International Court of Justice

Debate between Ian Murray and Patrick Grady

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly valid point. One of the recommendations in our report is that the FCO’s lessons learned report should come before the Committee, even on a private basis, so the Committee can be assured that this was a cock-up and not something wider. However, I draw his attention to the fact that the Foreign Office has used this process for a number of successful elections in previous years. Had the diminishing vote in the General Assembly been brought to the Foreign Secretary’s attention sooner, it may or may not have helped, depending on whether or not the Foreign Secretary may or may not help those particular processes. However, the hon. Gentleman’s points will be taken back to the Committee and used in future reports.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

This is a blow to our international influence, and certainly to any notion of empire 2.0. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that kind of language and attitude is perhaps a contributing factor to these decisions, including the decision to refer the Chagos islands case to the ICJ? Does the Committee intend to look into whether our lack of a judge on the ICJ may have any influence on its decision on the Chagos islands case? From my point of view, restoring the islanders’ right to return would be welcome.

[Ian Murray]

The Chagos islands issue is not mentioned directly in the report, although it is used as an example of where the UK has taken votes to the UN in recent times and lost. It is clear that not being on the ICJ diminishes the UK’s voice on making sensible decisions at the UN. One of the report’s conclusions is that the real difficulty is not directly the loss of a judge on the ICJ but in how we get a judge back on to the ICJ. Incumbency is a special thing in being able to promote a future election. Indeed, not being the incumbent will make it much more difficult next time.

Scotland-Malawi Relationship

Debate between Ian Murray and Patrick Grady

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Chope, because I appreciate that I came late to the Chamber. I was detained in a Select Committee, so my apologies—pepani chomene. I am grateful for the opportunity to offer a few brief reflections on Scotland’s relationship with Malawi, and congratulate—yewo chomene; zikomo kwambiri—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this debate.

I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on St Andrew’s Day 2015 to mark the 10th anniversary of the Scotland-Malawi relationship. In the nearly two years since, the relationship has continued to get stronger. The Scotland Malawi Partnership continues to publish evidence of its impact and outreach in both Scotland and Malawi.

One of the most formative experiences of my life was spending a year working in the north of the country, teaching in St Peter’s secondary school in the wonderful city of Mzuzu. I made many tremendous friends, who have stayed with me for life, and had a huge number of valuable experiences interacting with the young people and seeing how daily life pans out for people in some of the most difficult circumstances in the world.

I echo the points made about the value of the relationship in both directions. We in Scotland and the United Kingdom have just as much opportunity to learn from our friends, colleagues and communities in Malawi as they have to learn from our different experiences here in the UK.

There has been a lot of mention of constituency links. In my own constituency, a number of different projects and schools have connections and partnerships. I would particularly highlight the University of Glasgow’s Wellcome Centre for Molecular Parasitology, which is running the Blantyre-Blantyre project. It is funded by the Scottish Government and a number of other funders to study life expectancy and different health interventions in Blantyre, Malawi and Blantyre, Scotland, and to share the learning experiences and the lessons from both those communities.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman highlights some of the projects in his constituency, including education projects. South Morningside, Bruntsfield and Gilmerton primaries in my constituency have direct links with primary schools in Malawi. Will he reflect on the fact that that might be why this partnership has grown, flourished and endured for so long—that younger people are involved and they take that through the rest of their lives?

[Patrick Grady]

That is absolutely correct. It is more than 10 years ago now that I spent time living there, although I do not know that I would have counted as a young person even when I was there. In my 2015 debate, I said that it would be a fascinating job of work to fund research that tracks the experiences. I say that to the Minister again today. Many of the partnerships and school visits took place when the children were quite young, in secondary school. They will now be well into their careers. We should track the impact that that has had, as well as the impact on their counterparts in Malawi, so that we can start to quantify and see how we can continue to build on it.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Ian Murray and Patrick Grady

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

It seems to me that SNP Members agree with English votes for English laws and do not want to defend the principle that we are against them, or they want to vote with the Government this evening, or they want to abstain. I am not quite sure what they are doing. However, if I heard the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire correctly, he is going to vote with the Labour party against the motion. I am not sure where the hon. Lady stands on that argument, but the point I am trying to make is simply about division and unnecessary complication in the House. The Government’s majority will see any Finance Bill that they wish to present before the next general election—whenever that may be—through the House, because that is the way in which Governments and majorities work. If the Government have a problem with their own Back Benchers when they are trying to change income tax rates, that is entirely fine.

The hon. Lady was right to raise the point that she has just made, but let me gently say to her that we wanted to debate this matter today because it is the first opportunity that we have had to return to the EVEL regulations. It does not make sense for it to be possible to invoke this procedure in the context of income tax.

That brings us to the great repeal Bill and what will come back from the European Union. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised that issue on a number of occasions. What will happen then? Will more technical changes be made by means of statutory instruments and Standing Orders to determine whether provisions are subject to English votes for English laws? We do not even know where some of the powers will lie when they are repatriated. It is important to note that none of these issues were examined in depth at the time of the McKay commission’s proposals. There was no consideration of the impact and the knock-on effect of the provisions on the way in which the House operates.

On four separate occasions, under the premiership of Gordon Brown, the Scottish National party asked for English votes for English laws. In fact, they used the term “EVEL”. Then, after 2015—I do not know what happened in 2015; they must have won more seats—SNP Members became opposed to English votes for English laws. Now they are reluctantly voting against this measure. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire just said that he profoundly disagreed with it as a matter of principle, but was not sure whether he would vote against it. He seemed to be saying that these were merely technical changes.

On top of all that, the greatest anomaly in all the regulations, including the one that is before us now, is that even when the hon. Gentleman has sprung up in that strange Committee where the Mace goes down, Madam Deputy Speaker moves to the Chair to take the proceedings and no one speaks, and when he has—invariably, and quite rightly—railed against English votes for English laws, SNP Members do not vote when they are allowed to do so, on Third Reading. They are, in practice, demonstrating English votes for English laws in any event.

I remember the circumstances surrounding the housing Bill where the EVEL provisions were put in place for the first time in this House. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly railed against EVEL, and we supported him on that, but then the SNP Members did not vote on the Third Reading of the Bill in any case, when they were entitled to, so I am not quite sure where the principles of that lie, or whether or not the hon. Gentleman should have been voting on the housing Bill.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Of course we support the principle of English votes for English laws and its ultimate logical conclusion of independence, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a difference between supporting that concept in principle and this dog’s breakfast of Standing Orders that were brought forward in such a rush after 2015? It is these procedures that we have an issue with, not the principle of English votes for English laws.

[Ian Murray]

And that is quite right: it is a dog’s breakfast, which is why I am so surprised that the hon. Gentleman’s spokesperson on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not rail against this particular dog’s breakfast, but instead welcomed this technical change and is not quite sure whether he will vote for it or against it or abstain on it this evening. If it is a dog’s breakfast and a matter of principle, let us try to fight these changes at every possible turn, of which this is a great and ideal opportunity in this House this evening.

I will conclude by saying what the alternative is for the Government. Let us take away all these changes to Standing Orders—the mess that the Leader of the House is making of the constitution—and get to a point whereby we have a set of constitutional arrangements in this House that work for the UK. We have called for a constitutional convention that would look at all these issues—the House of Lords and everything we do in terms of the constitution—and do it through a sensible and pragmatic approach, where we can look at everything in the round and come out with something the public want. It is time we started bringing the country together: no more division, no more separating different classes of MPs, no more bringing Standing Orders to this House that merely set one MP off against another. Let us work together to try and find a set of circumstances that work for the entirety of this House. It seems to me that when this Conservative Government talk about taking back control, they are not talking about taking back control to the people of this country; they are talking about taking back control for themselves, and that is the principle behind all these English votes for English laws.

This is a dog’s breakfast and it does not work, as has been highlighted time and again in this House. It is a waste of this House’s time to have to go through the process of a Committee to address whether or not we have English votes for English laws. It is inelegant and we will be voting against this this evening, to send a strong message that we as Members of Parliament are all one in this House, and the Government must go back and think again about what they are doing to the procedures in this famous House of Commons.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Debate between Ian Murray and Patrick Grady

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Claim of Right for Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I know that you are a great champion of grassroots democracy, so I hope that a lot of what I have to say will strike a chord with you. This has not been the most straightforward debate to bring to Westminster Hall. Members who pay close attention to the Order Paper will have noticed that before the recess, it originally appeared in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). He has the same initials as me, but I clearly have considerably worse handwriting than him—bad enough for even the stellar cryptographers in the Table Office to be stumped.

After sorting that out, the Clerks and Library specialists wanted to know which Claim of Right for Scotland I wanted to debate: the ancient claim dating to 1689, which asserts the right of appeal against perceived judicial injustice; the more modern claim, signed in 1989 as the founding document of the Scottish Constitutional Convention; or the claim adopted by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, in the context of the independence referendum. The answer is not one of those, but all of them—or, more accurately, their central assertion, endorsed in 1989 and 2012, which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and the obligation on elected representatives that in all our actions and deliberations, the interests of the people of Scotland shall be paramount.

My argument is that the Claim of Right is not, or is no longer, an historical document. It is a concept, and indeed a fundamental principle, that underpins the democracy and constitutional framework of Scotland. It is as relevant today as it has ever been. The economy on the brink of recession; the Government hopelessly divided on Europe; the Labour party in turmoil; a woman Prime Minister in Downing Street; and Scotland living under yet another Conservative Government it did not vote for, pushing through damaging social policies against the will of the vast majority of people and parliamentarians—yes, that was the situation in 1989, when parliamentarians, councillors and church and civil society leaders gathered on the Mound in Edinburgh to sign the claim of right and begin the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

It is an historical fact that Scottish National party members were not present for the signing and did not take part in the convention. The SNP took part in early discussions, but withdrew when it became clear that the convention would not countenance independence. We argued at the time, and might still argue today, that to rule out such an option was to deny a key principle of the claim: the right to choose the best form of government. However, the claim signed in 1989 represented something of a consensus in the country that the democratic deficit experienced throughout the Thatcher years was becoming intolerable, and the convention paved the way for the Parliament that now meets in Holyrood. Today, the First Minister is outlining her programme for government, implementing as best she can with the powers available to that Parliament our vision of a more progressive and socially just Scotland.

The excellent briefing produced by the House of Commons Library for this debate contains an appendix showing the 1989 claim and its list of signatories. Some of the names are familiar: Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, John McFall, David Steel, Jim Wallace, Archy Kirkwood. Some of those individuals can still be found at Westminster, although they go by slightly different styles and titles and work in another place with little in the way of a democratic mandate.

Another signatory is a constituent of mine, Elspeth Attwooll, a former Liberal Democrat MEP whom I credit for inspiring this debate. Before the European referendum, we both took part in a hustings where she reflected on what it meant to her to have been a signatory to the Claim of Right. It made me think about how far Scotland has come over the nearly 30 years since the claim was signed, and indeed over the years since the referendum on devolution, the 19th anniversary of which we will mark this coming Sunday. We have come far, but we still have much further to go.

The Brexit result is only the most glaring and recent example. Despite all the powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, Westminster still holds the purse strings. After three Scotland Acts since 1997, 70% of taxes and 85% of welfare spending, two of the most crucial levers of social and economic policy, remain reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Parliament, 58 out of 59 of Scotland’s MPs and local authorities across the country have all voted against the renewal of Trident, but it will still go ahead, less than 40 miles from our biggest population centre. The bedroom tax, welfare cuts, the undermining of energy and climate change policy, the threatened withdrawal from the European convention on human rights and even the removal of a tugboat from the west coast of Scotland are all directly against the will of the people of Scotland, as expressed democratically at the ballot box, yet all of them have been foisted on us by Westminster Governments.

It will undoubtedly be argued that the people of Scotland exercised their sovereignty on 18 September 2014. Some have argued that during those 15 hours when the polls were open, Scotland was truly an independent country: the future of our governance was in the hands of our people and nobody else. Disappointed though many of us were by the result of the referendum, we accept that Scotland voted to remain in the Union. However, voters were told repeatedly during the referendum that a no vote was not a vote for the status quo, and that choosing to stay in the Union would bring about a new relationship in which Scotland would lead the UK, not leave it. A vow was made to deliver something as near to federalism as possible, and a guarantee was given that Scotland would remain a member of the European Union.

As we approach the second anniversary of the referendum, none of those promises have been kept. There might have been a new status quo on the morning of 19 September 2014, but there was also one on the morning of 24 June 2016, when the Union for which people in Scotland voted came to an end. That United Kingdom—a United Kingdom that would remain part of the European Union, guaranteeing people in Scotland freedom of movement for themselves and their goods, capital and services across a continent to which we have always looked and of which we have always seen ourselves as a part—no longer exists. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said as much yesterday: Brexit means that the UK will leave the European Union. That is not what people in Scotland voted for, either in 2014 or in 2016. In choosing the form of government best suited to their needs, people in Scotland, on both occasions, chose a form of government that involved continuing membership of the European Union.

That is why the Scottish Government have pledged to work as constructively as possible to protect and defend Scotland’s interests within the Brexit process. I hope that the UK Government will work constructively with the new Scottish Government Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe as they prepare for the article 50 process. The First Minister has appointed a standing council of expert advisers to help explore different options to maintain a relationship between Scotland and Europe that reflects the choice made by people in Scotland in the European referendum.

That is also why the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament must ultimately reserve the right to hold another referendum on independence for Scotland. If it becomes clear that the best or only way for Scotland to remain in the EU is to become an independent member of the EU, we must have the right to make that decision for ourselves.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On the advantages of the EU, the hon. Gentleman will know that my party agrees with his—we voted in the Scottish Parliament to support the First Minister in taking every possible avenue to keep the advantages of the EU—but is he honestly telling the House that the solution is for Scotland to turn away from its much bigger trading partner, the UK?

[Patrick Grady]

I am saying that all the different options must be explored. The Scottish Government have committed on a cross-party basis to explore all those options as constructively as possible, but we must retain the right to revisit the question of our independent membership of the European Union if that becomes the best or only way to protect the benefits that we get from that membership. That is the crux of the Claim of Right: it is for the people of Scotland to choose the form of governance best suited to their needs. If our democratically elected Parliament decides on a cross- party basis—it will have to be on a cross-party basis, as we have a minority Government—to call for another independence referendum, will the UK Government seriously stand in the way?

The Edinburgh agreement may have been signed to pave the way for the 2014 referendum, but it is a de facto acknowledgment of both the general principle of the Claim of Right and the more specific question of whether Scotland has the right to become an independent country in a referendum. So when the former Prime Minister said in the Chamber that his county of Oxfordshire had voted to remain but that no one was calling for it to have an exemption from the UK-wide vote, he demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional framework in Scotland. Indeed, it was the same kind of misunderstanding that led one of his predecessors to describe the Scots Parliament as a “parish council”. There has never been a claim of right for Oxfordshire, as far as I am aware, nor has there been an Edinburgh agreement recognising Oxfordshire’s right to become an independent country, but such principles are now firmly established in Scotland—indeed, they always have been.

Historically, the monarchs in Scotland were Kings and Queens of Scots. They ruled at the sufferance of the people, rather than ruling over the land or exercising a sovereignty vested in their own person or in the Crown in Parliament, as the tradition has it here in Westminster—although, as I said in this Chamber yesterday, I was interested to hear how many converts to the idea of participatory democracy there were on the Government Benches, and how keen some of them had become to cede some of their hallowed parliamentary sovereignty to popular opinion expressed in a referendum.

One reason why I bid for this debate was that I heard a number of colleagues both in the Government and in the official Opposition say informally that there would not be another independence referendum because the Prime Minister would not allow it. That reminds me of the famous words of the convenor of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Canon Kenyon Wright, who said at the opening of the convention:

“What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, ‘We say no, and we are the state’? Well, we say yes—and we are the people.”

So I ask the Government—I note that the Minister here today is the Deputy Leader of the House, not a Minister from the Scotland Office, because of course it has no junior Ministers—whether they accept the principle of the Claim of Right for Scotland. The Conservatives, uniquely among political parties in Scotland, refused both to sign the declaration in 1989 and to back it in the 2012 Scottish Parliament vote. Given the promises made during the independence referendum, the respect agenda and the partnership of nations we are supposed to belong to, will they reconsider?

If the Minister cannot bring himself to commit to something so momentous today, will he at least recognise that the differential result in the Brexit referendum means that there must be a differential response from the Government? Will they consider seriously any proposals that come forward from Scotland, whether they are about participation in Erasmus, the Horizon 2020 programme or, more fundamentally, efforts to build a coalition that protects the UK’s membership of the European single market? Will the Minister and the Government consider how effectively the voices of Scotland’s MPs of all parties are heard in this House? Surely it is time for a review of the English votes for English laws procedures, which are wasting parliamentary time and continue to undermine our supposedly equal status in this House.

There may be parallels with the prevailing political and economic situation in 1989, but this is 2016. Scotland’s voice is articulated not only by Members of Parliament here at Westminster, but in a modern, vibrant and diverse Parliament at Holyrood. Those of us who have been elected to the House of Commons come from a very different tradition from our predecessors. We have not come here to settle down, bide our time and hope for a seat in the House of Lords one day. When I leave this place, as I am well aware I will, it will be because I have decided not to put myself forward, because the voters have decided they want someone else, or because at last there will be no need for Scotland to send MPs to Westminster.

In the SNP, we make no secret of the fact that we think the form of government best suited to the needs of people in Scotland is an independent one. In the words of our party constitution, it is

“the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.”

But we also recognise that we have a job to do in persuading a majority of our fellow citizens of that case, which is why the second clause of our constitution is simply

“the furtherance of all Scottish interests.”

We make no special claim to the Claim of Right; it belongs, by definition, to everyone in Scotland, regardless of which political party they support or which constitutional option they prefer. But it encapsulates the right to decide and keep deciding the best form of government for their needs and for the time we live in.

When the Scottish Parliament debated and adopted the Claim of Right in 2012, it did not endorse the principle of independence, but it acknowledged the principle of deciding on independence, so the Claim of Right is not just an historical document or a scholarly debating point; it is a fundamental principle on which our democracy rests. If the UK Government are serious about maintaining the present Union as a partnership of equals, they need to understand that.

I hope that, 27 years since the declaration was signed, 19 years since the devolution referendum, 17 years since the Scottish Parliament was established, nine years since the first SNP Government were elected, two years since the independence referendum, 18 months since the UK general election, four months since the Scottish Parliament elections and three months since the European referendum, the Government might finally start to get the message.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Bone, for calling me to speak; it is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.

It is also a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), whose great passion for Brexit—I re-emphasise—has brought us to this particular position. We would not be having debates again about rerunning the independence referendum if the former Prime Minister had not gambled the UK farm and lost. Indeed, there was no apology in the 17 minutes of the right hon. Gentleman’s oratory for the campaign bus or for getting us into this constitutional quagmire.

I emphasise that the leader of the Scottish Conservative party, who had no other policies whatever, made it her one policy at the Scottish elections back in May to say to the Scottish people, “Vote Conservative and we will protect the Union.” Everything that has happened since then has risked the very United Kingdom that I and many people in this Chamber have voted for and worked very hard to protect.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate. There is one thing that I agree with the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath about: the fact that we never have debates in Westminster Hall on how to eradicate poverty in Scotland, on how to use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to make sure we can provide finances for public services, on how to close the attainment gap or on how to ensure that Scotland is outward-looking to the world. Instead, it is all grievance, it is all constitution, and it is all taking the debate and the agenda away from the issues that really matter in Scotland about public services and how the Scottish Parliament, by using its powers—or in this case, not using them—would be a good place to lie.

[Patrick Grady]

I point out again to both Members who have followed me, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), that the First Minister is at this moment addressing the Chamber of the Scottish Parliament to announce, among other things, £750 million to help to close the educational attainment gap, a guarantee that the health budget of Scotland will increase by at least £500 million more than inflation every year, and a doubling of the amount of free care available to all three and four-year-olds, and the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, across Scotland. The idea that the Scottish Government are not using the powers of the Scottish Parliament and are not delivering for the people of Scotland is simply false.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted to hear that, because after 10 years it is about time that the Scottish Parliament started to invest in closing the educational attainment gap and in public services. That intervention by the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that the Scottish Parliament has powers to make a difference in people’s lives, but in his speech to begin this debate he said that the Scottish Parliament has no powers whatever. Indeed, he even mentioned the tugboat that was taken away, as if the Scottish Parliament meets to discuss what it cannot do rather than trying to change the lives of people in the ways that it can.

Let us get back to this debate about the Claim of Right. It is worth just reading out the start of the declaration of the 1989 Claim of Right, which was indeed re-emphasised in the Scottish Parliament and voted on in 2012. It says:

“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”

We have heard much from the hon. Gentleman, who is the mover of the particular motion that we are debating today, about the importance of respecting Scottish sovereignty. Respecting the popular will is important, not only in Scotland but across the United Kingdom. Let us not forget that, as the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned, the Scottish National party, along with many Scottish Tories, did not participate in the constitutional convention; the SNP did not participate in that conversation with civic Scotland, politicians, groups, universities and business about what the future of devolution should look like. Moreover, the SNP did not accept the wording of the Claim of Right that that convention was founded upon. Indeed, it is only the Labour party and the Scottish Labour party that have been entirely consistent in upholding the words of the Claim of Right, because it pledged:

“To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland; To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme”.

It went on to say that it also pledged:

“To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.”

When the Labour party was elected to Government in 1997, one of its first Bills delivered the referendum on devolution, mobilised popular support for its approval, asserted the sovereign right of the Scottish people, delivered on the result of the referendum and created the Scottish Parliament that we have today. There was no mention of all that from the hon. Member for Glasgow North; there was no mention of how we said to the Scottish people that we would deliver something, got into power and then delivered it, on the basis of what the Scottish people were telling us they wanted to happen.

To be fair, when the SNP was elected in 2011 on a manifesto that pledged an independence referendum, we respected the mandate for that referendum, too, because the Scottish people had voted for it. Consequently, in 2014 we had that referendum and that time the Scottish people voted to stay in the UK. So, taking the word of the Claim of Right as our guide, if we can, we acknowledged

“the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.

The Scottish people voted for a powerful Scottish Parliament, but with Scotland being an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Claim of Right was put into practice: it was voted on in 2012 in the Scottish Parliament; the referendum happened in 2014; the Scottish people spoke; and

“the sovereign right of the Scottish people”

is to stay within the United Kingdom, but with a much more powerful Scottish Parliament. That was the spirit and the substance of the Claim of Right that we are discussing today.

I want to go back to the intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow North. The Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. It is about time that the politicians elected by the people looked back at that Claim of Right and said, “We were elected to deliver for the Scottish people with a powerful Scottish Parliament” and got on with the day job that they were elected to do. But every single day since the polls closed on 19 September 2014, the SNP has looked for any single trigger to get a different result in the referendum. That is surely the complete antithesis of the Claim of Right.

EU Exit: Devolved Governments

Debate between Ian Murray and Patrick Grady

Thursday 21st July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady]

There we are; it is an open invitation. Northern Ireland voted to remain, which would also have triggered the four-nation lock mechanism, had it been introduced.

But we are, as others have said, where we are. I take some of the points that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South raised about the potential impact on domestic policy and reform and on the broader need to re-engage our populations in the democratic process. I think we did that quite effectively in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, which may explain the different tone of debate that took place during the European referendum. On the question of more powers for the Scottish Parliament, our preference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, is for Scotland to influence those powers as a full member of the EU at the top table, where those decisions are made. If that is the outcome and that is the only way of protecting Scotland’s place in Europe, that is what we will have.

The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made some considered remarks and reflections. They were not necessarily direct questions to the new Minister, but the fact that he is asking those questions reflects the fact that the UK Government really are playing catch-up on the result. They were not fully prepared for a Brexit result, which stands in contrast to the initiative and the momentum shown in Scotland. The First Minister, who spoke so eloquently—she was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—was immediately out the hatch, reaching out to leave voters and welcoming European citizens and assuring them of their continued welcome in Scotland. She then travelled to Brussels, where the President of the European Union, Jean-Claude Juncker, said:

“Scotland won the right to be heard in Brussels”.

It therefore stands to reason we should also have the right to be heard in the UK. The First Minister had a mandate to do that, with the Scottish Parliament passing a resolution saying that it

“welcomes the overwhelming vote of the people of Scotland to remain in the European Union”

and

“mandates the Scottish Government to have discussions with the UK Government, other devolved administrations, the EU institutions and member states to explore options for protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU, Scotland’s place in the single market and the social, employment and economic benefits that come from that”.

[Ian Murray]

The whole debate today is about which destination we wish for the negotiations. The Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who is the SNP’s Europe spokesperson, said on “Good Morning Scotland” this morning—and I quote— “Untrammelled access to the EU’s single market is much more important to Scotland than access to the UK’s”. Does the SNP spokesperson today agree or disagree with his hon. Friend?

[Patrick Grady]

I heard the interview to which the hon. Gentleman refers; it was a useful preparation for today’s debate. It is clear that we want to maintain our access to—exactly as the Scottish Parliament resolution says—

“Scotland’s place in the single market and the social, employment and economic benefits that come from that”.

In order to help to prepare for the transition, the First Minister moved quickly to put in place a standing council of experts to provide advice to her Government on how best to achieve our EU objectives. It is chaired by my constituent, Professor Anton Muscatelli, who is the principal of the University of Glasgow. That council is made up of specialists in finance, economics and European and diplomatic matters. It encompasses a range of political and constitutional opinions and was designed to provide the Scottish Government with access to a wealth of knowledge that has been built up over the years. The council will consider the impacts of the proposed changes to the UK’s relationship with the EU on Scottish interests and will advise Scottish Ministers throughout the coming negotiations on the best way to ensure that we achieve those Scottish objectives.

The Prime Minister met with the First Minister, and we welcome that willingness to listen and to commit, which she emphasised again at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, but there is some need for clarity over the UK Government’s plans. The Prime Minister said article 50 would not be triggered until there is a UK-wide approach on the objectives of the negotiations, but the Secretary of State for Brexit has said that article 50 will be triggered early next year. It would be useful to have some clarity on that.

We have to recognise the result in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke about the sovereignty of Scotland, and we have a debate in Westminster Hall on the Claim of Right after the summer recess. If Brexit means breakfast in the UK—sorry, if Brexit means Brexit; I have made a bit of a dog’s breakfast of that—then in Scotland, remain should mean remain. The former Prime Minister said in his statement to the House after the referendum that his county of Oxfordshire had voted to remain, and implied that was somehow comparable to the result in Scotland, but Oxfordshire is not a devolved Administration. Oxfordshire County Council did not sign an Edinburgh agreement with the UK Government recognising in principle Oxford’s right to become an independent country should it choose to do so. Scotland did.

That is why the FM has said the option of a second independence referendum

“must be on the table”

for Scotland, and if independence is found to be the only way to secure Scotland’s place in Europe, a referendum would be “highly likely”. Any such referendum would have to command cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, which is why it would be unacceptable for the UK Government to stand in its way. But we are not there yet. The Scottish Government have signalled their intention to work constructively with the UK and with EU institutions and member states during the negotiations following the referendum result, but the result in Scotland was not for Brexit. It was for remain, and that result must be respected.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Patrick Grady

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I echo the Secretary of State in thanking everyone who has been involved in the Bill’s passage, including his officials and the people who have been so supportive to Labour Members. I thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who has spoken on many parts of the Bill, but I also thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, who have been incredibly helpful in putting the Bill together. It has been like wading through treacle at times, but they have always been courteous, and their advice has always been well received.

Let me be absolutely clear at the outset about the Labour party’s position. We fully support the Bill and all that it seeks to achieve. [Interruption.] One would think that SNP Members would just stop for two minutes during the Third Reading debate. When the Conservative Secretary of State spoke, there was complete silence, but when the Labour party speaks, the braying mob starts. That tells us all that we need to know about this place.

With the amendments that have been accepted this evening, the vow has been delivered in full. The Bill delivers on the powers promised and agreed by all parties, including the SNP, in the Smith commission.

In 1998 Donald Dewar said:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament”—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 25.],

and it was Labour, with the consent of the Scottish people, that delivered that Parliament. This Bill will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. It meets not only the terms of the vow, but the timetable laid out by Gordon Brown last year. We promised a process by the end of October; it was delivered. We promised it would conclude by St Andrew’s day; it was delivered. Draft legislation was promised by January; it was delivered. Second Reading of the Scotland Bill was promised straight after the election, regardless of who won; that was delivered. We promised that, no matter what parties formed the Government after the election, we would deliver a Bill to meet what the Smith commission set out; and thanks to the Secretary of State’s amendments put forward on Monday, that has been delivered. It is absolutely clear that this Bill, as amended, will place at the Scottish Government’s disposal the powers to make Scotland the fairer and more equal country that we all aspire for it to be.

[Patrick Grady]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am not going to take interventions because I want the SNP opposition spokesman to speak, and if I take interventions he will be talked out.

From the establishment of the Scottish Parliament to the Calman commission to the Scotland Act 2012, Labour has supported more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but we are absolutely clear about what we stand for: we believe in devolution, not separation. That is what the people of Scotland voted for last year, and we respect the sovereign will of the Scottish people. They said they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom but with a strong Scottish Parliament. They said they wanted to continue to pool and share resources across these islands. They said that they wanted the continued security that being part of a bigger union of nations and family of nations brought.

The Bill provides an historic opportunity for our politics in Scotland to turn from talking about the constitution to talking about the country, and about what we can do to make Scotland the fairest nation on earth, instead of what we cannot. Let’s grasp that opportunity. Let’s build that fairer nation. Let’s give the people across Scotland the politics they deserve. In the words of Donald Dewar, there shall be a powerful Scottish Parliament.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Patrick Grady

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Let me give this commitment: if the hon. Lady brings forward an amendment on parking on pavements, we will sign it.

Let me explain why we tabled new clause 2 in terms of the constitutional convention and the practical steps we need to take so that, where appropriate and desirable, decisions are taken as close to communities as possible. Our new clause proposes that members of the constitutional convention must include members of the public, which is the key part of any constitutional convention, elected representatives across all levels of government, including this place and local government, representatives of civic society organisations and, in an advisory role, academia. What we cannot have is a Prime Minister and Government cooking up a devolution settlement in a back room of the Cabinet Office without proper recourse to the public. As I said on Second Reading, the Prime Minister’s cack-handed approach to the way he dealt with the post-Scottish referendum landscape has in itself threatened the very viability of the UK that Scots voted to maintain.

Let us have a wide-ranging discussion on the constitutional settlement of the whole of the UK. The recommendations by the constitutional committee would include, but not be restricted to, matters that we have already discussed today—the role and voting rights of Members in this Chamber, democratic reform of the House of Lords, further sub-national devolution to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, votes at 16 and codification of the constitution, the absence of a proper written constitution being one of the problems we have when discussing the Bill.

Our amendment 37 and 38 are very similar in substance to those tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The opening lines of the vow declared that

“The Scottish parliament is permanent and extensive new powers of the Parliament will be delivered”.

Equally, the Smith commission agreement said that

“UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions”.

As I have said, the centre of political power in Scotland is the Scottish Parliament. It has powers over most things that affect the day-to-day lives of most Scots, but as things stand and as was noted by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Scotland Act 1998 stated:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament”,

but did not provide that it be permanent, nor does it set out any special procedures or grounds on which it could be dissolved. Would there be a simple repeal of the Scotland Act?

There has been agreement among legal experts that the clause could be made clearer, more concise and more in keeping with the overall spirit and tenor of the Smith recommendations. For example, the Law Society of Scotland—I thank it and particularly Michael Clancy for all his advice on the legalities of these clauses—stated:

“The phrasing in the draft clause does not literally implement the terms of Paragraph 21 of the Smith Report. The use of the phrase ‘recognised as’ permanent has a different nuance from a statement that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions.”

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Given that the Scottish Parliament, at the insistence of the Labour party, was founded through the process of a referendum, will the hon. Gentleman support our clause to ensure that it cannot be abolished without a referendum?

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. That is exactly what our amendment does as well. We are very happy for SNP Members to sign our amendment, given that ours was tabled before theirs. We agree on this; there is no division on this. We need a robust devolution architecture. That means making sure that the legal restrictions in the Bill are removed so that we have a permanent Scottish Parliament in statute as well as in spirit.

Amendment 16 would alter clause 1 by exchanging the indefinite article for the definite article in reference to the Scottish Parliament. There is only one Scottish Parliament, after all, so there is no need for a double reference. Amendment 38 would add to clause 1 the stipulation that the Scottish Parliament and the Act on which it is predicated can be abrogated only with the consent of the Scottish people given effect by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. That is the referendum section of our amendment. I believe that amounts to what is known in constitutional law as contingent entrenchment. Given the limited time available, I will not go through the other issues relating to contingent entrenchment, but I am sure that the Secretary of State realises the desire of all three opposition parties to strengthen clause 1 and include a referendum requirement so that permanency is determined by the Scottish people. Amendments 58 and 59 make similar proposals.