Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Regardless of what the Chancellor announces today, we are in the highest tax-raising Parliament in history, which is a consequence of the Minister’s Government’s failure over 14 years. Ordinary hard-working Scots did not cause this economic crisis—the Government did—but they are being made to pay for it. There have been 25 Tory tax rises since the last election, and the average family is much worse off as a result. Does the Minister agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies that even after today’s Budget the overall tax burden on working people will still reach record levels?
John Lamont
Clearly, I will not speculate on what the Chancellor will announce shortly. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 2.4 million workers in Scotland have benefited from £340 going back into their pockets thanks to the changes to national insurance that have already been announced.
In relation to the hon. Member’s wider points about the tax burden, we should not forget the huge interventions that the Government made to support workers, families, communities and businesses during the pandemic. As a consequence, we are having to repay that, but that saved jobs and many businesses from going under during the covid pandemic.
Ian Murray
Regardless of what the Chancellor says today, working people will still be paying a much higher tax burden at the end of this Parliament, and it will reach record levels. Shockingly, the tax burden in Scotland is even higher. Anyone in Scotland earning more than £29,000 a year will pay more income tax after the SNP voted for yet another tax rise on working people. That means we are in the absurd position in Scotland of the SNP raising taxes on nurses and teachers while opposing Labour’s plan for an extended windfall tax on the oil and gas giants. We even hear that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives threatened to resign last night on potentially another U-turn from the Chancellor on the windfall tax. Does the Minister accept that the best thing to happen now would be for this circus to be brought for an end and for the Prime Minister to call the election?
John Lamont
As I said, I will not speculate on the contents of the Budget. But when the election comes, Scotland’s voters will have a clear choice: a party who will stand up for Scotland’s place in a strong United Kingdom, or the Scottish National party, who wants another referendum. I am unclear what the Labour party has to offer.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) not only on his vast—and fast—promotion to the shadow Front Bench but on the 20.4% swing from the SNP that brought him the by-election victory.
The announcement of the closure of the refinery at Grangemouth is a hammer blow. Too many communities are still living with the devastation of being left behind after coalmine closures in the 1980s. That must not be allowed to happen again. Grangemouth’s owner is buying football clubs and investing in plants elsewhere, while the workers lose out. The Prime Minister has decided that a culture war on the environment trumps getting the UK into the global green energy race by backing Labour’s green energy superpower plans. The devolution settlement demands that both Governments work together, but they certainly do not. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Scottish Government to protect jobs at Grangemouth? What impact will the closure have on the Acorn carbon capture and storage project?
Mr Jack
First of all, it is a very worrying time for those whose jobs are at risk at the Grangemouth refinery. This morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), and a Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero met Neil Gray from the Scottish Government, and yesterday my hon. Friend had a meeting with the local authority. Work is going on. It is ironic that the Scottish Government want to shut down oil and gas, because when that happens, people suddenly realise the need to manage a transition and take us gradually to net zero while protecting people’s livelihoods.
On Acorn and the Scottish cluster, I have spoken to the chief executive of Storegga, which is pulling the project together. He told me that the refinery closing has little impact on its project, because Grangemouth was supplying the blue hydrogen to the refinery and others, and the emissions from that were being put into the North sea.
Ian Murray
It is the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament next year—one of the Labour party’s proudest achievements. However, recently it has been riven by failure and scandal, from one in seven on NHS waiting lists to ferries, iPads and camper vans. Much has been made about the dual role of the Government-appointed Lord Advocate, who sits in the Scottish Cabinet while presiding over prosecutions in Scotland. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government about Anas Sarwar’s idea to split the dual role of Scotland’s top law officer, to maintain the separation of powers between the Government and the judiciary?
Mr Jack
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Director of Public Prosecutions in England is appointed by a panel, which removes the risk of perceived interference by Government. Many learned friends have expressed their concerns to me about the structure in Scotland and the closeness between the judiciary and the Government, and I find their concerns understandable. It is vital that the public perception is that the prosecution service is very independent from Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in saying how gutted we are about the football result last night—but mark my words, we will be seeking revenge in Germany at the European championships next year.
I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who was in the shadow Scotland team but has moved on to do new things after the reshuffle, and to welcome to the Scotland team my hon. Friend the Member for Keir Hardie’s old seat, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). He is very welcome.
Last week, it was revealed that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), had secured a book deal. Her book is titled “Ten Years to Save the West”, but it might have been better focusing on the 44 days it took her and her Government, with the support of the Scottish Secretary, to crush the economy. Does the Minister accept that Scots will be paying the price for years to come for the Tories’ kamikaze handling of the economy?
John Lamont
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the economic challenges we face here in the United Kingdom are no different from those faced by other economies around the world. They have been entirely caused by the illegal war in Ukraine and the covid pandemic. Thankfully, due to the decisive action of this Conservative Government and Prime Minister, the evidence suggests that the UK is recovering from the economic shock far better than France, Italy and Germany.
Ian Murray
Ukraine and covid did not crash the economy; this Government did. The truth is that, after 13 years, we have a low-wage, low-growth economy. Let me take the example of residents in a random Scottish constituency, Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Behind every door we knock on, the story is the same: the cost of living. Those voters are paying the price for two bad Governments: the UK Government, who crashed the economy and are asking working people to pay for it, and the Scottish Government, who mismanaged the economy and are also asking working people to pay for it. There is a Tory premium on everyone’s mortgages and rents, alongside the highest tax burden on working people in 80 years, and the SNP wants to increase income taxes further and is proposing eye-watering council tax rates for those residents. Do the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West not deserve a fresh start with Scottish Labour’s Michael Shanks?
John Lamont
It was not so long ago that Scottish Labour was calling for even higher taxes on the people of Scotland. When Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar stood for the leadership, he said:
“I actually think our tax policies will be even more progressive and radical than even John McDonnell’s or Jeremy Corbyn’s tax policies or manifesto”.
Mr Sarwar has now U-turned, of course, but maybe the hon. Gentleman can explain how much Scottish Labour secretly wants to put up taxes in Scotland.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Let me join the Secretary of State in his earlier tributes to Winnie Ewing and Craig Brown, both of whom passed away last week, and both of whom will be sadly missed. I hold Craig Brown personally responsible for moments of completely unbridled joy and total heartbreak.
Let me also wish the Secretary of State a happy birthday—a significant birthday—for next week. [Interruption.] Whoever shouted “80” from the Back Benchers is not far away from his age, so happy birthday to him.
Nearly five months ago, the Secretary of State promised to arrange a meeting for David Williamson, a Scottish terminal cancer patient, but neither his Department nor the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been able to do so. I wonder whether that could be sorted out as soon as possible.
Millions of people across the country are facing spiralling mortgage rates and rents. Statistics released by Citizens Advice Scotland this week show that the number of Scottish mortgage holders searching for advice on repossession is up by 341%. Does the Minister agree with the insightful advice from the Prime Minister that worried mortgage payers hit by a Tory mortgage premium should just “hold their nerve”?
John Lamont
I can confirm that the Scotland Office did write to the Department for Health and Social Care about the case of David Williamson, and I will undertake to ensure that we pursue that.
As for mortgage rates, the Government recognise that this is a very concerning time for homeowners and mortgage holders, but we cannot ignore the fact that interest rates have risen across western economies as a result of the pandemic and the impact of the war in Ukraine. Of course, the Bank of England sets the base rate, which has an effect on mortgage pricing—as the hon. Member will recall, it was the Labour Government who made the Bank independent of Government. As he will also know, last week the Chancellor agreed with mortgage lenders a brand-new mortgage charter, which will hopefully provide some protection and reassurance for mortgage holders.
Ian Murray
The Scotland Office is saying that Scottish mortgage holders should just “hold their nerve”. What the Minister did not include in his list of excuses was the fact that the Tories actually crashed the economy, which has resulted in some of these mortgage interest rates. Is it not incredible that during the worst cost of living crisis in living memory the Prime Minister’s entire approach is to tell people to hold their nerve, while the approach of the First Minister in Scotland is to launch proposals for a de facto referendum and a written constitution—something that he himself admits Scottish voters do not want? Scotland has two Governments so out of touch with the priorities of the Scottish people that polling shows that 70% think they are doing little to help with the cost of living. Does the Minister agree that what Scots need and deserve is a UK Labour Government focused solely on delivering the priorities of Scottish voters?
John Lamont
This UK Government are very clear that now is not the time for another independence referendum, but the Labour party so often ends up backing SNP policy after SNP policy in Scotland. As we are approaching the summer holidays, perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) should take his flip-flops and see whether there is space in the SNP’s camper van.
Cost of Living and Brexit
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this SNP Opposition day debate on the cost of living crisis. It is only a few weeks since the SNP called a similar debate, but for millions of people across Scotland and the whole of the UK, this is the most important and difficult issue they face in their lives. In many instances, the situation is getting worse, so I am very pleased that the SNP has called this debate on a similar subject. It is worth noting that the SNP’s previous debate on this issue did not stay on the cost of living crisis for very long. It quickly descended into a debate about independence, and today we are seeing a debate about independence or a debate about the Government’s Brexit versus the SNP’s Scexit.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I apologise once again for being late for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have now given up my opportunity to speak in it. I was talking to four women who are currently on hunger strike to raise attention for children living in poverty throughout the United Kingdom, and they asked me to ask the Minister if this Government would consider following the Scottish Government’s example of “cash first”, so that we can eradicate food banks throughout the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be working towards eradicating food banks?
Ian Murray
We should absolutely be eradicating food banks across the whole country. The very fact that people in this country cannot afford to eat is an indictment on both Governments. I hope the hon. Gentleman will encourage his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to support Rhoda Grant’s Right to Food (Scotland) Bill, which the SNP Government have so far refused to do. I hope he gets an opportunity to speak in this debate, and a chance to put those points forward. He makes an important point about food banks, but he misses the point about poverty, particularly child poverty. The previous Labour Government lifted millions and millions out of poverty, and that has been all but reversed, and more. That should be of eternal shame to this UK Government and to the Scottish Government.
Jamie Stone
Does the shadow Secretary of State share my astonishment that in this ramshackle proposal for a Committee there is no mention of the Education Committee? Do children not get caught in the poverty trap and the cost of living crisis? Of course they do. This is an example of a badly drafted proposal, and I suggest that the Scottish National party ought to have done its homework a bit better than this.
Ian Murray
Indeed, the Education Committee is not represented. Given that it deals with skills, access to employment and the biggest contributor to our economy, which is children’s education, I would have thought that it would be represented on the Committee. However, given that 375 Members or so are already projected to be nominated to this Committee, I am not sure we should have any more. If we do have more, perhaps we should sit as the whole House, as that might be the best way to deal with such issues. SNP Members have not thought this through properly. Perhaps they are frightened of education, because the defining mission of the former First Minister was to close the attainment gap in Scotland. Given that it has got wider, perhaps they do not want to talk about that.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Education Committee in this place covers only England? There would therefore be no point in having an appointee from that Committee.
Ian Murray
I am not sure I understand that point, given that this is about a UK parliamentary cost of living crisis Committee. It would not be a Committee dedicated just to Scotland; it would be dedicated to the cost of living, I would have thought, and we cannot determine not to have other Committee members serving on it, on the basis that something is an England-only Department. Education is critical across the whole United Kingdom and in terms of the cost of living crisis. Perhaps we can have an explanation for why the Education Committee is not listed—it was not my question; it was a question from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).
Dr Whitford
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the failure of Scottish education, but the attainment gap in Scotland has closed by two thirds at higher level, and by two thirds at positive destinations. That is in contrast with what has happened south of the border, where figures in November showed that the gap had widened.
Ian Murray
It always surprises me when SNP Members think that just slightly beating England is an achievement. The attainment gap in Scotland is an unmitigated shame for us all, and the way they have treated education in Scotland should also be a shame.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Murray
I have not even got through the first page of my speech, so if hon. Members do not mind I will take no further interventions for now.
The cost of living crisis is loading unbearable stress and anxiety on to millions of people. Just last week, a woman came to my surgery with her family. Her mortgage is up for renewal on 31 August this year. Her current two-part mortgage is on a 1.29% fixed rate, and a 2.15% fixed rate, which are both up on 31 August. Those two parts look as though they will be renewed at around or above 5%, alongside large product fees. Her monthly mortgage becomes unaffordable, and with the cost of everything else increasing, including the weekly shop, she does not know how she will keep her family home. They have a Tory premium on their mortgage running to thousands and thousands of pounds.
I genuinely ask the Minister, who I know personally cares about those issues, what advice he would give to my constituent, and to the millions of other mortgage holders who are coming off fixed rates and being met with interest rates that are eye-watering in comparison with their family budgets. He voted for the former Prime Minister’s Budget, which crashed the economy and left mortgage holders and rent payers with that Tory premium. He voted for all the measures that the Government proposed in that Budget that made the situation worse. What does he now say to people who will be sitting around dinner tables tonight worried about losing their homes? Those are the family and real-life scenarios of this Government’s decisions.
We should never forget that this crisis, which impacts on millions across the country, was created and made worse in Downing Street. This is a Government-made crisis where political choices are having a direct impact on people’s mortgages—and subsequently on rents, as the mortgages of landlords also become unaffordable. The Prime Minister is absolutely culpable.
This crisis is not just the result of one disastrous mini-Budget that the Government backed; it is the result of 13 years of this Government’s decisions—13 years of little to no growth in the economy, 13 years of stagnation, 13 years of party before country, and 13 years of appeasing Tory Back Benchers rather than looking after the country. Thirteen years of failure—unless, of course, you are looking for a seat in the House of Lords. Even now, this Government are more interested in protecting the profits of the oil and gas giants than in helping ordinary families with their energy bills. At the same time, this Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, imposed the highest tax burden for 80 years on those very same people, taking more money out of their pockets when they need as much as they can get. We have the highest inflation in 40 years.
I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who I thought was fair to suggest that part of the blame is down to Ukraine and other factors, but in the UK we have stubbornly high inflation, higher than most of our peers, and certainly much higher than in the United States and the European Union. Food inflation is more than 15% and shows no sign of falling any time soon. Some food inflation on the most basic of goods bought by the poorest in society is touching 20%, and it is all compounded by the disastrous 13 years of policies on energy that have left us exposed to shock and crisis in the energy sector.
The SNP motion talks about the damage caused by the Tories’ Brexit, and on that we agree. The Government have failed to negotiate a good deal with the European Union, despite their promises at the last election, and instead they have left the country with a deal that is only marginally better than no deal at all. It is a deal to ensure that the Prime Minister’s party was happy, rather than in the national interest, and every month that goes by, the Government continue to undermine the relationship with our European neighbours and friends, which is having dire consequences on jobs, businesses and this country’s place in the world. That has to stop.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I know the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about Brexit—so much so that he nearly left the Labour party for Change UK but cancelled the press conference. In the debate on article 50, and the vote against triggering it, he said:
“I will do so in the knowledge that I will be able to walk down the streets of Edinburgh South, look my constituents in the eye and say to them that I have done everything I possibly can to protect their jobs, their livelihoods and the future of their families.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1052.]
With the chaos unravelling just as he feared back in that debate, and Labour’s current position on Brexit, can he still look those same voters in the eye?
Ian Murray
I love it when the SNP quote my own words in debates, because I am very proud of what I and my party did in trying to resolve the savages of Brexit. I am delighted with the way that we pushed the Government all the way in trying to ensure that the country was put first and not their party. Let us not forget that when the Division Bell rang on 19 December 2019, we backed a deal that we knew was thin, but we saw that as the floor not the ceiling. The SNP decided that no deal was the best way forward. Let me put that into context. If it is the case that Brexit under the current deal is having an impact on the cost of living crisis—I have just said we agree with that—surely that would be magnified by many multitudes by having no deal at all. The record shows that the SNP supported and backed no deal.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire spoke, rightly, about the history of this place when we debated the Brexit process, but when the House had the opportunity to back a customs union that would give us frictionless trade with the European Union, SNP Members decided that was not for them and the vote was lost by six. That is on the record as well as my own words, which I stand by 100%. [Interruption.] I will give way to the SNP again. Perhaps they can try to explain why they preferred no deal over any deal.
David Linden
Will the hon. Gentleman outline, for the importance of context and the record, how many Labour MPs also abstained on that vote on 19 December?
Ian Murray
I do not agree with the hon. Member—he is justifying his abstention on the basis that other people abstained as well. I did not agree with them at the time, and I still do not. No deal would have been an unmitigated disaster for the country.
Again, I go back to the point—SNP Members might want to reflect on this—that if, as is the case, Brexit with the deal that we have got is a contributor to the cost of living crisis, surely having no deal with the European Union would have magnified the cost of living crisis even more. They cannot say one without the other, and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) just confirmed, they backed no deal when the deal came to the House.
Dr Whitford
The shadow Secretary of State is going back to 2019 with the customs union and single market votes. Why is that not Labour policy now?
Ian Murray
Unlike the SNP, the Labour Party is trying to be honest with the public on what is in front of us. SNP Members’ proposition to the public at the moment is to have their cake and eat it. They want a separate currency while using someone else’s currency, they have a deficit well in excess of what the legal treaties of the European Union would allow them, and their own First Minister is saying that there will not be an independence referendum anytime soon because the Scottish people do not want it, yet they are promising the public, against the very treaty rules in place—they are there in black and white—that they can have everything they want and still get easy access to the European Union. That is fundamentally dishonest. Labour will not be dishonest with the British people.
On day one of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) being Prime Minister, he will have to deal with the principles in front of him, and we will ensure that the Brexit proposition is done on the basis that we can have better trade and better agreements. In the 2025-26 trade and co-operation agreement renegotiation, we can build on that agreement and ensure that we repair our damaged and tattered relationship with the European Union. As I said, we see that agreement as the floor and not, as the current Government suggest, as the ceiling.
The SNP is clear that its solution to Brexit—in its words, as well as mine and those of many others, it was a bad idea—is to have Scexit, which would be many magnitudes worse than Brexit. It wants to repeat the same mistakes and do the same thing while being dishonest with the British people. Labour will not be dishonest with the British people about the position we are in as a country. Regretfully, we have to deal with what is in front of us, not how we would wish to dream it up. The SNP does not have to deal with that, so it can take any position it likes.
The key point is that while SNP Members keep blaming Brexit—they are right that Brexit has contributed to the cost of living crisis—by saying it is all Brexit’s fault, they are letting the Government off the hook. It is not all Brexit’s fault; it is the Government’s fault, given the decisions they have made on Brexit, on energy, on the economy, on wages, on growth and on tax, and the impact of every single thing they have done in the last 13 years. Let us not let the Government off of the hook by blaming their botched Brexit. Let us keep them on the hook for Brexit and for everything else that they have subsequently done.
The motion talks about setting up a cost of living Committee. That may seem like a sensible idea, but when we look at the small print, the flaws of the proposal become clear. I am left wondering whether the real reason for proposing it is to try to get one of the SNP group’s many disgruntled Members an additional salary payment for being the Committee Chair, as stated in the motion. Perhaps the SNP is trying to campaign to get the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) a Committee Chair position after campaigning so heavily against him for the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee position in the House a few weeks ago.
I am also left wondering why, if the SNP thinks this is such a great idea, it does not use its coalition majority in Holyrood to create a similar Committee in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it does not wish to do that, but it does want to spend upwards of half a million pounds here on a Committee with 45 members that would not include members of the Education Committee. The Committee would include three members of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, even though the cost of living crisis is no doubt driven mostly by the energy crisis. Is the SNP aware that the biggest spark of the cost of living crisis is spiralling energy bills for families and businesses?
The Committee would have five members from the Scottish Affairs Committee, five from the Welsh Affairs Committee, yet none from the Education Committee. The justification is that the English Education Committee does not have anything to do with Scotland, but neither does the Welsh Affairs Committee, yet it will provide five Members while the Education Committee will provide none. I do not think that the SNP has thought this through. There will also be no representation from the Defence Committee, which is a UK-wide Committee. Perhaps SNP Members are not aware of the many stories of soldiers having to rely on food banks because of the cost of living crisis.
The SNP’s motion fails to mention that the SNP has already been in charge of the Scottish economy for 16 years. The Scottish economy is now indisputably the creation of the SNP Government. A Scot who was finishing school when the SNP came to power 16 years ago will now be in their mid-30s—they will probably have one of those fixed-term mortgages, and perhaps even a family of their own—and they will have seen that, much like for the UK Government, economic growth has been an afterthought for the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government are responsible for a huge number of issues and policy areas in Scotland, including the creation of jobs in the renewable sector. I have said this many times in the House and will continue to do so: we should congratulate the SNP Government, because they have created tens of thousands of jobs in the renewable sector—but unfortunately they are in Denmark, Indonesia and elsewhere. When they had the opportunity to sell what they called ScotWind licences for offshore wind in Scotland, they told us that they could not demand that bidders had their supply chains in Scotland due to EU state aid rules, even though we had left the European Union. They are right to talk about the damage of the Tory Brexit, but they cannot say that and, at the same time, hide behind state aid rules when we know that was not the case. They could have conditioned all those licences for Scottish jobs, but they decided that it would be better for those Scottish jobs to be overseas.
Labour has a fully costed alternative to the Conservative crisis. We would first introduce a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas giants—the SNP and its new leader opposed that until they realised it was popular—by backdating that to January 2022, as we have always called for, closing the loopholes and taxing it at the same rate as Norway. That would raise an extra £10 billion that would go towards people’s energy bills and put an end to the injustice of the oil and gas companies raking in billions on the back of people’s energy bills. The money raised would help families directly and pay for a plan to help the energy-intensive industries such as food manufacturers and processors with the cost of energy and, therefore, potentially reduce prices in shops for ordinary people.
Labour would reverse the Government’s decision to hand the top 1% of savers a tax break in their pensions while introducing specific measures to help doctors and the NHS. We would close the non-dom tax loophole, much to the frustration of the Prime Minister himself. We would cut business rates for small businesses, paid for by taxing the online giants such as Amazon, which are not held to the same rules as our high street businesses.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Labour party. However, we have already announced that we would fund the Scottish Acorn project, and we would set up a publicly owned GB Energy, which the SNP used to believe in until it dropped that. So it does matter what colour of party is sitting on the Government side of the Chamber.
The new First Minister claims that absolutely none of it matters. Incidentally, he is the first SNP First Minister not to be arrested—but, when he is, I am sure we will send him flowers and thank him for his service. He would threaten to bring down a Labour Government over his obsession with the constitution. The consequences of what he said at the weekend are clear: vote for an SNP MP and they will block the transformative change that a Labour Government would seek to deliver. Vote SNP and see SNP MPs walking side by side through the No Lobby, with the very hard Brexiteers they have been slagging off this afternoon, to block a Labour Budget. That is what he said.
The conclusion that we can all come to is that SNP candidates at the election will be a barrier to change in this country. Why is the new SNP leader taking such a destructive stance? It is because Labour opposes rerunning the 2014 referendum. He could not have been clearer. He said:
“at the moment, for example, it’s pretty obvious that independence is not the consistent settled will of the Scottish people”.
Previous SNP leaders have always avoided speaking that truth for a reason. It begets the question: if the SNP’s preferred change is not what the people want, what is the alternative? After the SNP leader’s interview, we know that he will block the change that Scots want by undermining a Labour Government, in his words,
“at every corner and every turn”,
to demand something that he has admitted Scots do not actually want. I think that the people of Scotland can see through that position, and I am sure they will do so at the election.
Scotland wants a Labour Government, and a Labour Government will deliver for Scotland. When the mood shifts in politics, it shifts fast, but as ordinary working people sit around their dinner tables discussing how they will meet the weekly shopping bill, praying for mild weather, worrying about their families, neighbours, colleagues and friends or dreading the next email from ScottishPower or a bill dropping on their door mats from British Gas, the Tory Government and the SNP are devouring themselves with their own psychodramas. The cost of living crisis is a misery for millions in Scotland, but both of their Governments are responsible for making it worse and sit back to do little to help. Voters agree: 60% say that the Government are not taking the right measures on the cost of living crisis. The public deserve so much better and, at the election, they will get it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
With the energy crisis, the importance of developing Scotland’s renewable energy sector has never been higher. The UK Government have no energy strategy—indeed, it is a sticking-plaster approach to the energy crisis, all paid for by the taxpayer, of course. In the 16 years of the Scottish Government, they have regularly launched glossy policy documents on renewables but have never delivered, especially on jobs. A scathing report from the Scottish Trades Union Congress said of the Scottish Government that “with energy bills soaring, climate targets missed and job promises broken, more targets without the detail of how they will be realised is unacceptable.” Does the Minister agree that only Labour has the solution to this crisis, creating high-quality, well-paid renewable jobs so that bills can be lowered, energy can be secured, and Britain can be an energy superpower?
John Lamont
I do not agree that Labour has any answers to any of the challenges facing our country, but the hon. Member is correct to highlight the targets missed by the SNP Government in Edinburgh. More than a decade ago, the SNP promised to turn Scotland into the Saudi Arabia of renewables, but just like the SNP’s promises to close the attainment gap, build ferries and create a national energy company, that promise has been broken and quietly abandoned. The growth of Scotland and the UK’s renewable sector will generate many new jobs across our country, and this United Kingdom Government are determined to maximise the opportunities for the Scottish workforce.
Ian Murray
This UK Government want only to turn the UK into Saudi Arabia—never mind the Saudi Arabia of renewables.
It is critical to develop green energy jobs, but we also have to protect our environment—that is crucial. Unfortunately, waterways and coastal communities across the UK are being polluted by this Government’s refusal to stop pumping the equivalent of 40,000 days’ worth of raw sewage into them every year. It is little wonder that the SNP did not support Labour’s Bill to stop this disgraceful practice, as the Scottish Government do exactly the same. It was recently revealed that the equivalent of 3,000 swimming pools’ worth of raw sewage was dumped on Scottish beaches, waterways and parks last year. With both Governments allowing that sewage scandal to go on every day, and promises about green jobs and renewable industries broken, why should the public believe a word that the Scottish and UK Governments say about the environment?
John Lamont
This UK Government have a proud record of tackling sewage discharges. As the hon. Gentleman highlights, the policy is devolved to the Scottish Government. The SNP has a truly appalling record on allowing sewage to be dumped into Scotland’s waters, including at many environmentally protected sites. Recent press reports suggest that 7.6 million cubic metres of sewage were released into waterways of significance last year, including award-winning beaches and the River Tweed in the Scottish Borders. This is yet another example of where the SNP needs to clean up its act.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont
Yes, is the short answer. The Government’s levelling-up agenda is benefiting communities right across the UK, including new towns. It allows communities to address local needs in order to create jobs and boost economic growth. For example, the new town of Cumbernauld in North Lanarkshire successfully secured over £9 million in the first round of the levelling-up fund recently, which will enable transformational developments of the town centre. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady’s group to discuss how we might support new town investment.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It has been a momentous week in Scottish politics, and I am sure the whole House will want to wish Nicola Sturgeon all the best in whatever she does next in politics. I also pass our deepest sympathies on to everyone at Hibernian football club, who lost their owner, Ron Gordon, suddenly yesterday.
According to the Together Through This Crisis initiative, which is a coalition of charities, almost a quarter of people across the country regularly run out of money for essentials. At the same time, BP and Shell have made more than £1 billion a week in profits, while avoiding a proper windfall tax because of the loopholes the Prime Minister created in his scheme. Will the Minister listen to those charities, recognise the impact the cost of living crisis is having on working people and put in place a proper windfall tax to help them?
John Lamont
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the cost of living support provided by the Government is worth over £26 billion in 2023-24. As a compassionate Government, we have taken appropriate steps to support the most vulnerable households across the UK through additional cost of living payments, including £900 for households on means-tested benefits, £300 for pensioner households and £150 for disabled people. When it comes to taxing energy companies, the Government have raised the rate of tax on companies such as BP and Shell to 75%, which we consider fair, given the current circumstances.
Ian Murray
The Minister says he runs a compassionate Government. He should tell that to the parents who are going without food to feed their children. Scots are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis, which has been made worse by the state of Scottish public services. The NHS is on its knees while the Cabinet Secretary for Health is focusing on other things and Scottish local government is having its funding decimated again by the Finance Secretary, who is seemingly intent on offending every minority group in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that, in the midst of such a serious crisis, it is frankly absurd that failed Scottish Ministers are fighting among themselves for the top job, when too many Scots are worrying about how to pay their bills?
John Lamont
It does seem that the SNP has decided to provide the country with compelling drama now that “Happy Valley” has ended. However, there is a serious point here. While the SNP indulges in the most savage infighting since Labour’s Blair-Brown civil war, Scotland is crying out for attention to be given to things that really matter: the economy, the health service and the education system. The people’s priorities are the priorities of the United Kingdom Government. We can only hope that the new First Minister will move away from the SNP’s obsession with independence and focus on the things that really matter to the people of Scotland.
Points of Order
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, you rightly agreed to a Standing Order No. 24 application for an emergency debate, which the House has agreed to hold today. I fear, however, that it may be a bit of an empty debate, because the statement of reasons why the Government have made the section 35 order—which is unprecedented and has never happened in the history of this House—has not been given to Members and will not be laid in the Library until later this afternoon. May I seek your guidance on whether the Standing Order No. 24 debate should be postponed until the statement has been published and we have had time to digest the reasons?
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State is with us, so perhaps he would like to inform the House.
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I think that the time the Minister took to respond to the motion shows that the Government do not have much to say about this particular issue—or perhaps the Minister did not get the statement of reasons either, in relation to what the Government were actually proposing.
May I begin by restating, once again, that this Labour party is the party of devolution and the party of equality? It will not be lost on many that all the Acts we are discussing today—the Scotland Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004—were Labour Bills that we introduced for the advancement of devolution and equality in this country. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that today’s debate is about two Governments who are incapable of working together.
I have read, or skimmed, the 13 pages of reasons—the farce that we have had trying to get these reasons today is part of this debate—and when I got to the end, my initial reaction was, “What are the Government going to do about it?” They cannot just bring an unprecedented section 35 order to this House and lay out reasons, then get to the end of those reasons and decide what to do about it. As we stand here today, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is dead unless both Governments can come together and resolve the perceived issues, or otherwise.
Sir Chris Bryant
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has looked at paragraph 3. The Minister, who was not taking interventions earlier, suggested that all the Scottish Government had to do was bring forward a Bill with amendments, but as far as I can see they would have to come forward with a Bill that did not have anything in it. Is not that the only Bill that the Westminster Government would accept, if we go by the amendments suggested in paragraph 3?
Ian Murray
That is where we get to the crux of this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) made a similar point earlier about wanting to make sure that trans rights and women’s rights were protected in this country, and about doing it properly. This is certainly not the way to do it. We will now have a process whereby the First Minister and the Scottish Government will take the UK Government to court on the basis of these reasons and the unseen legal advice, and the courts will have to decide whether the reasons that the UK Government have put forward are legitimate and reasonable in terms of the bar they have to reach—namely, that there would be adverse consequences for reserved legislation. I think that at the end of that process the courts will have to resolve these arguments because both Governments are unwilling to do so together.
Dr Whitford
Is the shadow Minister concerned, as I am, that although gender recognition is devolved, half of the blather in here is that it conflicts with the Gender Recognition Act 2004? The whole point of devolution is that we can change legislation in Scotland in a devolved policy area.
Ian Murray
That is a very helpful intervention, because paragraph 14, on the first category of adverse effects, talks about different regimes across the United Kingdom. That, to me, suggests that the Government do not want this to be devolved. There are other devolved issues, such as abortion, that would have cross-border implications. But I would also gently say in response to the hon. Lady that Donald Dewar designed section 35 for the very question that she has just asked—[Interruption.] I hope she will not mind me repeating that he did not envisage all the issues that would come through. Devolution was always a journey for the Labour party and it will continue to be so. The key point was that section 35 was put there to enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate in devolved areas that might have an impact on the rest of the UK, but that it was to be used only as a last resort when there might be a conflict. If the first adverse effect is that the Government do not want different circumstances for gender recognition certificates between Scotland and the rest of the UK, surely they are saying that this should not be devolved.
Alan Brown
I agree with a lot of the points the hon. Member is making on devolution. Obviously he has read what we should really be calling the “clutching-at-straws reasons,” rather than the statement of reasons. He mentioned judicial review. I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that, like me, he can read this and see how weak the UK Government’s arguments are. On that basis, and if he believes in the protection of devolution and that Scotland should be able to do things differently, does he not agree with us that the UK Government should drop this action now? The Labour party should be four-square behind the Scottish Parliament on this.
Ian Murray
The point that the hon. Gentleman forgets is that this is going to end up in the courts regardless, because the section 35 order has been brought forward. Anyone who prays against it will get a debate and a vote, but the vote is not going to be won. It has already been said that the Government have a majority of 80, and perhaps a working majority of 100 on this issue. This will therefore have to be settled in the courts. As much as I do not want this constitutional battle to be fought on the backs of trans people’s and women’s rights, it would be good if the courts did settle these issues because maybe we could then move on with substance and do what is right by trans people and equality in this country.
Mr Carmichael
Paragraph 20 of the purported statement of reasons says that one of the barriers that would be encountered is existing IT infrastructure. Has the hon. Gentleman ever come across a case in which, apparently, the law has to be designed to fit IT infrastructure, rather than IT infrastructure being designed to fit the law?
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable intervention. I am getting all the questions on the adverse effects, but this is a Government document. What we have missed in the debate over the past few months is that people in this country currently have gender recognition certificates under a different process, and the IT systems have to deal with that. How a person gets a gender recognition certificate is the argument here, not how they are implemented, because we implement them already.
Sir Chris Bryant
On how people get a gender recognition certificate, the key thing is that we should take the suggestion that it is a pathology out of the process. I do not want it to feel like we are treating trans people as if they have a pathological condition. Is that not the key thing we need to change?
Ian Murray
Yes, I agree. That should be part of this argument. We should be taking pathology out of the process, as this is not a medical disorder.
I wish we were having a debate about all these things, as we should be, rather than having a constitutional debate between two Governments who want not to resolve these issues but to fight about them in different ways.
Dave Doogan
The shadow Minister seeks to cast this conflict or tension—whatever we want to call it—as being between two Governments. In fact, depending on how the Labour party decides to act, the conflict and tension are between two Parliaments. There is cross-party support for this Bill in the Scottish Parliament, from the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the SNP and the Scottish Labour party, whereas in this House it is simply the Conservatives who are standing in the way. Can he advise on how the Labour party will move on this?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. What we are dealing with today is a debate between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] This is in the Scotland Act 1998, and it has to be resolved by the two Governments. If SNP Members want the Labour party to resolve this, we are happy to take the seats of Government either in the Scottish Parliament or here, but it has to be resolved by the UK Government and the Scottish Government. That is the black and white of this issue.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
There is no Scottish Labour party.
Ian Murray
I will give way to the hon. Lady while the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) chunters nonsense in the background.
Kirsten Oswald
I am interested in how the hon. Gentleman characterises some of what we have heard today, but if he thinks that the Labour party has no role in this, and if he does not think the Labour party ought to have a view or an opinion, or to take a position, he needs to make that clear, because his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament do have a view. They voted for these provisions, as did SNP, Liberal Democrat and some Scottish Conservative Members. He should stop being disingenuous and be clear. Where does the Labour party stand? Will it defend the right of the Scottish Parliament to act or not?
Ian Murray
I will tell the hon. Lady exactly where we stand: we want this legislation to work. At the moment, the legislation is dead because—
Ian Murray
The hon. Lady might say that from a sedentary position, but the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) quoted Donald Dewar at great length. Donald Dewar will be turning in his grave at what is happening in relation to devolution and Scottish politics, because he created the section 35 process for the very reasons the hon. Lady just said. Section 35 is a process to enable cross-border problems to be resolved.
Ian Murray
Let me finish my point.
The Government have come forward with 13 pages that they think show that the Bill adversely affects UK-wide legislation. I think the statement of reasons is thin, although I have not had a chance to read it all the way through. [Interruption.] It might be rubbish, but people have concerns that we have to alleviate. We have to bring people with us. What the SNP has forgotten about this entire process—Labour is very experienced at this because we do it all the time—is that when a Government are passing major equalities legislation they have to bring people with them. If that means they have to get people around the table—[Interruption.] Should you not have to bring people with you? If people raise concerns, you should just dismiss them? [Interruption.] No, this is me saying it. Equalities legislation is difficult and you have to bring people with you. These adverse effects might be “rubbish”—as I have said, at an initial glance I think they are pretty weak and flimsy—but the courts will have to decide whether they like this or not, because that is where this is going. The Scottish Parliament has the right to pass this legislation, because this is devolved, but the Scotland Act, protecting the Scottish Parliament, also contains a mechanism, written by Donald Dewar, to ensure that if there are cross-border concerns, those are dealt with. That is the way it is in this particular process.
Ian Murray
I have not even gone through the first bit of my speech, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will apologise for saying that we were “weasels”. I hope that he has gone back and read my speech, which is not what I said during my contribution on the statement.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
With the greatest respect, what I am hearing from the hon. Gentleman now is that he supports neither the position of the Scottish Parliament nor the position of the Government. He says that we need to win public support, but how much of that has the Labour party got in Scotland? Is this not the problem he has to face: leaving himself with nowhere to stand in Scottish politics and falling between stools, he is hardly standing up for the devolution settlement, which he should be so proud that Donald Dewar established?
Ian Murray
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my contribution during the statement and has not listened to my contribution since. I have no idea which debate he is listening to, but it is certainly not the one I am participating in at this moment.
The bottom line here—this is the undeniable fact, whether we like it or not—is that the only way to resolve this today would be for both Governments to come together to try to find an accommodation. I am surprised that they have not done so, as this has been on the cards since 2016 and all we are getting now is a statement of adverse effects one day— 24 hours—before the expiry period for Royal Assent for the Bill. The Government are coming in at the eleventh hour with a section 35, with 13 pages of adverse effects that have not been communicated or worked on with the Scottish Government before. I am not involved in detailed discussions at ministerial level, although perhaps the Labour party will be at some future point, but perhaps it takes two to tango in these discussions. If the SNP genuinely wants this legislation to be passed and the Government genuinely want to see whether any adverse effects could affect residents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is it not incumbent on both Governments to get together to do everything they can to resolve this? That would allow us to get this on the statute book; section 35 could be removed and the Bill could go for Royal Assent, as was supposed to have happened some time ago.
That is the grim reality in Scottish politics the moment. It happened with the children’s rights Bill, which the UK Government challenged through the Supreme Court, which said that certain aspects had overreached under section 33 of the Scotland Act—that was another section that Donald Dewar wrote in to protect devolution. The Scottish Government were asked to remove those aspects from the Bill in order to get Royal Assent, and two and a half years later nothing has been done. That just shows that we are in political paralysis in Scotland at the moment, where nobody can do anything because it is turned into a political football about the constitution, and the trans community and others are sitting there in disbelief today that this cannot proceed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Murray
Let me make some progress. I wanted, because of accusations that have been made, just to go through a little of the Scottish Labour party’s response to the Bill in the Scottish Parliament. We had a multitude of concerns about the initial Bill. Nobody could have said that the Bill that was presented in draft to the Scottish Parliament was in any way fit to become final legislation, but we worked constructively with the legislation, with the UN rapporteur for women and girls, with the LGBTQ+ community and with women’s groups, which were raising concerns about the Bill. We tabled amendments. We got the Equality Act on to the face of the Bill, which is referred to in a lot of the adverse effects in the Government’s document. We made many other amendments to that Bill to help alleviate concerns, but, unfortunately, the only way we are going to settle these arguments now is through the courts.
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to the shadow Scottish Secretary of State for giving way. The leader of the UK Labour party said at the weekend that he had serious concerns about reducing the age from 18 to 16. However, when my Scottish Conservative colleague, Rachael Hamilton, moved an amendment to keep the age at 18 rather than reducing it to 16, Labour MSPs joined the SNP to vote the amendment down. What is the shadow Secretary of State’s position on the age limit in Scotland?
Ian Murray
We put in protections on the age limit in Scotland. We have the leader of the SNP at Westminster accusing the Scottish Labour party and the UK Labour party of different positions on this. There is nothing between the positions, but we should have devolution at the same time. The leader of the UK Labour party has made his position perfectly clear, and Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Scottish Labour party, and his team put in significant protections for 16 and 17-year-olds, including the notary public measure, which means that a person has to swear in front of a notary public for this to take effect and they have to get a responsible adult over the age of 18 to be able to do any of this under the age of 18.
Essentially, the hon. Gentleman is challenging people not to have different views on this, but two of his Front-Bench MSPs voted for the legislation. People are entitled to have slightly different views on what is an incredibly important subject. He has managed to do only one thing in the past week, which was not to get both Governments together to try to resolve this, but to write to me to ask my position on the Bill. I would rather that the two Governments came together. [Interruption.] We want the Bill passed and we want section 35 resolved; it is as simple and as straightforward as that. It has been our position for some time that we should modernise the GRA. That position has been eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, and it is still the one that we hold.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made the crucial point—and this goes back to an earlier intervention—that gender recognition certificates can already be issued under the Equality Act. As we sit here today, single-sex spaces are protected by exemptions under the Equality Act. The adverse reasons that the Government are giving us on that are not about the process of getting a GRC, but about the process that is currently already in place. The Government are all over the place on this, and it is little wonder that the only result is to fan the flames for people who wish to break up the United Kingdom.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not right that, in the passing of the Equality Act 2010, it was noted then that the GRA needed to be reformed and depathologised? The party that came in straight after the passing of that Act—the party currently in Government—has spent 12 and a bit years twiddling its thumbs and fanning the flames of fear and hatred, and then, when one Parliament of this United Kingdom takes decisive action, rather than stepping up and working to resolve the issue, the party has constructed a constitutional crisis that will benefit its voting.
Ian Murray
That is what I have been saying. We desperately want the legislation to pass, but we also desperately want to make sure that the issues raised under section 35 are resolved. There are only two ways to do that: either through the courts, which is where I think this is heading, or through the Governments getting together. We do not have the power to make either of those things happen.
Opinion polling shows that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland just want their two Governments to work closely together in the interests of the country, and, on this particular issue, in the interests of equality. Let me say to both Governments that these issues are not irresolvable. We can create an environment where protections exist for women at the same time as strengthening the rights for trans people. We can create a legal framework where GRCs issued in Scotland are entirely compatible with the UK-wide equality legislation. We can have a country where both the Scottish and UK Governments act like grown-ups, get round the table and resolve these issues. That is what used to happen. That is the way that Donald Dewar designed the legislation that this Government are now implementing. We need genuinely constructive discussions between the two Governments. Let us lock them in a room and not let them out until they find a solution. I can assure Members that there is a way through this, but both Governments are unwilling to take it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
This is an incredibly serious moment: it is the first time section 35 has been invoked. Donald Dewar, the father of devolution—who has already been mentioned—designed this section to protect devolution. It was passed by all parties in the House and has not been objected to since then. It was intended to be not a blocking but an enabling mechanism, allowing the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation in devolved competences without changing reserved functions. At the time, colleagues of the then Secretary of State expressed concern that it could be used as a “veto”, so a memorandum of understanding was agreed. It stated:
“Although the UK Government is prepared to use these powers if necessary, it sees them very much as a matter of last resort. The UK Government and the administration concerned will therefore aim to resolve any difficulties through discussion so as to avoid any action or omission by the devolved administration having an adverse impact on non-devolved matters.”
May I ask the Secretary of State whether this is a last resort? Did he have extensive discussions with the Scottish Government before taking this action? How many times has he met the Scottish Government before the Bill was passed, during its debate in Holyrood, and since its passage? It appears to me that this has become a last resort only in terms of the legal timing because both Governments cannot and will not work with each other.
The Secretary of State says that section 35 is being used—among other reasons—in relation to the Equality Act. Both the Scotland Act and the Equality Act are landmark pieces of Labour legislation, establishing devolution and enshrining rights to be free of discrimination in law. No one needs to question this party’s commitment to equality: we passed the initial Gender Recognition Act 2004, we brought in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and we brought the world-leading Equality Act into law. Clearly, however, there is a need for laws passed by Holyrood and those passed by Westminster to interact, and in this case the trans community need that cross-border interaction to work.
The fact that, after 25 years of devolution, section 35 has never been exercised is largely due to the way in which devolution was set up and intended to operate, with Governments having their own agendas but also a common purpose in working together to serve the Scottish people. Now Scotland is saddled with an Administration in Edinburgh who are hellbent on breaking devolution, and a Conservative Administration here in London who are intent on ignoring it. Indeed, the Secretary of State seems to spend more time with Government lawyers trying to stop things happening than making them work, while the Scottish Government spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers challenging laws that they know are unchallengeable in order to manufacture political grievance.
In this case, it is the public who are let down. Trans people, who suffer intense discrimination, will now not see this legislation take effect any time soon—if at all—and women’s rights groups are likely not to see their concerns addressed or their fears alleviated, because the simple truth is that this has turned into a constitutional bunfight.
I also suggest that the SNP would be rightly screaming, as they are doing today and have done in the past, if a piece of legislation passed in this place had implications for devolved competences. They would challenge that, as is their right. If we are to accept the argument from the Scottish Government that there is no effect on the Equality Act, the courts will surely strike out this section 35 action, as we believe that the Scottish Government will take it to court.
Scottish Labour put the primacy of the Equality Act on the face of the Bill. May I ask the Secretary of State whether the statutory instrument that he mentioned in his statement will give the details of where he thinks it is incompatible? He said last night that there was a version of the Bill that the UK Government could support; what does that look like? However, he also said in his statement that there were complications with two different gender recognition regimes. Is he saying that the Scottish Parliament should not have the competence? As the Bill was being debated in Holyrood, was it not obvious to him and his colleagues that it could contravene reserved law? What did he do about it then?
During the Bill’s passage, Scottish Labour made clear that if it was to work, clear guidance was required. The SNP Scottish Government said that it was for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not them as the Government, to provide such guidance. Why does the Secretary of State not instruct the EHRC to provide that guidance, look at the cross-border issues that he has mentioned, and provide recommendations in respect of the interaction with the Equality Act? Both Governments should commit themselves to accepting those conclusions—or is the Secretary of State saying that the ball is in the Scottish Government’s court to bring back amended legislation, and that he is now backing out of the process?
We support the principle of updating the Gender Recognition Act, which was world-leading when the Labour Government introduced it in 2004 but now, two decades on, requires modernisation to humanise it and remove the indignities involved in this dreadful process. We have ended up in a legal and constitutional impasse. My final question to the Secretary of State is this: what is he going to do to resolve it?
Mr Jack
I shall answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, hopefully in the right order. This is not a last resort. To understand the Scotland Act, section 33 relates to where UK legislation is directly changed, and section 35 to where it is adversely affected. We have 28 days to make a decision in either case before the legislation goes for Royal Assent. In this case, the legal test that has been given to us and approved by our officials is under section 35, which relates to an adverse effect on two parts of UK/GB legislation. That is where we are at. We have 28 days to make that decision and we have to make a decision in that timeframe. In this case, very senior legal opinion advises us that section 35 is appropriate. This will be seen in my statement of reasons, which we have laid with the order.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, officials have been meeting officials in the Scottish Government since the Bill was introduced. After the second stage, the Minister for Gender and Equalities wrote to the Bill Minister expressing her concerns and asking for a meeting. That meeting took place, and her concerns were again expressed at that meeting. Regarding the EHRC, it has said that it is willing to work with and support the Scottish Government if it can. However, it has made it clear that its ongoing concerns are still on record. That is where that rests. I think that addresses all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.