS said:
“It is highly likely an independent Scotland would need to make bigger cuts to public spending or bigger increases to tax in the first decade following independence ”.
The IFS was right about the mini-Budget—indeed, everyone quotes it, including the First Minister—and it is right about this proposition as well. If SNP Members will not listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, why will they not listen to their own people on their own side? Robin McAlpine of the Common Weal foundation has been quoted already today, and he is somebody the SNP used to quote vociferously in here. He campaigned for independence alongside the First Minister—and alongside many Members who are now sitting here—in 2014.
Referendum on Scottish Independence
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I am slightly disappointed, as are many hon. Members, by the introduction we heard from the member of the Petitions Committee. I did not hear one argument for our not having a second independence referendum. Given the balanced way that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) could have made his case, I should have thought that he might have spent at least 55% of his opening speech on that argument.
Here is the bombshell: 2 million is larger than 1.6 million, and 55% of the Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. I have no truck with the SNP as regards its continuing to agitate for a second referendum—that is why it exists—but I would hope it would realise the impact that has, not only on the Scottish economy but Scotland as a country. When people went to the polls and made their democratic choice to stay part of the United Kingdom, that should be respected, and for a number of reasons. First, it is democratic, but secondly, we were promised by the proponents of an independent Scotland that the referendum would be “once in a generation” or, indeed, “once in a lifetime”. When proponents said that and people went to the polls and put their cross in the box, whether yes or no, they should have been able to trust what people had said. I will not come on to what many Conservative Members did during the Brexit referendum, but people should be able to trust what people are saying during referendums and take that forward on their own basis.
I come at the debate from a slightly different perspective from people who have spoken already, and that is the perspective of jobs, livelihoods and prosperity in my constituency. Some 66% of my constituents voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, which is something I promised to respect—as did many other hon. Members here—not just at the 2015 general election but also the 2017 election; it was very much the question on the doorsteps in ’15 and ’17. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk says that the SNP won the 2017 election, but he should be marginally more humble about that result and not take the Scottish people for granted. If the SNP won the election, as he claims so emphatically, why is it not holding a second independence referendum if it feels it has that mandate?
There is a lesson in here for the Scottish people. Regardless of the First Minister, the entirety of the Yes campaign or the SNP—I appreciate that there are nuanced differences between those groups—if a second referendum is put on to the back burner, or even if the First Minister stands up and says we will have no talk of a second independence referendum, what will bring it back on to the front burner? People voting SNP in other elections. We have heard this afternoon that that is where the SNP sees the mandate as coming from, so a second referendum will never properly be on the back burner while the SNP continues to agitate for it.
Let us look at the economic case in terms of jobs and livelihoods. Scotland lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom in growth, jobs and the sustainability of the economy, and investment is not as high in Scotland as across the rest of the United Kingdom. That economic case for a second independence referendum is completely shot. Constituents come to me all the time and say, “We’re three years on from the independence referendum, and five to six years on from the start of this process, and we still don’t know the answers to the fundamental questions. What happens to our pensions? What currency will we use? What will our lender of last resort be?”—and, and this is a crucial one, because it is a key argument of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk—“Will we or will we not be part of the European Union?”
I still do not know the Scottish Government’s position on the European Union. They know they have to play to a number of people who voted yes to independence and voted to leave the European Union. They know they have to play to that base, in terms of whether Scotland will go back into the European Union—[Interruption.] If somebody from the SNP wants to intervene and tell me whether it is the Scottish National party’s position to go back in as full members of the European Union, I am happy to give way.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
One of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who I was on the radio with said that if Scotland voted no in 2014, it was a vote to stay in the European Union. Where does that promise stand now?
Ian Murray
There has been a democratic vote, and a democratic petition on how it went has been put to the Petitions Committee, and I wish we were analysing that.
I will finish, because I want to leave other hon. Members time to speak. It is quite clear in my own constituency that 3,622 people took the time and effort to sign a petition to say that they do not want a second independence referendum, because of all the issues around the economy, culture and taking Scotland forward. They have made that decision already. Only 500 people in my constituency voted for a second independence referendum. We must listen to the public and hear what they are saying. For the sake of the Scottish economy and for the future livelihoods and prosperity of my constituents, let us say no to a second referendum and take it off the table permanently.
Scotland Bill
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman asks me to withdraw my remark, but he asked to intervene before I made it, so he obviously wanted to intervene about something else. As they used to say on the radio, “What’s your point, caller?” [Interruption.] I can stand here and waste time until 8.37 pm if SNP Members want me to. I believe that many of them want to speak, but if they want to continue to waste time, that is entirely up to them. I can stand here all evening and then allow the Minister to speak shortly before we move on.
I believe that most of the clauses in this part of the Bill match the spirit and letter of the Smith agreement, but we wish to make sure that there is clarity, and to go slightly further. We have identified areas where the Bill can go further, primarily by placing more specific duties on the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and also on the Secretary of State to deliver on these powers. Labour’s amendments would require the Scottish Parliament to work towards gender balance in the membership of the Scottish Parliament and on the boards of Scottish public authorities; require the Scottish Parliament to establish a process to end the system of employment tribunal fees in Scotland; devolve the enforcement of equalities legislation to the Scottish Parliament; and make sure that Scotland can, if it so wishes, implement a not-for-profit people’s railway.
We have already heard some debate about the Crown Estate, so I will canter through this part of my speech rather quickly to allow other Members to speak. Clause 31 transfers management of the Crown Estate’s Scottish assets and income to Scottish Ministers. That terminology is vital in terms of some of the questions we have for the Secretary of State. These assets account for about 3.9% of Crown Estate revenues. They include several rural estates; commercial property in Edinburgh; mineral and salmon fishing rights; approximately half of the coastal foreshore; and almost the entire seabed, including rights on the continental shelf. Crucially, the clause does not transfer rights over joint investments. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, there has been considerable local press coverage about Fort Kinnaird in Edinburgh as it is not owned by the Crown Estate but is merely a joint investment. Why it is specifically excluded given that—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—even if it is just a 50% shareholding, it should be deemed to be an asset in terms of a being shareholding? It would be useful if the Secretary of State clarified that.
I largely agree with the clause as drafted, albeit with two small amendments. The first is the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I understand that the reason for the current wording of the clause is that the Treasury requires the legislative consent of Scottish Ministers before making such a scheme. However, once that consent has been given, as I assume it would be, the wording does not definitely require the formation of a scheme. Our amendment 52 would replace reference in line 36 to “Scottish Ministers” with “Scottish Parliament”. Ministers are transient, whereas the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and that should be recognised in all the clauses of this Bill.
The transfer of Crown Estate assets entails the transfer of staff and tenants to a new employer and landlord. It is vital that that transition is as smooth as possible to minimise unnecessary disruption and anxiety to workers and to tenants. I would welcome an assurance from the Government that every effort is being made to ensure that that will be the case. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) asked some legitimate questions that the Secretary of State should take on board and try to answer.
Finally on the Crown Estate, will the Secretary of State deal with the issue of the coastal communities fund? That is not directly funded by the Crown Estate but by the Treasury as part of the revenues of the Crown Estate. Will that situation continue or will the responsibility transfer to the Scottish Government? The fund is hugely important for Scottish coastal communities, and it is important to get clarity on its continuation, whether paid for by the Treasury or by the Scottish Government.
We will support amendment 57, in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as we believe in the concept of double devolution to get powers into the hands of the communities best placed to use them effectively. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said about coastal communities. I recognise, however, that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is using this as a probing amendment to make sure that the issue can be on the agenda. He is right that it does not have to be included in the Bill, but I am glad that it has been raised.
Clause 32 devolves powers over equal opportunities bodies to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party has always been a staunch proponent of women’s rights and the promotion of female representation. As respected organisation Engender has observed, there is compelling evidence to suggest that lack of gendered power balance in the wider public domain has a major impact on equality of outcomes across Government Departments. I therefore welcome the transfer of these powers, which will add to the tools available to the Scottish Parliament to tackle gender inequality in all its guises. There are very few legislative opportunities to provide for meaningful advancement in these areas, so we should grab those opportunities when they arise. We have seen that voluntary quotas or non-statutory targets can go some way towards this but are not as effective as legislation.
Our amendment 123 would amend clause 32 to include a specific requirement for gender balance among Members of the Scottish Parliament and members of boards of Scottish public authorities. That would devolve the issue to the Scottish Parliament and allow for it to be debated and properly implemented there. The Scottish Parliament has achieved much to be proud of, but in this area we are lagging behind our European partners. We should also deal with the dreadful record on such issues in this place. In appealing for the Committee’s support on this, I reassert my belief that equality is not a party-political issue. I want us to work together on it. I thank the cross-party campaigning group Women 50:50 for their support for the amendment and their “It’s as easy as 123” campaign. I hope that Members will also support new clause 41, which would require Scottish Ministers to undertake and publish a review of the measures they are taking further to help and promote gender equality in the membership of the Scottish Parliament and on the boards of Scottish public authorities.
New clause 66, tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and new clause 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), propose the devolution of abortion law and other connected laws, with regard to the relevant section of the Scotland Act 1998, to the Scottish Parliament. We will vote against the new clauses if they are pressed to a vote because we believe that a woman’s right to choose should be determined by robust medical evidence and not by where they live.
There is no reason why women in Edinburgh should face a different experience from women in Exeter. Many would argue that the current system needs to be improved, but that would be best achieved in a UK framework and should be part of a debate separate from that on the constitution.
Mr MacNeil
That is remarkable, because those matters are linked to countries’ constitutions. The limits are different in almost each and every European country. Why cannot they be different or the same across the UK—whatever the most democratic forums in each part of the UK choose? I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s negation of democracy.
Ian Murray
The next part of my speech offers an explanation of our opposition to devolving that particular issue across these islands.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is chuntering again. I will come on to the Northern Ireland issue. This is an incredibly serious issue and we should discuss it in a sober, proper and mature manner. Whether someone is pro-choice or pro-life, these are incredibly sensitive and emotive issues to which we should give due consideration.
Our opposition to devolving this particular issue is threefold. First, we stand with the 13 organisations from Scottish civic society, including Amnesty International, Scottish Women’s Aid and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which have called on us to vote against the amendments. We share their concerns that the proposal has not been properly consulted on and that, on existing evidence, it could lead to harming a woman’s right to choose. The statement they have sent to all Members of this House concludes:
“Women across the UK have fought for women’s bodies to be their own and, to this day, fight opposition to a woman’s right to choose. We do not wish this amendment to open the doors to those who seek to undermine this right.”
Ian Murray
Well, devolution in a lot of instances is not logical, because—[Interruption.] I am answering the intervention of the hon. Member for Gainsborough. If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) wants to intervene, I am more than happy to allow him to do so, but he must let me answer the intervention first. A lot of devolution is illogical, because that is how devolution works.
I hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar will allow me to get to the second and third reasons for our opposition to the devolution of abortion at this stage. As I have said, our first reason for opposing it is that we are being asked to do so by women’s organisations in Scotland. Secondly, the Smith commission clearly stated that
“a process should be established immediately to consider the matter further.”
That has not happened. On 21 July, a Scottish Government spokesperson told the BBC that talks with UK Government Ministers on the devolution of abortion law had begun prior to the election. I would welcome an intervention from the Secretary of State or, indeed, anyone on the SNP Front Bench to inform the House about the discussions that have taken place so far, but the Smith agreement is clear and the promised process has not emerged.
This is not the proper process for which Smith asked. I understand that the issue was put on the table rather late in the day at the Smith commission and that it was agreed that there would be a proper process of discussion, debate and dialogue before any particular change is made to the constitution or the law.
Ian Murray
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman: that is the STUC’s view. The TUC takes a slightly different view. We have to be very careful, as the TUC points out, that we do not create a race to the bottom. As I have said, it strongly counsels against a race to the bottom.
Ian Murray
This amendment is about people paying a fee to enter the employment tribunal system. It would give the Scottish Parliament full control over how that system operates, under the legislative framework of the United Kingdom. That is how a lot of issues work, including health and safety and the Scottish courts system. That is how the justice system in Scotland, which has always been independent of the rest of the UK, operates and it is a perfectly fair way for devolution to work.
Amendments 159 and 160 relate to fixed odds betting terminals and the supervision, inspection and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) might go into that in more detail if he catches your eye, Sir David.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) is in her place, but in an earlier sitting of the Committee, she mentioned that the Scottish Parliament controls much of road safety, but does not have legislative competence over pavement parking. As she did not table an amendment to sort that out, we brought forward new clause 22, which has the full support of the Living Streets charity, to rectify the anomaly. It intends to ensure that parking offences such as parking on pavements or by dropped kerbs and double-parking can be enforced by the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful to Living Streets for bringing this matter to our attention. Having spent a day blindfolded with the guide dogs in Corstorphine in Edinburgh, I think we should all take cognisance of the way in which people with sight problems are able to get around our towns and cities.
Clause 39 devolves Executive competence in relation to the policing of railways in Scotland by specifying as a cross-border authority the British Transport police authority. The clause is in keeping with the Smith agreement, but it was not part of the agreement that the British Transport police should be devolved in order that it may be abolished. That is what is being proposed by the Scottish Government, who want to transfer the existing functions of the British Transport police to Police Scotland. The abolition is vehemently opposed by the unions and the British Transport police, and their strong views should be taken into account. Will the Secretary of State comment on that issue?
Finally, new clause 63 calls for an assessment by the Low Pay Commission of the effect of the Scottish Parliament having the power to alter the national minimum wage rate for Scotland. The national minimum wage is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government and we will defend it to the death. However, it has become a maximum wage for too many people and we must encourage the private sector to move beyond the minimum wage to a living wage. Low pay is one of the biggest political issues of our time, particularly in the run-up to the Budget, with the proposed cut to tax credits.
Mr MacNeil
I am anxious to know why Labour want control over the minimum wage in Scotland to be in the hands of the Tories.
Ian Murray
The minimum wage in Scotland is not in the hands of the Tories; it is in the hands of the Low Pay Commission.
Ian Murray
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises this, but it is the Low Pay Commission that recommends the rate of the national minimum wage to the Government. As someone who sat on the Committee that considered the statutory instruments that implemented the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, I say that I would like its recommendations to go further, but it is up to the commission to set the rates.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we had a firm manifesto commitment to ask the Low Pay Commission to increase the national minimum wage over a period of time to 58% of median earnings. We have to be careful in this area. That is what new clause 63 is about. If he reads it, he will see that. We have to be extremely cautious about not undermining the national minimum wage by devolving it to Scotland. The new clause is perfectly clear about what we are trying to achieve. It asks the Low Pay Commission to complete a full analysis of the consequences of devolving this power.
If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he should look at what we received from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union today. It is promoting a £10 minimum wage, so it has no axe to grind in terms of our policy on 58% of median earnings, because it wants to go much higher. It has been campaigning on that rather successfully for some time. It says that devolving the national minimum wage to Scotland could enable the vision of the Prime Minister’s Government of lower pay in some regions to come true, particularly in northern constituencies and in Scotland. It states:
“We need to be extremely cautious over the…demand for devolving powers surrounding the minimum wage. This move would bring about an end to the national minimum wage”
in Scotland. We are saying that we need to be cautious. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read new clause 63 before he intervenes again. I will allow him to intervene again if he does so.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no bigger champion of workers’ rights, the national minimum wage and union rights in this place. We must deal with poverty pay. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar wants to read new clause 63, I am happy to let him intervene again, but he obviously has not because he does not realise that new clause 63—[Interruption.] If he will allow me to explain, new clause 63 asks the Low Pay Commission to do a full analysis of the potential consequences of fragmenting the national minimum wage across the United Kingdom. That is something that Opposition Members of all colours should wish to see, because if we undermine the national minimum wage, we undermine the entire structure that is meant to prevent low pay in this country.
Mr MacNeil
It is terrible that Labour sees the national minimum wage only as something to be undermined; it is something that has to be bolstered. What does the hon. Gentleman think the effect would be on the national minimum wage in England, Wales and Northern Ireland if it were increased in Scotland by, say, 10%? It would drive it higher.
Ian Murray
In fact, what the hon. Gentleman has just said is exactly what it says in new clause 63, which tells the Low Pay Commission to look at the consequences. The consequence of undermining the political consensus on the national minimum wage would be fragmentation and a race to the bottom. The TUC is clear in its press release today:
“It is also a complete false economy… Breaking up the national minimum wage would carry similar risks, leaving workers in many parts of the country facing poorer pay in depressed local economies.”
It speaks of a potential “race to the bottom”. We should listen to the people who have fought for their entire lives for the national minimum wage. The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that he does not agree that everyone across the entire United Kingdom deserves better pay. The fight to eradicate poor pay in this country does not stop at the border.
Scotland Bill
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that between 2007 and 2009 the UK’s deficit quadrupled. Given the significance that he attaches to deficits and to one year, what significance does he attach to the quadrupling of the debt of a state in a two-year period?
Ian Murray
I am not sure I understand the intervention. We are debating a deficit in Scotland being £7.6 billion over and above any UK deficit, rising to £10 billion by 2020. If we are defending Scottish jobs and livelihoods, that seems not just economically incredible, but economic illiteracy. Hon. Members need not take my word for it. The Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary, Grahame Smith, commented that the Scottish Government’s own accounts were
“a sobering reminder of some of the risks of full fiscal autonomy”.
That is from the trade unions in Scotland.
The Scottish Government sneaked out their own oil and gas bulletin, their first since May 2014, last week on the last day of the Scottish Parliament. It would be good to look at that alongside the independence White Paper. The bulletin was very much in accord with the Office for Budget Responsibility that was rubbished just a few days before. It showed that North sea oil revenues and projections have fallen drastically in recent times, so let us have a look at those figures. The Scottish Government’s own oil and gas bulletin of June 2015 estimated North sea tax receipts for the period 2016-20 to be £5.8 billion. The same scenario from the same bulletin 13 months earlier estimated the receipts to be well in excess of £26 billion. Even if we compare one year—say, 2016-17—revenues had fallen from a projected £6.9 billion to £1.1 billion, and the lower estimates are as low as £500 million.
These are the Scottish Government’s own figures—all in all, an 85% drop. That tells us two things. First, it blows apart the financial basis for full fiscal autonomy. Secondly, like my new clauses 1 and 21, it calls for a more robust and impartial analysis of the Scottish economy and public finances. That is why we tabled new clauses 1 and 21. New clause 21, alongside new clause 1, would provide for the creation of a Scottish office for budget responsibility to exercise independent and impartial fiscal and budget oversight over Scottish Government devolved competencies.
The Smith commission recommended that
“the Scottish Parliament should seek to expand and strengthen the independent scrutiny of Scotland’s public finances in recognition of the additional variability and uncertainty that further tax and spending devolution will introduce into the budgeting process.”
The new clauses would do just that and take away the politicisation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the Scottish economy, the financing of Scottish public services and, crucially, though it tends to be forgotten in this debate, the livelihoods of everyone living and working in Scotland.
I would go further and ensure that the Scottish office for budget responsibility assesses and reports on individual party manifestos, so that the public can be confident that what they are being sold is both credible and desirable. This is about simple transparency and accountability. That transparency and accountability, as I have said, has not been forthcoming on the current manifesto commitment on full fiscal autonomy. If we had had a Scottish office for budget responsibility at the last election, it would have reported that FFA would be hugely disadvantageous to Scotland. It would have backed up the IFS analysis that showed that FFA did not work and that Scotland would need a real-terms growth rate of 4.5% per year at least between 2013-14 and 2019-20. The assistant general secretary of the STUC, Mr Stephen Boyd, commented exactly on this and said:
“The implication across the board is that taxes would be cut. There are a number of examples where the Scottish Government would be trading a real and immediate cut in revenue for benefits that may not be great in the long run.”
That shows that it would not be achievable in the figures from the IFS. The IFS’s conclusion is that FFA would incur deep, deep cuts in spending or huge tax rises.
It is easy to talk about figures, percentages and statistics, but this has to be about the everyday lives of ordinary, hard-working Scottish families. Inflicting a policy on Scotland that would leave a deficit larger than the entire education budget, or more than three quarters the size of the NHS budget, will not assist Scotland. We all reject the Conservative Government’s misguided austerity, which we know is ideologically driven, rather than an attempt to balance the country’s finances, but we must also reject any policy that would inflict harsher and deeper austerity in Scotland. [Interruption.] This is not, as some would claim—they are claiming it as I speak—about being anti-Scottish, anti-aspiration or anti-hope for the ingenuity, passion and entrepreneurial spirit of Scotland; it is a sobering response to a key manifesto commitment from the Scottish National party.
SNP Members dismiss the views of the IFS, the OBR and even their own GERS reports, but even Jonathan Portes, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, has said on FFA:
“If the SNP plan for full fiscal autonomy were to go ahead, then, as a number of commentators have said, that would lead to very, very severe austerity in Scotland.”
That is why Labour is against full fiscal autonomy; that is why we believe in the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom; and that is why the public voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Scotland Bill
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacNeil
At the time of the referendum, the yes side included full fiscal autonomy in its proposals. After the vow, the no side also included full fiscal autonomy. What has changed since the referendum that has made the no side resile from that? The vow was as near to federalism as possible, and it would have included full fiscal autonomy. Why does the hon. Gentleman now want to leave those powers in the hands of the Tories at Westminster rather than with the Parliament of the Scots in Edinburgh?
Ian Murray
There is a very simple answer to that question. We all want what is best for Scotland. The latter part of my speech sets out how full fiscal autonomy would be bad for Scotland according to all the information we have. We can either have a sensible debate in this Chamber about our fundamental principles on people’s lives and livelihoods in Scotland, or we can have a political knockabout on who will vote with who, who prefers who and who said what to whom during the referendum debate. The Bill is critical to future livelihoods in Scotland, and if all we can get from those on the SNP Benches is simple party point scoring we will get no further forward in improving the Bill.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), we are here today because the vow put together the Smith agreement. The five political parties, including the SNP, which was represented on the commission, have come forward with proposals that are now in the Bill. Labour wants to take the Bill a little further. I keep emphasising that and I emphasised it consistently on Second Reading.
Ian Murray
I will give way to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who got in before the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
Ian Murray
This is the nub of the matter: if we try to scrutinise what would be a devastating policy for Scotland, we are accused of not being ambitious for Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, that £7.6 billion is over and above the UK deficit. I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservative Government made a complete shambles of getting rid of the deficit in the previous Parliament, breaking all their promises and only halving it. But the actual deficit—I have the IFS paper here—is not just £7.6 billion, but £7.6 billion over and above the current UK deficit, which is £14.2 billion. That is not a lack of ambition for Scotland, but a warning against a fiscal policy that would be folly for families up and down Scotland.
Ian Murray
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, before he bursts a blood vessel.
Mr MacNeil
It is now clear that the policy of Labour’s Front Benchers is to leave Scotland’s tax powers in the hands of this Tory Government. The vow did not say that; the vow included full fiscal autonomy. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when he changed his mind?
Ian Murray
The Bill before us will transfer nearly 50% of tax and 60% of spending to the Scottish Parliament. We promised to make it the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, and that is a promise we will keep. As I have always said, we will ensure that the Bill is delivered in full, both in spirit and in substance. We will go further, as we will debate in Committee in due course.
Let me return to the £7.6 billion deficit—[Interruption.] I know that SNP Members do not like to talk about the £7.6 billion deficit, but it is important to get it on the record. It is unfortunate that they have consistently misquoted the figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and indeed it has had to ask them to retract what they have said about its figures.
We have also heard no mention of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s oil report, which was published last week. It showed that the reliance on oil as an underpinning of the Scottish economy is no longer a viable projection. The collapse of revenues from oil will see the tax take from that source drop from £37 billion to just £2 billion over the 20-year period to 2040. That would be catastrophic for Scottish public finances. The question, then, is this: will SNP Members vote with the Tories to deliver what they want, as they have said they will do, or will they finally admit that their flagship policy of full fiscal autonomy is economically illiterate?
Devolution and the Union
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
I knew that would be a waste of an intervention. Many Scottish Members want to speak, but the behaviour of the SNP today has been appalling. I wish it would engage with this issue.
People want politicians elected to represent them to talk about the things they tell us about, and we have listened to the Scottish people. SNP Members might not believe it, but it was a no vote. Their own leader said that would be it for a generation, yet they have even been talking about unilateral declarations of independence. The people have spoken, and politicians must listen. The Smith commission’s recommendations will be out next Thursday and will be implemented as per the plan. That was the vow to the Scottish people, and it will be followed through. It is part of a variety of devolution measures that this party has delivered and which are still to come.
Ian Murray
I will not give way because I want other Members to speak and time is ticking on.
A constitutional convention would deal with all these issues, alongside devolving £30 billion to the English regions, reforming the House of Lords and turning it into a regional senate, and further devolution for Wales.
These are important debates. We should have more Government time in which to explore these issues properly, but it is clear that the devolution vow and promise made to Scotland will be carried through—separately from all these other issues about English votes and devolution elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This is a view for the whole of the UK and we should do it on that—
Currency in Scotland after 2014
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(10 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. A currency union is a question not only for Scotland, but for the rest of the United Kingdom, because the stabilisers that require a currency union would be stabilisers that England or the rest of the United Kingdom would have to use, as well as Scotland. It is a question for the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is a very valuable intervention from my hon. Friend, who is from an English constituency. [Interruption.] I can hear SNP Members chuntering, “Scaremongering”. Well, I hope that they go back and tell their constituents that the SNP disregards what they are saying as scaremongering rather than as raising legitimate issues about the currency and jobs.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Murray
I will make some progress, then I will give way. I was talking about the euro. Let us reflect on what is happening now with the euro area: it is seeking very significant steps to expand the sharing of risks and pooling of resources to create a more homogenous currency union to make it work properly—exactly what the UK in its current state now provides for the pound sterling.
I know that the First Minister said that we should ignore experts, but John Cridland, the director general of the CBI, emphasised last week:
“As the Governor highlighted, successful currency unions need strong fiscal agreements and a banking union, with common supervisory standards and resolution mechanisms. The negative effects”—
this point is critical—
“of not having these structures in place have been starkly illustrated by the Eurozone crisis.”
There is a very positive case for staying with the United Kingdom as part of this currency debate and I would like to run through three points that are particularly relevant to the currency and the economy.
First, Scotland benefits from being part of the UK economy, which is the third largest economy in Europe and the sixth largest in the world. Being part of the larger, more diverse UK economy brings strength, stability and security, not only to Scotland’s finances, but to those of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, being part of the UK offers us protection from financial shocks. During the financial crisis, banks based in Scotland took advantage of the protection offered to UK banks. Since 2007, the UK has committed £1.2 trillion to bailing out the banks. At its peak, the Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland received £254 billion in support from the UK Government. That pooling and sharing is critical.
Thirdly, the rest of the UK is Scotland’s biggest trading partner. Scottish businesses buy and sell more products and services from the rest of the UK than every other country in the world combined. In 2010, 70% of Scotland’s exported goods and services went to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, accounting for a massive 35% of Scottish GDP. Likewise, 70% of Scotland’s imports are estimated to come from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Ian Murray
Let me make a little progress. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I will allow hon. Members to intervene.
It is not just an issue for Scotland. The rest of the UK—this is an important point, which other hon. Members have made in interventions—would have to agree. It appears from speculation in the press today—perhaps the Treasury Minister can indicate whether it is speculation—that there will not be an agreement on currency union, as it is undeliverable. If an agreement is not possible or is ruled out by the Treasury, what will be the Scottish Government’s plan B? [Interruption.] The nationalists are chuntering away about what they would do. I am happy to take an intervention if they want to tell the people of Scotland now what the Scottish nationalists’ plan B is for the currency should Scotland vote yes for independence. [Interruption.]
Mr MacNeil
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has given way; he promised to give way. Has he informed the people of England of what his policy would mean for them if he managed to go hand in hand with Osborne and keep Scotland out of sterling? What would it mean for the balance of payments? What would it mean for the value of sterling? What would be the price of holidays for English people going abroad without Scotland’s contribution to sterling? The hon. Gentleman knows full well that Labour keeping Scotland out of sterling would make things far more expensive for English people.
Ian Murray
I apologise to everyone in the debate. I allowed the hon. Member for the Western Isles to intervene to tell us what the SNP’s plan B is, and he chuntered on about something to do with holidays that I could barely hear because his colleagues were chuntering over him. I have no idea what he said. [Interruption.]
Ian Murray
Thank you, Mrs Riordan. I will give the nationalists one more opportunity if they want to intervene to tell us what the SNP’s plan B would be should people vote yes for an independent Scotland and there is no currency union. No?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman did not hear because of the chuntering beside him, but the point is that we know full well what we are doing—we are keeping sterling. But if his policy was—[Laughter.] If his policy was put in place, what would happen to people in England as the balance of payments worsened and sterling weakened? Imports would be more expensive. Holidays would be more expensive. Labour’s policy is irresponsible to the people of England as it is to the people of Wales.
Ian Murray
Mrs Riordan, I apologise again for wasting another intervention through the nationalists not telling us what plan B would be. Let me tell them what the currency will be in England and Wales. It will be the pound sterling. That is what they will keep.
Ian Murray
I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, because he refused to answer my last question. To summarise, losing the pound would result in a higher cost of living, with higher mortgage repayments, higher credit card and store card bills, and more costly car loans. Scotland would start out as a separate state with no credit rating, or one that had been hugely damaged by threats of default. There would be fewer jobs, because of the cost of changing money every time Scottish firms bought or sold from our biggest customer, which is the rest of the United Kingdom. There would be deeper cuts or higher taxes because the Scottish Government would pay more to borrow money, which would result in more debt and lower public spending. There would be risks to benefits and pensions as payments were converted from sterling to a different currency.
There would be risks to the economy. Without the back-up of the rest of the UK, Scottish banks would have gone under during the financial crisis, and families and businesses across the country would have lost everything. Scotland would have an unproven and weak currency with a poor credit rating and high borrowing costs. The SNP’s proposition may be summed up as this: we should go from a proven and respected single currency backed by a strong lender of last resort as part of the United Kingdom to a promise from Alex Salmond that he is simply not in a position to deliver. That is not good enough for the Scottish people or Scottish business.
I can say this afternoon without doubt, argument or contradiction that the currency of Scotland post 2014 will be the pound, but only if we stay in the United Kingdom. It is now clear that the most positive case that we can make for the Union is the pound in our pockets. We must do all we can, today and for the next seven months, to protect it for future generations.
Daylight Saving Bill
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I too will be brief. I just want to take the opportunity to pay a glowing tribute to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who has brought the Bill to the House. She has conducted herself in a manner that every hon. Member should follow; she has been constructive in her dealings with the Government and the Opposition on the Bill, not just with regard to today’s amendments, but in Committee at the beginning of December. She deserves great credit for introducing the Bill.
I hope that not too many Members feel that this is Groundhog day. As a new Member, I have not debated daylight savings before in the House, but many Members who have been here for slightly longer than I have will have had a number of such opportunities. As I said in Committee, I hope that we can conclude today’s debate, reach Third Reading and get moving on the Bill before it gets dark. That in itself would be a great tribute to the Bill.
Ian Murray
I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because we want to move on. It is important that the Minister hears the debate on the amendments in the first group, which relate to the independent oversight group that will look after how we go forward with the in-depth report. There have been calls for faith groups to be consulted, and that is important. The energy issues put forward by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) should be at the top of the agenda. At a time when the Government are cutting too far and too fast and household incomes are—[Interruption.] It does not actually say that here, as someone claims from a sedentary position, but everyone in the country knows that the Government are going too far and too fast. Perhaps if those on the Treasury Bench would listen to Opposition Members, we might be a little further forward in terms of growth. I was making a serious point about energy, and such matters have to be taken into account.
The Minister has to be clear and specific about the role to be played by the devolved Administrations in putting together the report.
Ian Murray
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak.
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the Bill to this stage in the House and I hope that we can at least conclude its Third Reading this morning.
Mr Davey
I concur with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). May I, laser beam-like and briefly, focus on the amendments?
Amendment 3 talks about the independent oversight group. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seemed to misunderstand what the group is about. It is about providing the appropriate challenge to the evidence and methodologies to ensure that they are robust. Amendment 3, which would dispense with the independent oversight group entirely, would be a retrograde step. The Committee welcomed the way in which we had approached the issue of the oversight group.
The amendments that seek to change the membership of the group misunderstand the role of the group. They seek to suggest that it is about representation, when it is not. Trying to confine it to academics only would be a mistake. There might be an appropriate expert who might not be described as an academic. I hope the House will understand that the oversight group is formed in the right way with the right terms of reference. I am surprised that Members want to amend the terms of reference to make them more prescriptive, because that could narrow them down.
Members have talked about the faith impact. Amendment 95 is not needed, because it is clear that this is one of the qualitative potential effects that the report would look at. To reassure hon. Members further, I can say that specific legal provision requiring that the impact on faith communities be considered is unnecessary because the Secretary of Sate is subject to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. So, in preparing the report and taking a view on whether to exercise the powers for a trial, the Secretary of Sate would be required under that duty to take into account the impact that a change might have on people of a particular faith and, indeed, on other people with protected characteristics.
Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has managed to ingrain himself with the propaganda being put out by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties about the deficit. He has given me a wonderful opportunity to go back to the start of that list so that he can take it all in.
There is no doubt that the Government’s cuts in public services are going too far, too fast and too deep. Everyone knows that the deficit must be reduced, but reducing it over time would protect my constituents from the ideological cuts that the Government are introducing under the veil of the deficit.
Let me return to what is happening to that squeezed middle manager at HMRC. He faces increased national insurance contributions and an increase in VAT to 20%. His pension will be cut because it will be linked to CPI instead of RPI. He faces tuition fees for his two children. He has lost his child benefit because he is a higher-rate taxpayer, and record commodity prices are pushing up food prices. He faces a high inflation rate, partly owing to the increase in VAT to 20%. His salary has been frozen. He has job insecurity. He faces increased energy prices, increased borrowing costs and lower interest on his savings, all because of this Government. Moreover—this brings us back to the motion—the price of fuel means that the cost of filling up the family car has gone through the roof. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking an extra £59 million from the Scottish people because of the increase in VAT, which is directly related to the cost of the fuel that they put in their cars.
Ian Murray
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Each time people drive down the street, they see the large neon sign at every petrol station, and that is having yet another damaging effect on consumer confidence.
What are we left with? We are left with a broken promise from the Government on VAT, and a broken promise on the fuel duty stabiliser. Many people in East Lothian and Edinburgh South voted for the Conservatives because they had made that promise before the election. Time after time, promises made to ordinary people in my constituency and throughout the country are broken, and it is about time that Ministers did something about it.
Tuition Fees
Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Ian Murray(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Murray
I do not know what I have done to make everyone begin to be rude to me, but the Secretary of State started it, so perhaps I have done something wrong.
Let me compliment the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on the start of his speech. Will he comment on the massive amount of communication in which he has engaged with the Scottish people, which is similar to the communication in which the Liberal Democrats have engaged? Would he, too, lie to students at a general election by saying that he would write off all the student fees? Would he lie to students to get elected, and then turn his back on that pledge as well?