Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Power

Debate between Ian Murray and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I think that the time the Minister took to respond to the motion shows that the Government do not have much to say about this particular issue—or perhaps the Minister did not get the statement of reasons either, in relation to what the Government were actually proposing.

May I begin by restating, once again, that this Labour party is the party of devolution and the party of equality? It will not be lost on many that all the Acts we are discussing today—the Scotland Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004—were Labour Bills that we introduced for the advancement of devolution and equality in this country. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that today’s debate is about two Governments who are incapable of working together.

I have read, or skimmed, the 13 pages of reasons—the farce that we have had trying to get these reasons today is part of this debate—and when I got to the end, my initial reaction was, “What are the Government going to do about it?” They cannot just bring an unprecedented section 35 order to this House and lay out reasons, then get to the end of those reasons and decide what to do about it. As we stand here today, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is dead unless both Governments can come together and resolve the perceived issues, or otherwise.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has looked at paragraph 3. The Minister, who was not taking interventions earlier, suggested that all the Scottish Government had to do was bring forward a Bill with amendments, but as far as I can see they would have to come forward with a Bill that did not have anything in it. Is not that the only Bill that the Westminster Government would accept, if we go by the amendments suggested in paragraph 3?

[Ian Murray]

That is where we get to the crux of this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) made a similar point earlier about wanting to make sure that trans rights and women’s rights were protected in this country, and about doing it properly. This is certainly not the way to do it. We will now have a process whereby the First Minister and the Scottish Government will take the UK Government to court on the basis of these reasons and the unseen legal advice, and the courts will have to decide whether the reasons that the UK Government have put forward are legitimate and reasonable in terms of the bar they have to reach—namely, that there would be adverse consequences for reserved legislation. I think that at the end of that process the courts will have to resolve these arguments because both Governments are unwilling to do so together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable intervention. I am getting all the questions on the adverse effects, but this is a Government document. What we have missed in the debate over the past few months is that people in this country currently have gender recognition certificates under a different process, and the IT systems have to deal with that. How a person gets a gender recognition certificate is the argument here, not how they are implemented, because we implement them already.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

On how people get a gender recognition certificate, the key thing is that we should take the suggestion that it is a pathology out of the process. I do not want it to feel like we are treating trans people as if they have a pathological condition. Is that not the key thing we need to change?

[Ian Murray]

Yes, I agree. That should be part of this argument. We should be taking pathology out of the process, as this is not a medical disorder.

I wish we were having a debate about all these things, as we should be, rather than having a constitutional debate between two Governments who want not to resolve these issues but to fight about them in different ways.

International Court of Justice

Debate between Ian Murray and Chris Bryant

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

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

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend got the same impression as I did. Repeated witnesses told us that there was a kind of shrug at international meetings, with people saying, “What on earth are you doing with regard to Brexit? Why are you choosing to step back from your international role?” That might have contributed to this election result.

There was a second kind of shrug from all the Government Ministers, who seemed to go, “You win some, you lose some. Does it really matter?” If that is the sense permeating throughout Government, we certainly will lose influence around the world. Do we not need a much stronger sense of leadership from the top of Government, and particularly from the Foreign Secretary?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is also a member of the Committee. He is right that we extensively questioned Lord Ahmad, the Minister of State for the Commonwealth and the UN, on the reasons for the loss of our place on the ICJ, and he did not seem to have any reasons for that loss. We questioned him in depth on what countries had fed back to him on why they did not vote for the UK, or why they voted for the UK in the first round and then changed their vote to another nation. Again, he did not really have a reason. There seems to be significant complacency in the Foreign Office, and Ministers, the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office will have to up their game significantly post Brexit to ensure that the UK’s voice is not diminished.

Duties of Customs

Debate between Ian Murray and Chris Bryant

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

That is why the three motions before us tonight, the customs Bill, the Trade Bill and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill are so important.

[Chris Bryant]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from Scotch whisky, I wonder whether he would like to comment on the fact that when several of us were in Peru recently, Peruvian Ministers asked the British ambassador what we wanted out of a new free trade deal with Peru, post-Brexit, adding that they knew what they wanted: all Scotch whisky to be made in Peru, or at least 40% of it, or at least for the whisky to be bottled in Peru. Does not that undermine the argument made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson)?

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend tempts me to go down a road you may not want me to take, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me at least tiptoe to the start of that road. Not only does the EU give Scotch whisky solid legal protection, but Scotch whisky has to be made in Scotland, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has highlighted, the supply chain extends across the United Kingdom. We will be competing with markets where bottling and packaging are much cheaper, not only for Scotch whisky but for a host of other manufactured items that this country makes so much money from—money that pays for our public services and creates employment for our people.

While I am on that point, can the Minister tell us what representations he will make in the talks to leave the EU with regard to defending big industries such as aerospace, automotive, and food and drink, which in Scotland is underpinned by the Scotch whisky industry? In the 20 minutes or so in which he spoke and in answer to a lot of questions from my right hon. and hon. Friends, it was clear that HMRC, customs and so on will need more resources. The Government cannot tell us how much more they will require, why they will require them, when they will get them and whether that will be enough. It is very easy for Ministers to talk in platitudes, but we need solid answers on how many people are required and what the consequences will be for the public purse.

[Ian Murray]

That is a key secondary argument to the one I have been making. They say they want everything to be as close as possible: they want it to be frictionless and as close to the customs union as we currently are. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said that if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck. I do not understand, and have never understood, the Government’s position in taking the single market and the customs union off the table. Regardless of whether we want to argue that they are positive or negative, good for the country or bad, they immediately took them both off the table, so right from the very start the negotiating position was diminished, for all the reasons my hon. Friend has just mentioned.

[Chris Bryant]

Is my hon. Friend aware—he probably is not, because I have not yet told him—that a couple of weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU whether a deal like the Canada’s free trade agreement with the EU would be a good deal for Britain. He said, “No, because it would not be as good a deal as the customs union. It would leave us worse off.” I therefore cannot see how one can possibly argue that one should automatically discount staying in the customs union.

[Ian Murray]

That is indeed the case. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada has been held up as a blueprint for what world trade agreements should look like in the future, and we look as though we are just about to walk away from it because we want something better. If there was something better, I am sure Canada and the EU would have negotiated it. I was aware of my hon. Friend’s question, because I was sitting behind him when he posed it to the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU during Brexit questions. I thank him for his intervention.

I would like to set out the three reasons why I tabled my amendments. The first reason chimes with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said from the Opposition Front Bench about Parliament having a say. “Taking back control” became the strapline for the leave campaign during the EU referendum. If taking back control is truly what we wish to do—I think that it is what the public wishes us to do—it should surely mean taking back control for this Parliament. Whether through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, this Ways and Means motion or the customs Bill when it is published, Ministers will hold the power to do anything they want, carte blanche—on trade, tariffs, immigration and removing us from the EEA and the customs union—without any recourse at all to this House.

In the past six weeks or so, the Government have been championing a meaningful vote—whatever a meaningful vote would mean—that would be neither meaningful nor even a vote. The Government’s position on what it means is never the same from one day to the next. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago they made three clarifications on one day, with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister saying contradictory things. Their spokespeople had to correct what they had said, as they had both been incorrect.

We need greater clarity from the Government, rather than platitudes from the Minister, on what they want to do. Lord Callanan has had to make two statements to correct what he said about article 50 in the other place just a few weeks ago. We need answers to these questions. Opposition Members are very doubtful about whether we can trust a Government who say, “We’ll take the power. We may not use it. We may use it. We need to use it. We need to have it in case we want to use it, but trust us everything will be fine.” Unfortunately, trust has to be earned. The Opposition are being told clearly that they cannot trust the Government to do things properly on our behalf, because they are not able to do so. My first point, therefore, is to ensure that that power is not held by Ministers. We should give Parliament a say if we truly want to take back control.

That leads on to my second point. Nobody in this House, when we get to the end of this process, will ever have voted on leaving the customs union. Nobody will ever have voted on leaving the single market. Nobody will ever have voted on leaving the EEA. The people of this country voted to leave the European Union. When we start to work through the process and see how complicated it is—how difficult it could be for businesses, and all the challenges, barriers and hurdles that will be put in place—it is quite clear that nothing can be as good as what we have at the moment. Whatever happens, there will be losers, but nobody voted to be poorer. It is wrong for the Government to bring this motion on excluding tariffs with the European Union, because nobody has yet voted for us to leave the customs union. The customs union is vital to this country and not just for businesses on the UK mainland—I will come on to comment on the island of Ireland shortly.

My third point, and the main reason why the motion should be defeated or at least amended, is that the Government are clearly preparing for no deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said that a former Minister will make a speech tomorrow saying that the Government should be persuaded to prepare for no deal. It seems that the talks are stalling. The clock is still ticking, but they seem to be no further forward. The Brexit Secretary and the Foreign Secretary seem to have the attitude that we can wrap ourselves up in a Union Jack, ride the waves like Britannia used to and everyone will listen to us. That is the sort of 19th century British arrogance that created many of the problems in the world today. Everything the Government are putting through Parliament is being done on the basis of preparation for no deal, which would be utterly disastrous for this country.

I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting my amendments. Let me tell the House why no deal would be disastrous and why I tabled them. We have heard many Members talk about that economic impact. Our annual goods trade with other countries within the customs union is £466 billion. It has been estimated that leaving the customs union would cost £25 billion every year until 2030. If the Opposition brought a proposal to this House for the Government to consider that cost £500 billion and £25 billion every year, the word “bankruptcy” would be coming out of the Minister’s mouth every second minute. It would be irresponsible for us to do that, yet that is what is being proposed with the customs Bill and this motion.

The cost of new tariffs alone could be at least £4.5 billion for UK exports, according to detailed research, and analysis by HMRC suggests that new customs checks could increase the cost of imported goods by up to 24%. We have already had reports that there will be 17-mile tailbacks at ports across the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the Minister can remember the French customs strike and how long the queues were. They formed very quickly and the impact on local communities, let alone the perishable goods sitting in trucks, was devastating. It is okay for the Minister to suggest that we will have so many customs border checks and that we will pushing things through as quickly as possible, but the way to resolve the situation is to stay in the customs union.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

One of the key arguments being made is that AV would mean that all Members of the House would have 50% of the vote, or close to it, and therefore have legitimacy. Does it not follow that if there is a miserly turnout in the referendum, it will not have legitimacy and the matter should come back to the House for us to debate whether the result should stand?

[Chris Bryant]

It is a particular irony for those who advocate the alternative vote, as I do, which in the majority of situations will mean that an MP will have secured 50% of the vote—