Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to focus on the activity of the promoters. They are extremely ingenious in operating within the framework of law, but doing some very nasty and duplicitous things. They often operate offshore and it is extremely difficult to close them down when they are constantly mutating from one company to another. I assure hon. Members that we are looking at the problem extremely closely, and I hope to return to the House at some point fairly soon with some thoughts.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

I worry that the Government characterise those who are suffering from the loan charge as in some way egregious tax avoiders, when it is abundantly clear that in the case of my constituents they acted on advice, openly, and in the belief that the scheme was approved by HMRC. I also worry that HMRC is behaving towards taxpayers in a fashion that is new, and in many cases, tax advisers say, unprecedented. I also think that the retrospectivity is deeply questionable.

[Jesse Norman]

I must say, I am surprised to hear a man of my right hon. and learned Friend’s legal standing and status regard this as retrospective, because it plainly is not. [Hon. Members: “It is!”] There are many parts of tax policy that have to look back to the basis of an asset or a liability, and that has happened here. In this case, HMRC has taken quite vigorous action over the years, in different forms, to let people know. Of course, it is subject to the loan charge review; we will see what that concludes. However, I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that these people were in many cases paying very little or zero in tax. [Interruption.] Of course the circumstances can differ, but there are a large number of people who knew, or should have known, that they were avoiding tax, and doing so un—

HS2: Buckinghamshire

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I am more than happy to put together a note to put on paper the amount of investment we are making in our rail infrastructure in the north. There is one budget for HS2, and we are sticking to it.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I have sympathy for the Minister as a junior Minister being handed what looks increasingly like a poisoned chalice. I am also sympathetic to the fact that we cannot have an infrastructure project without environmental consequences. But does the Minister not understand that there is mounting disquiet about two things that are linked? First, the conduct of this project by HS2 is a shambles. It is particularly shambolic in its relations with local communities and in the fact that it takes a cavalier approach to any sort of engagement, including in closing down a nature reserve on the edge of my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) without any warning or notice at all.

Meanwhile, the costs escalate. I ask the question that my hon. Friend did not answer: is HS2 still being flagged as an amber-red warning? All the evidence suggests that the cost-benefit analysis is just not there. If that is the case, that should be of great concern across the House. My hon. Friend says we should keep politics out of it, but, forgive me, this is actually what politics is about: our collectively in this House paying some attention to whether public funds are being properly spent or not.

[Ms Ghani]

I have not been mansplained to at the Dispatch Box before, but here we are. I am indeed the Minister responsible for this project, and I was passionate about HS2 before I was given the portfolio. I may be a Member of Parliament for the south-east, but I grew up in Birmingham and HS2 just cannot come fast enough for us in the midlands. I do not know what to say to my right hon. and learned Friend about his comments. There is only one budget for HS2, and we will ensure that we can stick to that budget. That is why it is so important to get the business case together: not only to ensure that the costs are covered, but so that we can assess the positives it will bring to our economy. As I mentioned, the notice to proceed will be made public later in the year.

I understand my right hon. and learned Friend’s frustration about some of the conduct by HS2 Ltd and any upset it may have done to his community. Since I have been Minister, I have insisted on an increase in community engagement managers and that they are appropriately embedded in their community. When cases are brought to my attention, I challenge HS2. We also have a residents’ commissioner to undertake any concerns. It is unfortunate when a project this large is undermined by the behaviour of a few who do not appropriately manage relationships locally. As I said, when it has an impact on a Member’s constituency it is difficult for them to see the greater good it will do not only for that area but for the rest of the country.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

By remarkable coincidence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. I want to explain why I will not press my amendments to a vote, as I indicated to the Minister last week. The reason is the production of the White Paper.

I will be very frank: the White Paper does not go as far as it should—it is silent on services, which make up 80% of our economy—but I welcome it because it absolutely marks that our Prime Minister understands the needs of British business, in particular manufacturing businesses, and is determined to do the right thing. She has come up with this third way. Whether she can achieve it remains to be seen, but I decided not to press my amendments to a vote because of my support for the White Paper and my desire to give that third way a chance.

Having done that, I believed, as a pragmatic, reasonable, moderate Conservative, that I had done the right thing by my Prime Minister and, as much as anything else, by my country. Imagine, therefore, my profound disappointment that the Government today, for reasons I can just about understand, decided to accept four amendments, two of which are not controversial but two of which—new clause 36 and amendment 73—seek to wreck and undermine this.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Is not one of the features of these two amendments the fact that they would not do what their proposers seek them to do? The fact that the Government have chosen to accept amendments that are unnecessary and useless shows that the only intention behind their tabling was malevolent? The fact that they are being maintained at the present time is also an act of malevolence towards the Government by the proposers.

[Anna Soubry]

I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Members on the Government Front Bench, and indeed across the House, should be hanging their heads in shame. This is the stuff of complete madness. The only reason the Government have accepted the amendments is that they are frightened of around 40 Members of Parliament—the hard, no deal Brexiteers —who should have been seen off a long time ago. These people do not want a responsible Brexit; they want their version of Brexit. They do not even represent the people who actually voted to leave. The consequences are grave, and not just for this party, but for our country. One has to wonder who is in charge. Who is running Britain? Is it the Prime Minister, or is it my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)? I know where my money is at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to answer my hon. Friend’s point, I think that we have to be practical. There will be a change in the way in which people treat consignments because they are crossing a customs frontier, but as the technology develops it will be possible to track individual consignments or multiple consignments in trucks across customs frontiers. We have discussed this matter with Revenue and Customs in this country. Ultimately, in future—looking ahead 10 or 20 years—the idea of customs frontiers existing between countries that trade tariff-free will become obsolete. To hinge our entire Brexit policy on the issue of not having customs declarations and customs frontiers is very last century, and we should not be captured by that.

My remarks are directed primarily at amendment 72, which I confess has turned out to be disappointingly uncontroversial. It was the intention of the European Research Group, a group of Conservative Back Benchers, to table four amendments—one or two of them in the light of the Chequers agreement and the White Paper—to test our understanding of the intention of Government policy. Every single one of our amendments, we believe, reflects Government policy. I do not imagine that the Government would have accepted any of them as calmly as they have if they did not reflect Government policy.

[Mr Grieve]

No, it is because they are useless.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My right hon. and learned Friend, who seems to be becoming a remainer again, judging from his article in the Evening Standard—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I wish to speak to new clause 11 and against amendment 73.

Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is back in his place, advised me that everything would become clear when the White Paper was published. I am afraid that for me, 70 minutes before we are going to vote, Government policy is still not quite clear. I am going to ask the Minister a few questions in the hope that we might get some clarification from him. I am interested in the interrelationship between the Bill and the White Paper, which was published last week.

Contrary to what some right hon. and hon. Members wish to say, the common market, which is the customs union, is fantastically popular with the public. Whenever I ask my constituents, “What do you dislike about Europe?”, they say, “Being bossed around”, and “The immigration.” When I say, “What do you like about it?”, they say, “Oh, we love the common market.” Well, of course, the common market is the customs union. When I talk to industrialists, what they want—in the words of GlaxoSmithKline, which employs 1,000 people in my constituency—is “no disruption”. PPG Industries, which is a supplier to Airbus, wants a common rule book. When I spoke this morning to the North East chamber of commerce, it said that 90% of its members want to stay in the customs union. We know that legally speaking that is not possible, so we have to have a new one that will give them the “exact same benefits”.

I am not clear about whether the Bill facilitates the customs approach that is set out in the White Paper. Nor am I clear about which of the Government’s amendments have made changes to the Bill that will enable them to undertake the facilitated customs arrangement that they have described in the White Paper. Nor am I clear—I very much hope that the Minister will be able to explain this; I am sure that he now will be—about whether the Government’s proposed acceptance of amendments from the ERG means that they are abandoning the facilitated customs arrangement as their opening position or that they are still holding to it. If they are still holding to it, I would suggest that it is not wholly practical. It will need a tracking system so that when people import goods, they know where their final use is going to be. This is a whole new bureaucratic system. It means that people who import will have to have information along the supply chain that, at the moment, is of no concern to them. The White Paper says that there is going to be a formula so that we can follow the proportions from the past year, but what if things change from one year to another? Then people will have to make their rebates on the basis of new, fresh information in real time. It sounds very much as though we are going to have not only VAT but VAT mark 2.

Paragraph 20 on page 18 of the White Paper says:

“This could include looking to make it easier for traders to lodge information…This could include exploring how machine learning and artificial intelligence could allow traders to automate…This could…include exploring how allowing data sharing across borders”

would work. It could include rather a lot of things. I can only imagine officials saying to Ministers when they were drafting this, “This does seem to involve rather a lot of imagination.” It does not seem to be bottomed out. I would much prefer it if we could go along the path set out by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in new clause 11, because what is being proposed will be horrendously bureaucratic and an open invitation to smuggling.

[Mr Grieve]

There is one matter on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and that is that this piece of legislation is needed if we are leaving the EU. That is the first basic point that needs to be made in considering this Bill on Report.

Then one has to consider why the Report stage becomes so controversial. The difficulty is that throughout the whole of this Brexit process, we are collectively going through an exercise in both deception and self-deception about the implications of leaving the European Union and the sort of relationship we may have thereafter.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has produced a White Paper. It is far from perfect. It, too, continues with some of those obfuscations, I have to say. To give an example—I know that this has irritated many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—it talks about the common rulebook and then says, “Don’t worry—we will be escaping the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.” We may escape its jurisdiction, but I am the first to accept that the reality is that we are going to be bound by its jurisprudence, without any ability to influence how that jurisprudence develops. That is one of the costs that we are paying as a result of deciding to leave.

In exactly the same way, there are other costs that come from leaving and that we tend to brush under the carpet, including the economic costs that are going to come to this country. If we are going to make rational choices, we need to avoid continuing with exercises in self-deception. The reason I think it right to support the Prime Minister on the White Paper is that despite all the difficulties she has had, this represents the first sensible document to found a proper negotiation. I wish her well with it, even if I have criticisms of it, worry about the absence of services and a common market for that, and worry about some of its other aspects; nevertheless, it is well-intentioned.

Then I look at the four amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends—36, 37, 72 and 73. The first thing to be said about them is that one—the one about Northern Ireland—correctly identifies an obfuscation that the Government have been practising for a considerable time. We and the European Commission are talking different languages when it comes to the backstop. I have no difficulty emphasising the fact that no Parliament of the United Kingdom is ever going to support a backstop that goes simply for Northern Ireland alone.

Leaving the EU: Customs Arrangements

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but I say to him, and I am sure that he will accept it, that until we actually put a proposition down to negotiate with, there was nothing to negotiate with. Until the Chequers proposal, it might well have been said by a number of our soon-to-be former EU partners that there actually was not a deal to negotiate on. There were the Prime Minister’s principles: no hard border in Ireland, frictionless trade and the ability to do free trade deals. Those are principles and there is nothing wrong with those principles, but they were not an executable plan. Until they were an executable plan, there was nothing to negotiate on.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Is it not also the case that if we are going to approach this negotiation, we have to look at it—as in any good negotiation—from the other side’s point of view? For the other side, the issue is that they are part of an international treaty that is underpinned by a rulebook. If we are going to ask them to adjust their rulebook to accommodate us, we will have to show that we can do that in a way that is likely to promote certainty for the future, and furthermore does not undermine their own cohesion.

[Stephen Hammond]

My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I think that he has made the point several times in this place and in others that there has been a misunderstanding and a failure to comprehend exactly what the EU Commission is. It is a legal body that takes its instructions from others, and therefore its ability to deviate too much in those negotiations until its instructions are changed means that we have failed to understand how we should have been negotiating initially. Now that the plan is there, I am hopeful that we will see more progress.

Customs and Borders

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is exactly right. They want a Brexit deal that is good for manufacturing, and to be honest, any deal that rejects a customs union is going to hit manufacturing across Britain.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

To go back to the question that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked, any free trade agreement inevitably comes with strings attached. If one is going to do a free trade agreement with 27 member states that co-ordinate their own trade, I simply do not see how we will escape the strings that are obligatory if such an agreement is going to work. The trouble is that it then starts to look very much like a customs union, because that is what, in reality, it has to be if it is to work at all.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: in the end, any agreement has obligations attached to it, as well as enforcement mechanisms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I do not believe that it is to our economic advantage. Turkey has long prized EU membership as a status symbol, but I do not believe the economics add up.

Those lobbying for a customs union know that staying in the customs union without a voice at the table would be worse than being a fully signed-up member, as was made more or less explicit by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) when he said that we would need to stay in the single market as well as the customs union, which goes a long way towards revealing the true motivation of many who make this argument—they see it as a stepping-stone to undoing the people’s vote to leave.

We need to remind ourselves of why the leave campaign lobbied to leave the customs union in the first place. The EU has been slow at negotiating trade deals on our behalf, not least because there are 28 members states on one side of the negotiating table. The EU’s trade talks with Japan have taken 61 months and are still awaiting ratification. By contrast, it took Switzerland 28 months to settle its deal with Japan. EU trade talks with the US have been ongoing for 64 months now, with no sign of progress, whereas the US managed to negotiate trade deals with Canada in 20 months, Australia in 14 months and South Korea in 13 months. At the time of the referendum, the EU had managed to negotiate trade agreements with only two of the UK’s 10 largest non-EU trading partners.

Not leaving the customs union would also fatally damage the prospects for the idea that, more than any other, has captured the imagination of the Teesside public since our vote to leave. A free port at Teesport, which is a project championed by Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen and me, would be an enormous boost to local industry and provide a great incentive to reshore jobs to the South Tees mayoral development corporation site. That goes directly to the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made about north-east jobs. There has been enormous buy-in from local people and businesses to this idea, and people are genuinely excited about what it would mean. However, a free port will not be possible if we do not leave the customs union.

Some people try to maintain the argument that free ports are possible within the EU. The reality is that those zones that exist are glorified bonded warehouses—places where people can defer tax, duty and VAT. What Ben and I are saying is that within the Tees free port there will be the potential for significant tax and regulatory divergences, but that will be stymied if we remain in a customs union.

Outside a customs union there are other significant advantages.

[Mr Grieve]

How does my hon. Friend imagine that he can engage in this regulatory divergence without incurring tariffs with those countries with which we do our principal trade or the economic consequences that flow from that? I can understand the fantasy behind the picture he paints, but it simply is not the reality of what will happen if we cut ourselves off from our principal trading partners.

[Mr Clarke]

We are precisely seeking an ambitious free trade agreement both with Europe and with the rest of the world. This goes to the heart of that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, but I do not want to repeat what was said by the proposing Member, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I agreed with every sentiment they expressed.

My desire to participate stems, first, from my continuing frustration that every time, as a Member of Parliament, I want to come and participate in such a debate, I get told by roundabout means that I should not, because it might somehow put the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) into Downing Street. My experience in politics is that when it comes to fantasticals, wherever they may come on the political spectrum, the greatest chance of getting them into Downing Street is if people of a moderate and sensible disposition stop debating important issues, and I am absolutely determined that they will be debated.

Today’s debate offers us an opportunity to look at the possible merits of staying in a customs union. Of course a customs union is not perfect, particularly, I might add, a customs union when we are outside the EU. I agree with some of the comments that have been made that, by being outside the EU, we lose some of the influence that we have in creating and managing the customs union. That, I am afraid, is the price that we are paying for the folly of the decision in the referendum of 2016. Just because one has imposed one calamity on oneself does not mean that one then goes to inflict greater calamities simply on the basis that one has to do it in order to prove the theory—the mistaken theory—that one has espoused.

I am also a lawyer. I cannot deny the fact that it is noteworthy that we appear to be a gaggle of lawyers on these Benches who find an irrationality in the approach that some of our Conservative friends adopt and in which the Government sometimes appear to be mired.

Free trade agreements are wonderful things to have—I am a great believer in free trade agreements. I can see that, by being members of the EU, we have lost something in terms of being able to do our own free trade agreements, but not one single Government analysis suggests that they outweigh the advantages of participating in the best free trade arrangement that we have with our EU partners.

What is the point of having a free port in Middlesbrough —forgive me—if it is only going to be used to trade with the United Kingdom? Assuredly, it will not be to trade with our EU partners because they will not allow any of the goods in between Middlesbrough and the European continent. Why is it that pharmaceutically related businesses in my constituency tell me that they will be going if there is not frictionless trade with the European Union, which implies participation in the customs union? Why is it that the deputy ambassador of Japan has us all in and says, “You do realise that every Japanese company will be gone in 10 years’ time if they cannot have frictionless trade into the European Union.”

We are behaving in the most extraordinary and blinded fashion as we blunder around, ignoring the realities. In any case, free trade agreements come with strings attached, as I said earlier. If we have multiple free trade agreements, they will very quickly start to look like customs unions. That is what happens when people get together. This idea of “customs union bad” and, somehow, “free trade agreement good” simply does not stack up, and it is time for a reality check.

In fact, we need more than a customs union, because it is also obvious that we will not be able to trade without regulatory alignment. I was over in Dublin for a very interesting conference called by the Institute of International and European Affairs. The Irish border is just a microcosm of the bigger problem. It just so happens that, on the Irish border, people are trading constantly on a very intimate scale. A person sends their milk to the dairy over the border. If we do not have regulatory equivalence, we will not be able to do that. People will buy products, going backwards and forwards all the time. It absolutely highlights at that level the problem that we will have at a wider level if we persist with this idea that we can somehow get out and still enjoy the benefits of the frictionless trade that we say we want.

The extraordinary thing is that the Government know that, otherwise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not be slaving away and being denounced as “cretinous” by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for trying to square the circle. She is entitled to be commended for trying to do something really difficult. The trouble is that, unless we start injecting a note of realism into what we are doing, she will fail, this House will fail and our country will be failed.

European Union Referendum Bill

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

There is a link of continuity between amendment 16 and the point of order that I made—that the theme should be one of respect. There has been a great deal of talk about respect by the Prime Minister in recent years, but particularly since the result of the election of last month. He said, for example:

“Governing with respect means recognising that the different nations of our United Kingdom have their own governments, as well as the UK government.”

The amendment is about giving acknowledgment to that respect in relation to the European referendum. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) want to intervene? If so, then of course I will gladly allow him.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Salmond]

He was just stretching his legs, I suspect.

On the subject of respect for all nations of the United Kingdom, the amendment puts forward the view that a simple majority across the UK would not be enough to have the UK exit the European Union but that we would have to pay attention to the voting in the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. It is not unusual, in international terms, even in federal and confederal states, for there to be a so-called double majority—in this case, a quad lock between Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. In America, 14 states can block a constitutional amendment, even if they could comprise only 5% of the population. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) will go through some of the other international examples where even in federal and confederal states there is a double lock or a blocking minority with regard to the constitution, recognising the component parts of those states.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

I am always dubious about accepting a Conservative interpretation of the secret wishes of the Scottish National party. The sole Liberal Democrat Member with a Scottish constituency is in considerable trouble for trying to publicise what he thought were the secret wishes of the First Minister of Scotland, in a manner that no doubt will be fully investigated. No, the secret and public wish of the Scottish National party is for us to secure a yes vote in the referendum.

However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman does have a point, and the First Minister of Scotland has put her finger on it in her usual adroit fashion. If, across the United Kingdom, there was a majority vote against staying in the EU but Scotland had voted in favour, that could very well provide the material change in circumstances that the First Minister would indicate made another constitutional referendum on Scottish independence well nigh inevitable. With his usual insight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put his finger on an important point.

[Mr Grieve]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

I see that this right hon. and learned Gentleman has stopped stretching his legs and now wants to intervene.

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that he, too, has put his finger on the issue, which is essentially a political one. Although he might wish to change the current structure of the United Kingdom and there might be arguments in favour of a federal or other solution, that structure currently clearly provides that the decision should be taken in common. In those circumstances, although there might be terrible fallout from a result that produced separate outcomes in Scotland and England, that fallout would be political and would not justify the amendment.

[Alex Salmond]

Let us continue the point exactly on that question. It was as a solution to the scenario painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that the First Minister put forward the idea of having the quad lock or double lock system for the referendum. It is up to the Committee, of course, whether it accepts the amendment or not. If it were accepted, the scenario painted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not come to pass because it would be provided for in the terms of the referendum itself. If, on the other hand, the Committee chooses to reject the amendment, the possibility of that scenario remains open.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

It seems to me that the question is about not lack of respect, but what decisions are taken in common and in relation to what decisions we give a veto to the different component parts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argues—it is a perfectly persuasive argument—that there should be an effective veto in each component part. However, there is an equally perfectly valid argument that the decision is ultimately a political one for the Government and that the Government would be entitled to take a view that, in the interests of the community in its widest sense—all the component parts—they should come to a decision one way or the other, irrespective of the fact that one component part did not want that decision.

[Alex Salmond]

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on intervening at such length without attracting the ire of the Chair. That was adroitly done. The question of whether there is respect will be judged on whether amendment 16 is considered as a valid and interesting point for debate. I was taking the Prime Minister at his word when he said:

“Governing with respect means recognising that the different nations of our United Kingdom have their own governments”.

If the Prime Minister wants to recognise respect, the Government will take the amendment seriously. I will listen to what those on the Treasury Bench say, when they make their contributions, about whether Scotland is a country or a county—let us put it that way—and about whether it is a serious matter of import or just something to be swept aside. That is a matter for the Government’s reaction.

There should be some sort of lesson in the spatchcock, humiliating climbdown, to which I referred earlier. It is true that the Government did not say over the past few weeks that they would not have the referendum on the same day as the national elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—they could have said that at any point over the past two weeks, but they chose not to because they wanted to keep that option open—and then found last evening that they were likely to secure a humiliating defeat in Committee and, in a desperate scramble, they had to produce a last-minute amendment. My contention is that if they had shown a bit more respect over the past two weeks, they would not have had to engage in the humiliating climbdown last evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I do not want to take up any further time, but that is an excellent point. That is why, in most of the assessments undertaken to date, we have looked at job losses rather than job increases.

Amendments 46 and 47 simply say that before we come to the decision on the European referendum the Government must publish a report on TTIP and its processes. The OBR should look at the economic aspects, but Government overall should consider all other aspects of policy. We need to receive information about the implications of this treaty and the European role in it, and whether, therefore, we would want to remain within the European Union as a result.

I do not wish to press the amendments, but I do think we need a serious debate about the agenda that the Prime Minister is to construct for the negotiations prior to the referendum.

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure to participate briefly in this debate. I want to direct my remarks towards amendment 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I probably agree on two main points: first, that neither of us has yet seen a convincing case made for pulling out of the EU; and secondly, our shared and gentle cynicism about the amount of froth and hyperbole that is generated in this Chamber. That said, I must politely disagree with his approach to what this Bill does with regard to section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that became that Act, and there was a lot of anxiety about the capacity for referendums to be manipulated. Doubtless there was quite a lot of hyperbole in the Committee as well. We argued for a 10-week period of purdah, as opposed to 28 days, because that was what the Electoral Commission was suggesting and what the Neill committee had proposed. Nevertheless, we ended up with 28 days, and I have seen nothing in the period since to make me think that the system does not work, broadly speaking, perfectly well. I am sure there will sometimes be complaints that the rules are being infringed and we ought to try to improve on that, but when all is said and done, the system seems to have worked remarkably well.

I confess that I was therefore rather surprised, when I looked at the Bill we have before us, to find that section 125 had been arbitrarily deleted without any real explanation being provided whatsoever. A justification for that deletion has not been made. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Minister will shortly tell us that the Government will go away and review the matter, and I will be very pleased to hear that. I have to say, however—I hope he will forgive me for doing so—that that is a reflection of the rather strange and cack-handed way in which, from time to time, the Government seem to behave when approaching legislation. Either they think that all my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel very exercised about this are going to miss this deletion, or it is an open invitation for discord that takes up quite a lot of the time of this House.

In my view, section 125 could properly have been left in, and the better course of action would have been for my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to come up with an amendment of some kind if they really thought there was going to be a major problem during the purdah period in the run-up to the referendum. It is very important that when this referendum is over, the people who participated in it are able to say that it was fairly conducted, provided that reassurance does not come at great cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

As a Buckinghamshire colleague of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I have great admiration and fellow-feeling for him. We were at Superhero Beaveree in Chalfont St Peter only on Saturday doing mirror mazes together, and he is a lovely man. However, I do not want to base my life in society on the assurances of a particular individual; I want to base it on the law. I would like the Government to accept amendment 11, change the law and come back with specific points that address the problems that have been have raised.

[Mr Grieve]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. Governments, like the world, move in mysterious ways. If I may gently coax the Government back to the path of righteousness, as I think we are probably succeeding in doing, I, for one, will be broadly content.

On hearing assurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will reconsider this and return on Report with a proper amendment, I will be quite prepared to continue to give them my confidence in this matter. However, if the Government were to be using this as a device to come back whenever Report takes place and try to wriggle out of this obligation again, I would regard that as a rather infamous thing to do, and I am afraid I would not be in a position to support them at all on this matter.

[Mr Jenkin]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we require that statutory protection and a code of conduct would not be good enough?

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Certainly, I would be much happier to see the return of section 125 and the introduction of some one-off qualifications for the purpose of this particular referendum. That would be the ideal, because it would preserve the principle of section 125. That would be better than coming back with a set of regulations. I have read the letter. It has a whole series of assurances, but that is not a proper way in which referendums should be conducted. The problem historically—not necessarily in this country—is that referendums have been systematically abused, with many assurances being given. That why this House should, on this matter, fix the Government with a clear responsibility to come up with a legal framework. I see my right hon. Friend the Minister nodding.

[Mrs Main]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, on principle, it is best to leave it in and come up with amendments in September rather than remove it and then reinstate it in some amended form?

[Mr Grieve]

Yes, but my experience in this House is that it is quite frequent in Committee for a Bill to be criticised, for the Government to give assurances that they will remedy it, and for hon. Members to accept those assurances. That is why I have no difficulty in proceeding along the usual established route.

I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Minister a proper response from the Government. On that basis, I would like to allow others the chance to speak.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I rise to support amendment 16. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent maiden speeches we heard from the hon. Members for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). It is great to see members of the black and minority ethnic community participating in the politics of this country.

The Scottish National party values Scotland’s positive relationship with the European Union and the social and economic benefits that it brings to Scotland, so we will continue to make the case for Scotland’s membership, in this Chamber and beyond. I welcome the sign that this Government are possibly listening to the views of SNP Members and to the position of the devolved Governments and Assemblies across these nations. I hope that the Government’s exercise in reflection will continue throughout discussions and decisions taken on this Bill and, indeed, beyond.

Given that the Government have decided to accept that they should treat all parts of the UK with some respect, at least in relation to the Bill, I encourage them now to step fully into the light. Timing is not the only issue that unites opinion across the constituent parts of the UK. We believe that if the UK is to leave the EU, a majority not just across the whole UK but in each of the four nations—a double majority—should be required, to safeguard the future prosperity of Scotland and prevent it from being taken out of the EU against the will of its people.

It would make no sense to take such a fundamental and damaging decision without a democratic safeguard that respected the decision of voters in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If Scotland were dragged out of the EU after it voted to stay in, that would clearly not only cause catastrophic damage to our economy but have major constitutional implications. That view is also supported by the Welsh First Minister. Earlier this month, he joined the First Minister of Scotland in signing a statement declaring:

“Any decision to leave the EU, taken against the wishes of the people of Wales or Scotland, would be unacceptable and steps must be taken to ensure this does not happen.”

We agree, and look forward to the support of Welsh colleagues in the Lobby today.

This week has also seen debate on the Scotland Bill. Although my colleagues and I will continue relentlessly to argue for maximum powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that we can build a better, stronger and fairer society, I take the Government’s view at face value when they say they want to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. If they are serious, they should accept the amendments that mirror the approach taken in some federal states such as Canada and Australia, which require a similar sort of territorial requirement on such issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) also alluded to the USA in that context.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Dominic Grieve Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

The hon. Lady should listen before she concludes whether to support our motion later on.

First, all the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal suggests that only a judge-led inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005—[Interruption.] Every time that Members interrupt me mid-sentence, I just conclude that I am not going to take their interventions. Why do you not listen and have some respect for this House and our debates? Have some respect for the arguments being made.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

I will make the point and then take the intervention.

First, all the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal—[Interruption.] The Chancellor should listen—unless he is composing his apology. We should consider the recent experience of the phone hacking scandal and all the deliberations we see in, for example, the very important report on the details and reality of Select Committees and coercive powers, entitled “Select Committees and Coercive Powers—Clarity or Confusion?”, from the Constitution Society. All the experience shows that only a judge-led inquiry can have the necessary power to compel witnesses to attend and ensure the production—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Just to help the debate, Mr Bridgen, save your energy. Mr Balls is not going to allow you to intervene, so please, no more while Mr Balls is speaking, Mr Bridgen.

[The Attorney-General]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention, but I will make the point on powers first. I will do this in a proper way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

All the recent experience is that only a judge-led inquiry can have the necessary power to compel witnesses to attend and to ensure the production of documents, with powers of enforcement that make it a criminal offence to fail to comply—under section 35 of the relevant legislation, the penalty is 51 weeks or a £1,000 fine—or High Court powers of enforcement for contempt of court, under section 36. The problem is that Select Committees, in the modern legal world, just do not have the same powers in law to force witnesses to attend or to give evidence on oath, and nor do they have the necessary sanctions. The last time Parliament—

[Ed Balls]

No. I will take the intervention from the Attorney-General next, thank you.

The last time Parliament imposed a fine for contempt of court was before the great fire of London in 1666. The last time a member of the public was imprisoned for contempt was before the Boer war. Select Committees do not have these powers.

[The Attorney-General]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I intervene on one key point. It is clear from what he says that he desires that the preliminary part of his judicially led inquiry should produce recommendations on the lessons to be learned from the scandal of the manipulation of LIBOR as quickly as possible and by the end of the year. The question whether there is to be a criminal investigation is not in my hands or, indeed, those of anybody in this House. The idea that such an inquiry can be run in tandem with a criminal investigation is, I am afraid, impossible.

[Ed Balls]

We know that this proposal was cobbled together over the course of Monday. I wonder whether the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had the opportunity to consult the Attorney-General before they made this proposal. If we cannot have a judge-led inquiry until the criminal prosecution has been done, how can we possibly have a parliamentary inquiry? Exactly the same argument was made—

[The Attorney-General]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

In a second. I am still waiting for the Chancellor to make his intervention.

The second point is that exactly the same argument was made in the case of phone hacking—that we could not have the inquiry until the criminal prosecutions had been done. But that is not what has happened with the Leveson report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

My hon. Friend is right, and I fear that the Attorney-General has just completely destroyed the basis of his own Government’s parliamentary inquiry. We know from experience that when the subject of a public inquiry overlaps with the prospect of criminal charges and trials, only a judge has the legal skills and credibility to conduct that inquiry without crossing the line of what is acceptable. That is what Lord Leveson showed and that is what parliamentary inquiries have been unable to do on phone hacking.

[The Attorney-General]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. So far as the Leveson inquiry is concerned, that question was recognised at the time that it was set up. It is for that reason that it was split in two. Lord Justice Leveson has been at great pains to avoid interfering with the process, but the process contemplated in the motion tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and others envisages, as I read it, that the part of the inquiry dealing with the scandal of manipulation should take place at once. I have made the point as to why I think that that is extremely difficult.

The right hon. Gentleman then raised a second point, which was that that argument could also apply to referring the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If I may say so, he is correct in that. It could present such a difficulty, but I note that there is no prescriptive timetable laid down for the working of the Joint Committee and I have no doubt—[Interruption.] I am sure that despite parliamentary privilege the Joint Committee will have to adapt to any criminal investigation or inquiry that takes place. However, that makes no difference to the fact that, as drafted, the right hon. Gentleman’s motion appears to me to have a fundamental problem associated with it.

[Ed Balls]

I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points and I only wish the Prime Minister would talk to his own legal adviser. As far as I can see, the Attorney-General has entirely torpedoed the inquiry, which we were told yesterday would conclude by Christmas. If he is saying that the inquiry can take longer in order to deal with the issue of criminal charges, what does that make of the Prime Minister’s argument that the only reason for doing it this way was to do it faster? It is utterly incoherent. I am not saying in any way that the Attorney-General is being incoherent—it is just the Chancellor and the Prime Minister who have completely lost their grip on this whole process.

[Ed Balls]

It is no surprise that the Chancellor has gone completely white as he sits on the Front Bench. Let us be honest: he did not consult the Culture Secretary on a tax on churches; he did not consult the Transport Secretary on a U-turn on fuel; and he did not consult the Law Officers on the inquiry—

[The Attorney-General]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[The Attorney-General]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is being so obtuse about what seems to me to be a fairly clear issue. The motion he has tabled is, for the reasons I have given to him, unlikely to be feasible if there is a criminal investigation. He then conflated that with the suggestion that there could not be any kind of inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses. That is simply not the case. Of course there can be, provided that it bears in mind the need to respect comity with any other court or proceedings that might be taking place. It is the structure that the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Mr Balls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman needs to have a word with the Attorney-General, because we just heard precisely why the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes we cannot get on with these issues.

[The Attorney-General]

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I put to him earlier. He says he wishes to have a judge-led inquiry, and he gives some perfectly good reasons—[Interruption.] These are matters of debate. He has been quite unable to explain how, in the light of the fact that at the same time there is a desire for a criminal investigation, those two can be reconciled. He has come to the Dispatch Box to criticise the Government for their approach, so that is a question he ought to be capable of answering, or receiving legal advice on how to answer it. It is a real problem, not an artificial or concocted one, and he has not provided that answer at all.

[Ed Balls]

It is a pity not only that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not consulted before the inquiry was announced but that he is not leading for the Government today instead of the part-time Chancellor, as that would probably be a more enlightening debate. Let me repeat exactly what I said in my speech. When the subject—[Interruption.] I am going to answer the question, but it does not help if the Treasury Whip shouts from a sedentary position. If he wants to join the Chancellor and withdraw his allegations he can do so.

Let me repeat my answer to the question. When the subject of the public inquiry overlaps with the prospect of criminal charges and trials, it is our judgment that only a judge, as we have seen in the Leveson inquiry, has the legal skills and credibility to conduct that wider inquiry without crossing the acceptable line. A parliamentary Committee will never be able to do so. The reality is that there will be stalemate—witnesses not answering questions, documents not revealed—and we will not make progress. We adopted the Government’s timetable for the first stage of the inquiry, because we thought they had thought it through, but it turns out that they had not done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend’s question; I do know that the open process of the Leveson inquiry has been challenging to Members on both sides of the House—but rightly so. If questions are raised, in an open judicial inquiry, about past regulatory decisions, that is right and proper; if they are raised about decisions made in the mid-1980s, that is right and proper; and if questions are raised about the financing of political parties and where donations comes from, that is right and proper as well.

We should have no fear of answering those questions, but, from what we have heard from Government Front Benchers, we know that the Government have no intention of holding such a full, open, public inquiry; they want an inquiry on the shortest timetable and in the narrowest way. The Attorney-General has told us why one cannot be held on a timetable for completion by Christmas, but let me remind him what the Prime Minister said on Monday:

“The Vickers Bill—the banking Bill—will be introduced in the House of Commons in January, and I want an inquiry to be completed by then so that we can take the best of that inquiry and put it in the Bill.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 590.]

But if that inquiry cannot do the job, how will we end up with the best? We will end up with the worst of all worlds.

[The Attorney-General]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I will happily give way again.

[The Attorney-General]

It would help if the right hon. Gentleman listened, rather than getting carried away with his own rhetoric. There is nothing to prevent this House, if it wishes, from setting up a joint inquiry of both Houses into—[Interruption.] The “banking industry” is the way it was described, and that is what is in the motion—[Interruption.] Yes, to incorporate LIBOR—I make that quite clear.

Obviously, and this point applies as much to the right hon. Gentleman’s motion as to any other step, if there are criminal investigations or inquiries, any inquiry by this House will have to be managed in the light of that process—[Interruption.] Yes, it will have to be managed, because it must not interfere with that process. But, for the Government to support a motion for a judicial inquiry that cannot even get off the ground if criminal inquiries and investigations are taking place would be a rather odd thing for the Government to do, because such an inquiry could not happen.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake in relation to the motion—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[The Attorney-General]

And if he listened carefully he would understand it.

[Ed Balls]

rose—