Tag: Ian Murray

Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Murray, the Labour MP for Edinburgh South, in the House of Commons on 9 May 2019.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 25th anniversary of the death of John Smith, former leader of the Labour Party.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting Chamber time for this special debate on a motion in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends across the House. The 25th anniversary of John Smith’s untimely passing is a fitting occasion to commemorate and remember a man who lit up this place, lit up our politics and lit up the lives of so many. I am sure that many hon. Members across the House will wish to share their stories and memories today.

This Sunday will mark the 25th anniversary of John Smith’s death. When I suggested this debate to his wife, Baroness Elizabeth Smith, I was not expecting a response from so many colleagues wanting to contribute or merely tell me their own stories about John. Many MPs, from all parties, have come up to me and said, “I can’t be at the debate, but let me tell you about the time—” or “I know where I was the heard the news that John had died.” After 25 years, that is a measure of the man himself: he was admired and respected across the House.

Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Many of us have memories of John Smith. I remember that when I was a London taxi driver, there was a memorial service to him in Methodist Central Hall, just across Parliament Square. I could not finish the day without parking up and going inside to join in. He was a remarkable speaker—a magnificent orator, whom I managed to hear on several occasions. In my opinion, he will go down as one of the parliamentarians who can be described as a great Prime Minister that this country never had.

Ian Murray

I hope that when my hon. Friend went into the memorial service, he stopped his meter—I know that John, as a traditional Scot, might not have done so.

Some of the stories about John can be repeated in public, but—with his wonderful wit and Scottish humour—there are some that are perhaps best not written into Hansard. I do not think that anybody would contradict the assertion that he was the best Prime Minister that this country never had. As a young Andrew Marr wrote:

“The greatest political tribute to John Smith is the simplest one: had he lived, he would have become Prime Minister.”

It is no exaggeration to suggest that his passing changed the course of British history. He was referred to as “Labour’s lost leader”, the man who made the Labour party electable again.

As well as being a formidable and committed politician of extreme intellect, transparency, decency and straightforwardness, with a sense of fairness and a willingness to fight for those who were not able to speak up for themselves, John Smith was a committed family man, with his wife Elizabeth, whom he met at Glasgow University, and his three daughters, Sarah, Jane and Catherine. The country may have lost a Prime Minister in waiting, but they suffered the heaviest and most ​heartbreaking loss of all—the loss of a husband, a father and a part of their lives that could never be replaced.

Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

When I heard of the death of John Smith, I was at the Scottish Tory conference—as a journalist, I should point out, not as a member of the Tory party. I remember that the whole conference came to a grinding halt. Everyone there was stunned and greatly saddened. I thought that that reflected very well on John Smith, and, in fairness, extremely well on the Tory party.

Ian Murray

I shall come to that later in my speech. Journalists get all the best gigs, I am sure—such as the Tory party conference.

I was saying that John Smith’s family had suffered the most heartbreaking loss of all—the loss of a husband, a father and a part of their lives that could never be replaced. I feel that acutely, because I lost my own father at a young age. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my own mum, Lena, a happy 70th birthday for yesterday. The Labour Party would have a new leader to replace John and the country would have that Labour Prime Minister whom it so desired, but it is not possible to replace a father and husband.

I never met John personally, but I feel, as others will surely feel today, that he was always part of my political life. His family still live in my constituency, and constituents often stop me in the street and get on to the topic of John. He was one of theirs, and they are not going to let people forget that any time soon. They all recall his funeral service at Cluny parish church in Morningside. The building sits on a small embankment close to where John lived. The film footage shows the red brick punctuated by the black of mourners moving slowly and sombrely past into the church. The deep national shock was there for all to see.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) cannot be here today owing to a long-standing engagement in her constituency. She was John’s deputy, the politician who took over the reins of the Labour party and the person who had the most difficult job in the House, that of leading the tributes to John when he died. She did it brilliantly and with her usual grace, clarity and kindness. She was devastated that she could not be here today, so she asked if I would read out something on her behalf, and I am very proud to do so:

“25 years ago, the profound shock of John Smith’s untimely death was felt across the country and this House, which only convened for tributes to be paid, led by the then Prime Minister, John Major, before adjourning.

It was also the Scottish Conservative party’s annual conference”

—as we have heard—and

“Ian Lang, the Secretary of State, announced the news and adjourned the conference immediately.

In the Labour party and wider Labour movement the sorrow was profound. I recall a senior trade unionist telling me that he was listening to the tributes in his car, and found himself crying so much that he had to pull over and stop the car.

Party leaders, presidents and prime ministers from across Europe demanded to be allowed to come to the funeral and pay their respects. None were officially invited but they all came anyway at what ended up as almost a state funeral. Yet, in the end, ​it was not a sombre occasion—appropriately, because John was not a sombre man. It was his lifelong friend Donald Dewar who said in his address, ‘John could start a party in an empty room—and frequently did.’

Yet his outstanding characteristic was his determination to, as he put it, ‘speak up for those who can’t speak up for themselves.’”

I do not really want to do a biography of John, but his character was undoubtedly shaped by his upbringing and early life. John was of radical Presbyterian stock, born on the west coast of Scotland on 13 September 1938. “John Smith”, he once said “is the commonest name in Scotland. A robust character is needed to overcome that.” His grandfather was a herring fisherman, and his father was the schoolmaster at the local village school.

At 14, John attended the grammar school at Dunoon. He was academically very successful and began to organise on behalf of his beloved Labour party. From school, he went to Glasgow University, where he cut his teeth, sharpened his elbows and honed the skills that would take him to the Bar and then to the Dispatch Box. He remained at university for seven years, reading for degrees first in history and then in law. He became a first-class debater, as many of the Glasgow university alumni at that time did, helping his university side win the Observer mace competition, but his greatest passion lay in politics.

At just 21, he was adopted Labour candidate for East Fife, which he fought unsuccessfully, and, despite another couple of failed attempts, became the MP for North Lanarkshire in 1970. Legend has it that he won enough money on predicting the results of the 1966 general election in Scotland to be able to quit being a solicitor and train for the Bar; I am not sure whether that is true.

As a new MP in this House in 1970, it was said that he ruined his chances of early promotion by defying his Whip and voting for entry into the EEC in 1971; I certainly know what defying my party Whip on Europe feels like so can concur with that. He remained a staunch pro-European and internationalist his entire career. Breaking the Whip must have been difficult for John, because he was a party man and believed in discipline, which would prove to be useful in his later political career, but he also believed in the common market and working together, and history repeats itself all too often in this place.

John had a glittering parliamentary governmental career as a Minister in employment, trade and energy until the long 18 years of Labour in opposition. He was shadow Chancellor from 1987 until he became Leader of the Opposition, following the 1992 general election and the resignation of Lord Kinnock. But despite his glittering parliamentary career, John always put his constituents first. Mike Elrick, who worked for John, said that John always emphasised that he had constituents who needed him to fight their corner and he had no intention of letting them down.

The people who knew him best were the wonderful people who worked for him, such as David Ward who is here today. I asked David what it was like to work for him and he had story after story of what a pleasure and how much fun it was. As almost every tribute has mentioned and will mention, he was a witty man, with a warmth and kindness. But David tells a story, published in Mark Stuart’s book “John Smith: A Life”, that emphasises John’s devastating humour, which was used to deadly effect in parliamentary debates. John was a ​brilliant debater capable of superb one-line put-downs to Conservative MPs brave enough to intervene on him. When John was on full song, he relished the chance to cut his opponents to size. Such was his fearsome reputation that it became obvious that Tory Whips were discouraging their MPs from interrupting him in debates. In response, Labour Back Benchers used to taunt the Tories to stand up.

John was spontaneously quick-witted but he also worked very hard at jokes prepared in advance. A great example is the “Neighbours” skewering of Nigel Lawson in this Chamber in June 1989, when Lawson was Chancellor, over the role of Margaret Thatcher’s economic adviser Sir Alan Walters. Lawson and Walters were at loggerheads over Tory policy on Europe—that sounds familiar—and that was causing huge friction between No. 10 and No. 11, which is also hugely familiar. In opening an Opposition debate, John sang a brief section from the theme tune from the television programme “Neighbours”, playing on these tensions; I am not going to sing it this afternoon. This hilarious mocking of the Chancellor culminated in John calling on him to go “before he was pushed”, and 24 hours later the Chancellor resigned.

David Ward said that they were working on the speech the day before the debate and, while John and David were drafting the text, another member of the team, Ann Barrett, was watching the BBC to make sure John got the lyrics to the theme tune right. After that, they seemingly rehearsed the theme song with everyone singing along late into the evening. David said he was worried that anyone wandering past the leader’s office would have been forgiven for thinking everyone had gone stark raving mad.

But I wonder what John Smith would have made of today’s greatest issue, Brexit. Today is Europe Day, and he was a great internationalist. For one, he would not have gambled on calling a referendum and he would have challenged the constant downplaying of the importance of the UK as an integral member of the EU. What would John have thought of the Brexit shambles engulfing and paralysing our politics? It is worth examining what he would have done, and David Ward looks at this in an article published in today’s New European. We know that John voted to go into the EU. He fundamentally believed that giving up some national sovereignty to gain some sovereignty back would allow a great degree of control over the international companies and the global issues of the future. Working together was the only way to solve the global problems.

And here is a greater lesson for Europe now: the way John Smith handled the tricky problem of Europe. Instead of a leader trying to force his opinion on the party—history may be repeating itself in the Labour party today—he asked the party to force its view on the leadership. There are important lessons to learn from his handling of the European issue during his all-too-brief tenure as Labour leader. The party could have been equally as divided as the Conservatives. Dissidents led by former Cabinet Minister Peter Shore—including a notably serial rebellious Back Bencher and challenger to his leadership, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the current Leader of the Opposition—were irreconcilably opposed to Britain’s membership of the European Union, but John minimised ​internal dispute by taking the unprecedented step of allowing the parliamentary Labour Party, rather than the shadow Cabinet, to determine its policy on Maastricht ahead of crucial votes.

Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for the way in which he is presenting his arguments in favour of John Smith. I should like to take him back to the way in which John Smith conducted himself in the Chamber. Although he was robust in his parliamentary style, he was always respectful. This reminds me of a conversation I had with Jimmy Gordon—now Lord Gordon—who said that it was because of the respect John Smith had for others that he had not come across one person with a bad word to say about him. Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on that?

Ian Murray

That was a super intervention. I think that that was the measure of the man himself. I am sure that, if we were all a bit more like John Smith, this place would be more pleasurable and our politics would be more as they should be.

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)

My hon. Friend might not know that I used to work for John Smith, and I will be speaking about him in the debate later. John did not suffer fools gladly. If you crossed him in a bad way, if you let him down or if you did not come up to scratch, you got the hard word—and if he gave you the hard word, you deserved it.

Ian Murray

I am sure that my hon. Friend has no direct experience of that and that he has just been told about that approach taken by the former leader of the Labour party.

Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)

I think that I am the only one here on the Conservative Benches today who was here on the day that John died. I remember being in the Department of Social Security, where I was a Minister, and I remember how shocked everyone was. We learned quite quickly that he had passed away, before it could be publicly announced. I remember the shock among Labour friends as they began to appreciate what had happened, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to know that Conservative Members who were here felt exactly the same as our colleagues in the Labour party. In that spirit, I would say to him that, while he has painted a picture of a robust and quite partisan politician, I cannot personally remember being on the wrong side of one of John Smith’s tirades. That is probably because I was one of those who took the advice of the Whips and did not intervene on him. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he was able to combine passion with courtesy, and that if there is anything that we are missing at the moment in the difficult debates we are having, it is the ability to combine our passion—whether for our party beliefs or for Europe—with the courtesy that this House and this country need? John Smith’s example should take us forward into the future.

Ian Murray

The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention speaks for itself. If the House will indulge me, I have not yet had the opportunity to say publicly that he was a fantastic Minister in the Foreign Office. I sit on the ​Foreign Affairs Committee, and he was always courteous and straight with us. He was a super Minister, and I hope that he ends up back on the Front Bench as soon as possible.

John Smith’s self-confident approach won a clear majority among Labour MPs for ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Crucially, that left the Conservatives looking fatally divided and Labour clear in its support of a radical and progressive agenda for a reformed European Union that put jobs and people first. I just wish that we could have that approach today. I am in no doubt that he would be deeply saddened by Brexit, angered by the lies told during the referendum and dismayed by the Prime Minister’s approach. I think that today he would endorse exactly the position taken by his former deputy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South. She unequivocally and persuasively believes that any version of a Brexit deal passed by this place should be put to a confirmatory public vote. We all listened intently to her superbly argued speech in this House during the indicative vote process, and many would conclude that John Smith would have agreed with every word she spoke. That is where our politics is lost today. Smith’s politics were based on persuasion and taking people with him, by force of argument, to do what was in the national interest. I believe that our politics has lost that principle at the moment, as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said.

Then there is John’s beloved Scotland. What would he make of it all today, as a passionate believer in devolution? It is 20 years this week since devolution was introduced. The Scottish Parliament is his legacy. John firmly believed that devolution was the settled will of the Scottish people, but that independence would be disastrous. He would see it as even more of a folly than leaving the European Union. John made his political name by being fully immersed in his time at the Cabinet Office to do devolution. Many thought that it was a poisoned chalice, but he came out of it incredibly well. In a touching twist of fate, the first sitting of the new Scottish Parliament took place on the fifth anniversary of his death in 1999. I wonder what John would think of what is happening in Scotland today, where his idea of devolution to make Scotland the best place it can be is being used as a tool to by nationalists to rip the UK apart. Scotland lost giants like Smith, Dewar and Cook. We could be doing well with them in Scottish politics today.

Key to the devolution reform was, John believed, the conscious devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK, and the first step was the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. He was a convert to devolution in the 1970s, not because he saw it as a means of killing “nationalism stone dead”, but because he saw it as a means of addressing a democratic deficit, bringing politicians closer to the people and making them more accountable for their actions. A Scottish Parliament, he believed, was essential to the democratic governance of “our nation”, by which he meant the United Kingdom, not just Scotland. In John’s view, it was “unfinished business”. Devolution was in the interests of the UK, not just Scotland, and a key part of the democratic renewal of the British constitution and its civil institutions. We maybe need a new Smith approach for the 21st century devolution settlement across the whole United Kingdom.​

John Smith leaves a lasting legacy despite dying at just 55. Yes, he is the best Prime Minister we never had and an inspiration to us all, but his legacy also includes the Smith Institute, fellowship programmes for leaders of the future, and the John Smith Centre based at his own University of Glasgow. The centre has now established itself as a leading institute for academic rigour, advocacy and opportunity. It is part think-tank and part defender and advocate for the good in public service, and it exists to lead by his values and his example. There is also the annual John Smith memorial walk. It is a legacy he would be proud of.

Many in the Labour party would refer to themselves as Blairites or Brownites. In fact, many refer to each other in such terms—some positive and some negative. I have never been comfortable identifying with either of those blunt terms, but I am comfortable with being a self-declared Smithite, and on this anniversary we should all be a bit more like John and a bit more Smithite.

Andrew Marr concluded his obituary to John by saying:

“He is the lost leader of a lost country. Had he lived, he would have entered our lives, affected our wealth, altered our morale, changed how we thought about our country, influenced the education of our children. His grin would have become a familiar icon, his diction the raw material of satire. At however many removes, and however obscurely, his personality would have glinted through the state and touched us all. For good or ill? The question is now meaningless. That Britain won’t happen.”

In his final conference speech in 1993, John concluded with this:

“For I tell you this: there is no other force, no other power, no other party, that can turn this country round. It is up to us, all of us, together. This is our time of opportunity: the time to summon up all our commitment; the time to gather round us all our strength. And, united in our common purpose, it is the time to lead our country forward to the great tasks that lie ahead.”

As we commemorate the 25th anniversary of John Smith’s death, let us remember the words that have become his epitaph. The night before he died, he spoke at a European gala dinner in London. When he spoke these now immortal words, he did it from the heart and with his usual passion. They are something that I have always used to guide me in politics, and perhaps we should remind ourselves of them every day as we navigate our own paths in this place. These were the last words he said in public and some of the last words that many of his closest friends ever heard him say. As all our thoughts this weekend will be with Elizabeth, Sarah, Jane, Catherine, the wider family and his friends, we simply say:

“The opportunity to serve our country—that is all we ask.”

Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Murray, the Labour MP for Edinburgh South, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2019.

I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. I say at the start that I will do this afternoon what is in the best interests of the country and my constituents by not supporting this deal. I have to say that I was disappointed by the contribution of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). We agree on 95% of everything in this particular EU debate. To attack the Labour party, rather than the Government for the deal in front of us, perhaps shows where SNP Members’ thought processes are at the moment.

Let us not forget that the House voted for this process, against the Government’s wishes. One thing we can all say with great certainty is that, since mid-November last year, nothing has changed, either in the withdrawal agreement or in the political declaration. The only thing that has changed is the Attorney General’s legal advice. If you ask a lawyer for the conclusion that you want, and you pay them, you are likely to get what you are ​looking for. There is no trust in the Government in this place. We tried to do everything we could as a Parliament, and we had to drag the Government through hedges, to get to a place whereby we could have even this proper debate.

Jim Shannon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Murray

I will not, because it would mean that my Back-Bench colleagues will not get a chance to speak.

Today is 29 March—the day we should have left the European Union—so it is a good day to look at the report cards for the Government and the leave campaign on where we should have been by today. Where is the £350 million Brexit bonanza for our NHS? It is not there. Where is the easiest trade deal in history? Not only is it not the easiest in history, but the Government have had to take it out of this particular debate to get their deal through. Where is taking back control? Indeed, we are ceding control. Where is the promise of no border on the island of Ireland? The solution cannot be found by the Government because of the red lines they set themselves. Where are the 40 bilateral trade deals that we should have just rolled over by midnight tonight? Where is the cap and the reduction in net migration? It cannot be met. Where is more money going into our public services, when £4.2 billion is being spent on no deal? Those are not just broken promises; they also broke the law. There are no sunny uplands in this process. Today we should all say loud and clear that we are slaying the unicorns once and for all.

This is not meaningful vote 3, it is meaningful vote 2 and a half. The Government are not complying with their own legislation, and they know it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was absolutely right: there is nothing wrong with somebody selling their house, but they have to know where they will go next. The Government are asking us to sell the house without knowing where we go next. It is not only that we do not know where we will go next with the political declaration, but that we do not even know who will do that negotiation. This is a blind Brexit with a blind Prime Minister and a blind Government. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made a wonderful speech from the Front Bench, and he was absolutely correct: the entire debate on our future relationship with the European Union will be conducted after a Conservative leadership election that could provide a Prime Minister who will rip up the political declaration and take us into territory that we do not want to be taken into.

What happens if the motion passes today but the political declaration—or, indeed, the implementation Bill—does not pass? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central was absolutely correct that, come 22 May, we will again end up in the situation in which it is the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal, with no opportunity to extend the process.

In this process, the Prime Minister is the shopkeeper in the “Monty Python” sketch involving the dead Norwegian parrot, and Parliament is Mr Praline. It is quite clear that her deal is no more. It has ceased to exist. It is bereft of life. It rests in peace. It is a deal that has been nailed to its perch. It is an ex-parrot; it is an ​ex-deal. Interestingly, at the end of that sketch, the shopkeeper says, “this is getting silly”, and the sketch gives up. Prime Minister and Government: this is getting silly. Give up and listen to the House.

We might end up having to revoke article 50 come 22 May if we pass this motion but have no opportunity to do anything else. I suggest that the Government now listen to the indicative vote process that happened on Wednesday, act with dignity and respect this House as that process continues next week. They should also listen to what the public are saying. It is completely unfair that the Prime Minister can keep flogging the dead horse of her deal as many times as she likes in this House yet the public got one chance three years ago, with all the sunny uplands and broken promises they were given in 2016. Let us give the British people a confirmatory vote and let them back into the process to break the impasse in Parliament. If they still wish to leave the European Union, and if the Prime Minister is so confident about her deal, she will go to them and get them to back it. If they do not, we can maintain the best deal we have at the moment, which is to be a fully-fledged member of the European Union.

Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Murray, the Labour MP for Edinburgh South, in Westminster Hall on 21 July 2016.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered devolved governments and negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. One of the great privileges of being back on the Back Benches is that I can not only participate in these debates, but apply for them. I am grateful to the House for allowing me this debate. It follows on the back of early-day motion 325. One of the other unenviable privileges of being on the Back Benches is that I can now table early-day motions. I hope that all Members will sign my EDM once they have heard this debate.

Normally, I would say it is a great pleasure to hold this debate, but in many ways I would rather we were not. The repercussions of our vote to leave the EU will be profound and far-reaching in Scotland and across the United Kingdom and the European continent as a whole. We are already beginning to see the impact on our economy. The value of sterling has fallen against the euro, the dollar and most other international currencies, and remains highly volatile. Many businesses have predicted that Brexit will have a negative impact on their fortunes. The International Monetary Fund has revised down its forecasts for UK growth and said that Brexit risks throwing

“a spanner in the works”

of the global economy. Those of us who campaigned to remain in the EU warned of those obvious consequences and others as a probable outcome of our vote to leave. What was dismissed as “Project Fear” by many, we are now seeing as “Project Fact”, emphasised by today’s survey of German businesses, which concluded that 56% of them would want a hard bargain when negotiating with the UK.

We have to deal with what is in front of us and get the best possible solution for the UK and, for the purposes of this debate and my responsibilities, for Scotland. The evidence suggests that support for leaving was strongest in the most deprived areas of our country. I witnessed that myself at the Glasgow counting centre. In my constituency, the more affluent the area, the larger the remain vote. We have a responsibility and a duty as politicians to reach out to those who voted leave to strive to understand why and to respond to their concerns. I suspect that increasingly they feel that they have no stake in society. In general terms, although this is not necessarily always true, these are communities where the ravages of deindustrialisation have hit the hardest and where the economic recession has bitten deepest.

In many ways, there are pronounced similarities with the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, where some of the most deprived communities in Scotland voted to leave the UK. They also felt disillusioned and disfranchised in large numbers. Many of them had not cast a vote in many years, if at all. There is a clear problem for us to address, and we must find an amicable solution that reconnects communities to the political process and proves that politics can and will be a power for good in their lives. We must not let the Conservative Government or the Scottish Government—or any Government, for that matter—abdicate their responsibilities and abandon those who need help the most.

Immigration is an issue that came to dominate the EU referendum debate, and that concern must be addressed, but is immigration the true cause of the deep dissatisfaction felt in communities, or is it other things? There are six years of public sector austerity, the lack of a proper house building strategy, the failure to recruit adequate numbers of GPs, a dearth of well-paid, progressive, highly skilled work and crushing pressure on schools and hospitals. Those are failures not of the EU, but of national Governments north and south of the border. As such, they can all be resolved by a sea change in UK and Scottish Government policy. We should not allow the UK Government in particular to hide behind the EU over those public policy failures.

Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)

We in Scotland have a demographic challenge that can only be aided by people coming to live and work in Scotland, and we need to encourage people to do so, perhaps with the post-study work visa, and there are EU citizens who still wish to come. We need to talk about how immigration enriches us and not demonise those who wish to come here to live, work and make a contribution to our society.

Ian Murray

That is precisely my point: immigration enriches society. Politicians have to be much braver about making the positive case for immigration. The arguments are not mutually exclusive; they all have to be set alongside the fact that if we have an influx of people, whether through migration or for other purposes such as work, public policy has to respond. The previous Labour Government had the migrant impacts fund, which was precisely that kind of response for local communities in need of additional resources to deal with the impact of the movement of people, whether immigrants or otherwise. That was scrapped in 2010 by the Tory Government, and we should look seriously at bringing it back. None of these issues is mutually exclusive, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He was not only wonderful at intervening, but has successfully made me lose my place. I will get used to being back on the Back Benches shortly.

I was saying that we should reassure those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain that we are listening to them by demonstrating not just through speeches, but by our actions, that we are firmly on the side of everyone who voted in the EU referendum. In doing so, our first priority—it is a priority that needs to serve the interests of people across the entire country—should be to secure the best deal possible in the Brexit negotiations. That means adopting a negotiating stance that takes into account all views: those of people who voted to leave and those of people who voted to remain. The building blocks for the negotiations must be what we want to retain from the European Union.

As Scottish Labour’s Westminster spokesperson, my focus today is obviously on Scotland, but I am sure many people from the other devolved Administrations, such as Northern Ireland, which voted to remain, and Wales, which voted to leave—my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) is here—will have their say in the negotiations. I am sure Members from Wales and Northern Ireland will make those points.

Let us reflect on the vote in Scotland for a moment. Some 62% voted to remain, and 38% voted to leave. In my constituency, 78% voted to remain. I assume that was in no small part due to the contribution of the significant financial services sector to the economy in Edinburgh, the large number of businesses that export and the world-class universities that rely on EU funding for some of their world-leading research. Those factors all have to be taken into account as we set out our negotiating stance, so I will go through Labour’s priorities and principles.

Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)

The hon. Gentleman mentions his voters and the financial sector in Edinburgh. Does he accept that Scotland remaining within the EU would provide an opportunity for businesses to look north to Scotland, particularly in the financial sector? For those who are considering leaving London, there is an opportunity for his constituents, for Edinburgh, other cities in Scotland and Scotland overall.

Ian Murray

When I conclude my remarks, I will say that we should be looking at this as an opportunity, not only for Scotland, but for the whole United Kingdom. We are where we are. We need to ensure that the Government’s negotiations reflect what has happened, not only in Scotland but across the component parts of the UK, and make those arguments. I hope the financial services sector in the UK and in particular in Edinburgh reflects on where we are and makes those decisions accordingly. The uncertainty brought about by the decision to leave the EU is similar to the uncertainty that comes from any constitutional change that we have to deal with. I am delighted that the hon. Lady intervened, because she gave me an opportunity to mark my paper when I sat down. I am getting the hang of it.

I will go through the founding principles from which everything else in these negotiations should flow. We must be mindful of respecting and upholding the will of the Scottish people, not just in this referendum, but in the 2014 independence referendum. Those results have shown that Scots wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and retain the advantages of European Union membership. I understand that that is not a particularly easy thing to achieve, but they should be the founding principles of what we want to achieve in these negotiations. That is Labour’s starting point and forms the basis of what we believe should be Scotland’s negotiating platform.

That platform is informed by an excellent and aptly named paper written by Professor Jim Gallagher of Nuffield College, Oxford, entitled “The Brexit shambles: charting a path through the rubble.” Hon. Members can probably guess from the title where he is coming from on the issue. The paper identifies and delineates four priorities that should guide the Scottish and UK Governments—I have added one to make it five, because it does not mention the role of EU nationals and it is important to put that on the record as well.
As matters stand today, Scotland belongs to two Unions and gets significant advantages from both. The people of Scotland recognise that and have recently voted overwhelmingly for both Unions to be continued. The result of the referendums should be respected, but instead, they are being ignored. The political context in Scotland at the moment is that the Conservatives want Scotland in the UK but out of the EU, and the Scottish National party want Scotland in the EU but out of the UK. Only the Scottish Labour party is clear that we want Scotland to remain in the EU and in the UK. The UK and Scottish Governments have an obligation to pursue every avenue in pursuit of that outcome, and to facilitate that, we should look at the priorities that should be put in place. Scotland’s first priority should be to urge the UK Government to accept a Norway-type option, if I can use that terminology.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is a decent man. He said that he does not want to see referendum results ignored but went on to state that Scottish Labour’s position is to keep Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU. Given that that is not what people voted for across the UK, does he perhaps consider that his party is behind the curve on the issue?

Ian Murray

When giving way, I should have asked the hon. Gentleman whether he would sign my early-day motion—he probably will not, given its content. If he had been listening properly, he would have heard me say that what the people of Scotland have voted for in the two referendums is a position where Scotland is in the UK and retains the advantages of being in the EU. I did not say that the UK will remain in both, because that is quite obviously not so.

Hannah Bardell rose—

Ian Murray

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she will confirm whether she will sign my early-day motion.

Hannah Bardell

I will need to read the hon. Gentleman’s early-day motion before I make a decision; it would not be appropriate to make a comment either way without prior knowledge. I have a brief point. Does he not recognise that many people in Scotland voted for independence on the basis that his party and other UK parties said that the only way to retain Scotland’s place within the EU was to vote against independence?

Ian Murray

I am sure that you will rule me out of order, Mr Bailey, if we rehearse the well-trodden paths of the arguments about the Scottish referendum. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will touch on some of them as we go through my contribution. Knowing the time, that it is the last day of term and that everyone is desperate to head to the shores of Spain—without a visa—to enjoy the sunshine with their families, I will get on to that as we go through.

The first priority—the Norway-type option that I referred to—is that we would have membership of the European economic area. UK, and hence Scottish, membership of the EEA would mean maintaining much of the same conditions of trade and freedom of movement as currently exist. I am not sure whether the Government’s position in the negotiations is to maintain the free movement of people, but the Norway-style option would allow that to continue. It is worth putting in context why that is important.

The value of Scotland’s unfettered access to the EU single market is well established. The Scottish Government’s figures value Scottish exports to EU member states at around £12 billion annually, but it is worth reflecting on similar figures that show Scottish exports to the rest of the UK, which is why this is such an important debate. Those exports are worth four times that amount at £49 billion a year, which is why I think that the Scottish people have voted twice to stay with the advantages of being in both Unions. It makes scant economic sense to prioritise the EU market over the UK market. In this debate, it cannot be an either/or—we should strive to maintain full access to both.

UK membership of the EEA would allow Scotland to continue trade undisrupted with both the EU and the UK. If that becomes impossible, a separate trading deal would have to be negotiated and nobody knows what that would look like. The other option at the other end of the spectrum, which I think unpalatable, would be to abide by World Trade Organisation rules. That would have significant impact on UK and Scottish trading capacity.

The second priority should be to protect Scotland’s public services and public spending by securing a continued fiscal and political union with the UK. These are the building blocks for the negotiations. The Scottish Government attach huge importance to the fiscal relationship with the UK; in his own words, the former Finance Secretary strained “every sinew” to protect it during the negotiations on the fiscal framework underpinning the Scotland Act 2016. The Scottish Government’s accounts and independent analysis show that Scotland is carrying a substantial budget deficit. It is incredibly important that Scotland’s position in the UK is maintained through the block grant and the Barnett formula.

Without those mechanisms, the Scottish Government would have to undertake dramatic spending cuts or increase taxes to balance the books, based on their current annual accounts. That point was reflected on by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), the SNP’s representative on the Treasury Committee, who said that not having those fiscal transfers would be incredibly difficult—I think that the word he used was “catastrophic”—for Scottish public services.

The third priority is the protection of Scotland’s currency union with the rest of the UK. Many of these arguments were covered in 2014, as we have just discussed in the intervention by the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), but it is worth revisiting them in this context, because it is incredibly important for the debate on how the negotiations with the EU proceed. If the first principle is to ensure that Scotland remains in the UK and with the benefits of the EU, we know that the euro is a non-starter, so that should come off the table—we owe the former Prime Minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown a debt of gratitude for keeping us out of that—but what of the other currency options that may be available? We know that the best available currency option at the moment is the current settlement. As part of the Scottish and UK Governments’ Brexit negotiations with the EU, we must make sure that Scotland’s position in the UK is protected, because Scotland’s fiscal and economic union with the rest of the UK is beneficial for the currency argument. I am conscious of the time, so I will not go through the currency arguments, but they are all on the record. The preferred arrangement in terms of Scotland’s fiscal, currency and economic position is the current arrangements, and the negotiations must underpin that point and reject all other arrangements.

I will quickly skirt through the fourth priority, which is to explore all options for Scotland’s future relationship with the EU. If we view this positively, it could turn the Brexit negotiations on their head, transforming a vexatious trial into an unprecedented opportunity. The hon. Lady mentioned that earlier. No one has ever suggested that the EU is a tremendous success and there are elements that Scotland may wish to relinquish. Equally, there are parts that Scotland may wish to retain. One aspect of the Brexit debate rarely mentioned is that it will greatly empower the Scottish Parliament. Many of the competencies, such as control over fisheries, agriculture, university research funding and environmental policy, will transfer directly to the Holyrood Parliament.

Hannah Bardell

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous; I promise this will be the last intervention. He makes the point about the EU not being perfect. Does he accept that, with a seat at the top table, Scotland could have a greater voice and influence in reforming the EU as an independent country within the European Union?

Ian Murray

That flies in the face of the arguments of economic, currency and political union with the United Kingdom; that is essentially Scotland turning its back on a much more successful Union, to be part of the European Union. What people have said quite clearly is that they want Scotland to be part of the UK and part of the EU. If where we want to get to in the negotiations is an independent Scotland—I am sure that it is for the hon. Lady; if it was not, I would be incredibly surprised—the journey and the pathway to get there is slightly different from the pathway and journey towards an outcome that keeps the UK together and keeps Scotland with many of its current advantages within the UK as a member state of the EU. That should be the genesis of the negotiations. I appreciate that the Labour party perspective and the Scottish National party perspective on the outcome of that journey are different, but my contention is that it has to be about keeping both Unions together.

Michael Keating recently observed that, given the new powers that will fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government could choose to align themselves with the EU and the directives that currently exist, rather than the UK, and that they can have either an informal or a formal relationship. The key thing is that there will be new and interesting opportunities. For example, the responsibility for delivering air quality lies with the Scottish Parliament but falls under the EU directive. The inter-governmental working between the UK and Scottish Governments means that the English and Welsh policy and the Scottish policy to deliver that directive can be different, but they are under the same umbrella. Strong inter-governmental working will be needed to ensure that example and many others are delivered across the UK.

Lord Falconer, the former Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, commissioned a piece of work in the other place to set out options for a federalised membership structure. Many people say that that is impossible to achieve, but we are in uncharted territory and everything should be on the table when we examine the possibilities for protecting the component parts of the UK and the advantages they get from membership of the EU.

The fifth and final principle that should guide these negotiations, particularly from a devolved perspective, is that we must protect the rights of EU nationals who live, work and contribute to the UK. Conversely, we must protect the right of UK nationals to work, study and live in other EU countries.

The UK’s political landscape is changing rather rapidly. A week is certainly a long time in politics these days. Brexit is perhaps the reckoning that the political system has been needing for a long time. It enables us to readdress where we are in the political landscape and think about how we respond to the big issues for communities. There is no doubt that the basic things that people took for granted—a job, a decent wage, a home of their own, a secure pension in old age and the idea that the next generation will do equally well if not better than the current generation—are increasingly becoming unattainable. Whether that is fact or perception, it is what people tell us. They are working harder and doing the right thing, but they are not receiving the benefits. I think that is the genesis of why the UK voted to leave. That is a failure not of the EU but of national Government.

Let us reflect on where we are. I would like the Minister to address some of these issues. The principle that the UK should come out of the EU but Scotland should stay in the UK and retain many of the advantages of being in the EU should guide the Government’s negotiations with the devolved Administrations and the EU. The Minister has the opportunity to set out the UK Government’s position on the devolved nations and Administrations today and be clear that the Brexit negotiations will protect their interests. He should reaffirm that the UK Government will recognise that Scotland voted to be in the UK and to keep the advantages of the EU. Those will be the foundation stones and building blocks for the negotiations. If we are optimistic about this, and if we all want the same journey and outcome, those should be the conclusions that we seek.

The former leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said last week in his Tony Benn memorial lecture:

“This can be a progressive moment. In any case, there is no point in the left sinking into gloom. The only answer is to rise to the challenge. The optimists have always been the people we need at times of greatest adversity. Today we need them more than ever.”

I hope the Minister is indeed an optimist and will respond positively to this debate.