Leaving the EU: Implications for Scotland

Debate between Luke Graham and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

I will make some progress. We in the SNP believe that the Government should negotiate to stay in the single market and the customs union, not least to protect the exchange of citizens’ rights between the EU and the UK.

Another area of huge concern is the importance of the single market and the customs union to protecting our social, trade and investment partnerships with EU businesses and Governments. The Scottish Government’s impact analysis has shown that a failure to remain in the single market and the customs union, or to secure a free trade agreement, would see Scotland’s GDP around £12.7 billion lower by 2030 than it would be under continued EU membership. That would mean a loss equivalent to £2,300 per person in Scotland. In addition, the impact analysis shows that a so-called Canada-type deal with the EU would still leave Scotland’s GDP £9 billion lower by 2030, or £1,610 per head.

Scotland’s food and drink exports have reached £6 billion—the highest level ever—with the EU being the largest market. However, the Economic and Social Research Institute reported that a hard Brexit would result in up to a 90% fall in exports to the EU from Scotland. Those are important voices from industry, and everybody who cares about Scotland’s economic prospects should listen to them. A hard Brexit would leave the UK isolated on the world stage and expose the country to a regulatory race to the bottom, compromising our trading relationships and consumer standards.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has said that Brexit was an opportunity for widespread deregulation. The Foreign Secretary has said, “Scrap social Europe”. Daniel Hannan, a Tory MEP, said that all contracts between employers and employees should be “free contracts” with no statutory protection. There is no question but that Brexit will see a bonfire of British workers’ rights, given that those words come from the governing party. I do not claim to speak for the people of England, and nor should I, but we in Scotland are alarmed by those comments, which go against the values and beliefs that the people of Scotland hold dear.

The Secretary of State for International Trade is on the record as being “relaxed” about the diminution of food standards post Brexit, although the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said he is opposed to it. The Prime Minister simply responded that the questions were “hypothetical”. Food standards that are currently banned across the EU may become permissible in the UK post Brexit, which precipitates concerns about the proverbial race to the bottom. More relaxed standards have implications for animal welfare and raise potential environmental and public health concerns. Will Scotland really have to endure such standards post Brexit? Is that what was meant by taking back control?

The UK will seek to pursue new trade deals, particularly with the US. Since we already know that procurement and public contracts are important objectives for the US in negotiating a trade deal, as demonstrated by the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations, Scotland’s public services are at risk of being bargained off in new agreements. For the people of Scotland, that is simply unacceptable. Hon. Members across the House will know that, because they, too, will have received countless emails from constituents about it. If any hon. Member in the Chamber has not received any emails about the issue, they should feel free to intervene now.

A growing number of people in Scotland are bewildered. In Scotland, we had a referendum on EU membership, which there was no evidence that Scotland wanted. We in Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a convincing majority, but we are now being removed against our will from a family of nations of which we wish to remain part. To add insult to injury, Scotland’s voice in the UK negotiations has been summarily ignored. We all witnessed the farce on 12 June. Despite the implications of Scotland being dragged out of the EU, we were allocated a mere 19 minutes. Not one Scottish MP from any party was permitted to speak and there was no protected time for the debate. We witnessed an unprecedented ripping up of the devolution settlement, with Scotland’s voice silenced.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

On timing, does the hon. Lady recognise that in this Parliament, we have spent 252 hours debating Brexit, and we will spend several more, whereas the Scottish Parliament has spent only 25 hours on legislation that was rushed through on an emergency basis? It is not right for her to take a high hand when it comes to time.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, so I will enlighten him: Scotland did not vote for Brexit and the Brexit negotiations are being carried out by the UK Government. They are therefore duty-bound to allow Scottish MPs, who represent people who did not vote for Brexit, proper time to debate the implications of Brexit and the fact that the devolution settlement has been torn up, about which he appears to have no concern.

Let us be clear: in the democratically elected Scottish Parliament, every single party save the Tories—the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Greens—voted overwhelmingly against repatriating powers to London, by 95 votes to 32. During the Standing Orders debate in the Commons Chamber on 13 June, I was stunned to hear Scottish Tory MPs dismiss that lack of legislative consent—that power grab—by saying, to paraphrase them, “What does it matter? It is only powers over this, that or the other.” They may say that, but when you ignore the entire concept of consent and ride roughshod over democratic institutions elected by the people of Scotland, to which the Tory Government in Westminster have not listened, you do so at your peril.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Luke Graham and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

We have heard in today’s debate, as we heard last week, about the way universal credit has been rolled out and how it is driving families into desperation and hardship. This House expressed its view, yet still the Government bury their head in the sand, wilfully holding their hands over their ears like an errant child. This roll-out must be halted so that the problems that have been identified—many today and many last week—can be examined and fixed.

The consequence of the hardship we have heard about so clearly in this Chamber is a tearing at the social fabric of our communities in a way that is cruel and completely unnecessary. Some 25% of claimants are waiting even longer than six weeks, according to the DWP’s own figures. Six weeks without support is simply not reasonable. The Government cannot use the excuse of innocence or ignorance. The problems with this benefit have been laid bare and Parliament has spoken. Deciding not to listen to the clamour of disapproval, which has been voiced for very legitimate reasons in this House and beyond, does not provide absolution for what is increasingly looking like wilfully causing harm to those in need of support.

I believe that since Parliament has spoken on this issue, there is an ethical imperative on the Government to return to this issue in a reflective manner, offering a positive, meaningful way forward on a matter regarding which we can all agree the principles. What is at issue here is the process—the way the benefit is being rolled out. It is surely not beyond the wit of the Government to revisit and improve it. It now seems clear that the reason for not pausing the benefit, which is riddled with errors, must be and can only be arrogance, and an ideological fixation that is really very difficult to understand.

[Luke Graham]

The SNP has raised three concerns about universal credit: timeliness; direct payments to landlords; and helping those most in need by closing the gap. Now that the Government have addressed all three, including by providing payments within five days—on the same day for those in urgent need—will she welcome those changes and accept that the Government are not being arrogant but actually listening?

[Patricia Gibson]

The three issues that the hon. Gentleman identifies are not our only concerns about the benefit. We are concerned about split payments, the six-week wait, the cut to work allowance and the flexibility of payments—I could go on, but I am constrained by time. There is much wrong with the benefit. Suggesting that fiddling about with three bits is enough, and dancing on the head of a pin about what the motion said last week, does not cover him in glory.

Properly administered, this benefit could really support people, but not unless time is taken to review the problems with it, some of which I have just mentioned. In the meantime, urgent transitional protections can be put in place to protect those who are victims of it right now. There is no doubt that universal credit payments need to be more flexible and adaptable to allow people more say, and that the system needs to be more responsive to how people live their lives and manage their household budgets. We cannot even begin to talk about an online digital roll-out unless we have already tackled digital exclusion.

People in Scotland and across the UK are suffering terribly, and what is heart-breaking is that the suffering is utterly unnecessary. The hardship is the result of how the Government have bungled the benefit. The status quo is no longer tenable. I urge the Government to do the decent thing: pause the roll-out and fix the problems, as the House voted they should do.

Leaving the EU: Consumer Protection

Debate between Luke Graham and Patricia Gibson

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I want to echo the thanks that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) expressed to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for obtaining the debate. We must not underestimate, among the various aspects of Brexit, the importance of consumer protection. That vital matter is so wound around and ingrained into our daily lives that there is a danger that we may take the protections for granted but, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has pointed out, that must not happen.

Currently, the rights of consumers are enshrined in EU law, so naturally there is bound to be concern and uncertainty about what will become of those rights and the responsibilities of businesses post-Brexit. We need clarity. At the moment, the UK has to comply with EU consumer policy and law, which is estimated to affect about 90 pieces of legislation, making a body of EU law designed to protect consumers. However, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently progressing through Parliament would repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and copy all EU legislation into UK law. The concern is that repeals, amendments and revisions could then be made to consumer law by any Government as they saw fit.

The lack of clarity and the uncertainty about Brexit is a cause of great concern, since we simply do not know what leaving the EU will mean for consumers or businesses. Will the UK stay in the single market? It looks as if that will not happen, so the rights of consumers in the UK will not be enhanced or keep pace with the rights of consumers in the EU. That could leave them exposed and lacking protection. Consumers are already feeling the Brexit pinch even though we have not yet left the EU. The devalued pound is pushing up inflation, and that alone has reduced purchasing power. Most consumers do not think too much about consumer protection until they need it. We need only look at the recent cancellation of Ryanair flights to find a good example of why consumers benefit from being part of the EU single market, and from sharing rights and protections across the EU. The personal example given by the hon. Member for Chelmsford brought that point home strongly. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) also touched on the issue, and outlined various sharp practices indulged in by some airlines.

Fundamentally, a lot of minds would be put at rest by an end to the uncertainty—by the knowledge on the part of consumers that the UK Government are willing absolutely to guarantee that consumer rights and protections will not be watered down post-Brexit, and to provide specific assurances of that in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. We need a cast-iron guarantee that current protections derived from EU legislation will remain in force. I fully understand the Government’s position that they do not want a

“black hole in our statute book”

and that they will convert EU laws into UK laws. However, no one can predict the longer-term impact of Brexit on consumers, since we do not know what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will look like, or even whether the UK will retain any access to the single market.

What can be said is that following our withdrawal from the European Union, EU consumer protection legislation and that of the UK are likely to drift apart over time. I fully concur with the hon. Member for Bristol North West and the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who discussed the evolution of consumer law. Even if the UK adopts autonomously all EU legislation in the field of consumer protection, the interpretation of such legislation will vary, as UK courts will not be subordinate to the European Court of Justice, despite what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said. We do not know what kind of divergence will take place.

[Luke Graham]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the example that I used showed the UK going above and beyond what the EU was putting forward? If she would like to be “Stronger for Scotland”, perhaps she would begin by engaging positively with those details and looking at the opportunities we have, rather than always looking at the negative and trying to do the UK down.

[Patricia Gibson]

I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, because I had this point in my head. He cannot negate the legitimate concerns that I have raised by simply saying, “We’ll always go one better.” I will give him a concrete example. There are fears in some quarters of a race to the bottom—for example, on food safety. The Secretary of State for International Trade has said that he is completely relaxed about a diminution in food safety. People cannot simply hide all the time behind the notion that the UK will always do something better than anything that is offered by the EU. That is asking us to take too much on trust.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will press on if the hon. Gentleman will permit me.

Consumers in the UK spend £1,160 billion each year on goods and services, and about £14.8 billion is the estimated value of consumer detriment that needs to be tackled by consumer protection bodies. That is with the current protections; diminution of any of those protections can only increase consumer detriment and undermine consumer confidence.

With increasingly complex and wide-ranging threats—in particular, a rise in e-commerce and scams—consumer protection needs to be as robust and match-fit for the modern world as it possibly can. The UK consumer cannot be left behind post-Brexit. I contend that remaining a member of the single market would guarantee that UK consumer protection law moved in line with that of the rest of the EU and would certainly reassure consumers and businesses that the current framework would continue to keep pace.

Regardless of what the future relations between the UK and the EU finally look like, the laws governing relations between consumers and businesses are vital to the future success of the UK as a whole. Consumers must have confidence in the purchases that they make, be confident about safety, and be confident of redress if anything goes wrong with the goods that they purchase; they must be confident that their rights as consumers are enforceable. My concern in relation to the uncertainty surrounding those rights, which will be subject to the whim of the Government of the day, is that the rights may be diluted or eroded over time as the EU moves ahead in this area, leaving the UK consumer rights agenda behind the curve, looking outdated and not fit for purpose in the modern world.

I hope that the Minister can provide cast-iron assurances that protecting and maintaining consumer rights is firmly on the Government’s agenda as Brexit unfolds, because consumers have a right to expect nothing less.