Legal Advice: Prorogation

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman asks why Ministers might contest parts of the judgment. There is nothing wrong with the Government, the hon. Gentleman or any member of the public seeking to argue that parts of the judgment were either mistaken or poorly reasoned. I would not necessarily agree with that, but there is no harm in people doing it, because that is part of democratic debate. What is wrong, and what I deplore and urge all Members of this House not to do, is to impugn the motives of those who make the decisions. These are fine judges who reach their decisions impartially on what they think is the best view of the law. I have no doubt that that is what the Supreme Court did in this case.

I am not going to go into all the areas of the judgment that are fragile or vulnerable to alternative arguments. The arguments of the Government were set out in writing. The judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the divisional court was brilliantly reasoned and was, in the Government’s view, entirely right, but the Supreme Court chose to disagree with it.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Despite the Prime Minister’s repeated denials, it is obvious from the angry reaction of Brexiteers over the past 24 hours that this attempt at Prorogation was about Brexit and nothing else. Is not the real reason why nobody would testify under oath as to what the Government’s reasons were that nobody, even in Government, believed that the Prime Minister’s reasons were the truth?

[The Attorney General]

If the Prime Minister had wished to prevent this House from debating Brexit, he would have prorogued it from 5 September to 14 October. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Government were blind to the possibility that in the first few days of resumption after 4 September it was not possible that exactly what happened would happen? If we had wished to close down all debate and prevent the option of legislation, which was ultimately taken by this House with the consent of Mr Speaker, we could have prorogued it from the 5th, but we did not. Furthermore, from 14 October there would have been two and a half more weeks for this House to act. With respect, all this talk about a coup is just nonsense—inflamed political tripe, invented and inflated so that this gang can justify clinging to the Opposition green Benches for another few undeserved weeks. That is what it is all about.

Northern Ireland Backstop

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

Indeed, the Government have been very clear that, when it comes to negotiations, one should not willingly and wantonly abandon the cards that they have in their hand. That is the way that we will continue to negotiate—firmly but fairly and as openly as possible, consistent with our duties to this House.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

We have heard all the usual excuses today: blame the civil service; blame Brussels; blame Ireland for what is an entirely British-made problem. As long ago as December 2017, the Government, with the full support of the Democratic Unionist party, gave a binding commitment to provide a solution that would make their customs union red lines compatible with the Belfast agreement. Is it not the case that the only reason why the backstop will ever exist is that the Government have failed to deliver on those commitments? Will the Solicitor General not finally admit that, when it becomes clear that leaving the customs union and the single market is incompatible with the Belfast agreement, the Belfast agreement has to stay and the Government’s red lines have to go?

[The Solicitor General]

I have not been seeking to blame anybody. When it comes to constructive negotiations, I believe not in blame games, but in trying to find solutions. It is high time that the hon. Gentleman and his party actually joined the solutions-based approach rather than constantly carping from the sidelines. I am absolutely fed up with that approach. It is time that they grew up and joined the debate.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

My right hon. Friend makes the important point that, ultimately, the decision for this House and the motions on which it will vote are political matters, and to try to dress them up in legalese and as legal matters does not help anyone.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on securing this urgent question. A dangerous pattern is developing here. First, the Government tried to avoid their obligations under a previous Humble Address to release their impact assessments, and on two instances, senior Conservative ex-Ministers were given guarantees by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, which they then claimed publicly had been broken. Now we see the Government trying to wriggle out of yet another binding decision of this House.

Mr Speaker, this is not the time or the place to re-run the discussion about whether it was a good idea for that motion on an Humble Address to have been passed. How ironic that the Government want to re-run a debate on something that has already been voted on—just think about that! This is not the time to discuss its merits. As has been said, if the Government did not want to comply with the instruction, they should have instructed their MPs to vote against it. The reason they did not was that they knew they would have lost the vote.

Does the Solicitor General accept the ruling of the Chair that this decision is binding on the Government? If so, when do the Government intend to comply with the instruction they have had from representatives of the sovereign citizens of these islands?

[The Solicitor General]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer I gave. The Attorney General will be here on the next sitting day. He will make a statement and answer questions. Then the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members can form a judgment on whether the motion that was carried by this House has been satisfied. My argument is that the Attorney General will meet the spirit and intention of the motion passed, but preserve the important constitutional convention relating to Law Officers’ advice.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point, to which I have no doubt the Government will respond. As I have said, however, I do not wish to be prescriptive. I want an assurance from the Government that this matter is being looked at, and that it cannot really be divorced from some of the things we will look at next week, or whenever the Committee sits again.

My desire is that we should have such debates. I do not wish to force the Government’s hand, even though that may appear superficially attractive. I do not actually wish to put new clause 55 to the vote; it has problems of its own. However, I put the Government on notice that we are going to have to draw together the issues we are debating today, and I am convinced that we will debate similar issues next week.

All those issues derive from the same problem about the way in which the Government have approached and have at the moment drafted the legislation, and that problem must be remedied. It can be remedied, and I am happy to work with the Government to try to ensure that it is remedied. If necessary, we can come back to this on Report—on the assurance that we will have a real opportunity to do so on Report—and then pull the strands together and produce a package that will command some consensus across the House. I very much hope to hear that from the Government this afternoon, if I am not to be tempted to put my new clause to the vote.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to amendments 200 to 201 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to new clause 45, which will be decided on at a later date. I also want to support amendment 217, tabled by our colleagues in Plaid Cymru.

Last week, with several members of the Brexit Select Committee, some of whom have already spoken about this, I went on a very informative visit to Brussels and Paris. It was very informative partly because the people we spoke to were so well informed and so forthcoming. They appeared to be a lot better informed and more forthcoming about what Brexit is really going to mean than a great many Conservative Members and, indeed, than some Conservative Front Benchers.

In about 20 hours of meetings, the shortest and most perceptive comment we heard—this sums up where we now are with Brexit—came from a member of the European Affairs Committee of the French Senate. He quite simply said, “Quelle pagaille!”—“What a mess!” I replied that if he thought it looked like a mess from the French side of the channel, he should try looking at it from the United Kingdom’s point of view.

We have a Government who rushed into a referendum too soon, at a time when the UK population was the least well-informed in the whole of Europe of what Europe is actually about. Article 50 was triggered in indecent haste—far sooner than it needed to be—simply to pacify some of the more rabid Brexiteers on the Government Benches.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I was delighted to hear that we may have a consensual approach. May I gently chide the hon. Gentleman, because the public are rather fed up with being told that they are too stupid to know what they are doing, which is rather what he is saying?

[Peter Grant]

I can only refer the hon. Lady to surveys carried out immediately before the referendum. Citizens in every country in the European Union were asked a number of questions on what they thought the EU was about, and it is a matter of fact that UK citizens were less well-informed about the EU—not because they are stupid, but because this Parliament and the free press in this country have failed to keep them adequately informed. For example, Government MPs referred to the Syrian refugee crisis during debates on the European Union Referendum Bill, but the Syrian refugee crisis had nothing to do with our EU membership. In fact, it had everything to do with our membership of the human race—and as far as I am aware, there have not yet been any proposals for us to leave that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wragg]

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us whether the legislation for the Scottish independence referendum contained a date in the event of there being a yes vote?

[Peter Grant]

Yes, it did. A 600-page White Paper was also produced a year or so before the referendum, which allowed everyone taking part to be a lot better informed than even the same Scots voters were about the EU referendum.

It is also worth reminding ourselves that after what has been described as a disastrous and divisive referendum, the first thing that happened in Scotland was that campaigners from all sides got together in local churches, held services of reconciliation and committed ourselves to working together to make the result work, even if it was not the result that we wanted. In the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, there was a massive increase in crimes of racial hatred against citizens in this country and elsewhere. That was not the fault of those who voted to leave, but a consequence of how the referendum had been set out and how, for too many people, the campaign was conducted.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we leave voters did not know what we were doing. I found that people were very intelligently engaged and understood it. Why does he think the remain campaign and the EU institutions were unable to get people up to the level that he thought they ought to be?

[Peter Grant]

Possibly because some people believed what was written on the side of a bus about £350 million coming to the NHS. I have heard the claims that that did not make a difference, but if that is the case why did the leave campaign pay for it and why was it so keen to promote it?

The referendum has been held, and I have to accept that two parts of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union. I do not have any right to stand in their way, but I say again that this Parliament will not be allowed to ignore the fact that two parts of the United Kingdom voted to stay. When 62% of the people in my country have said, “We want to remain in the European Union,” it is our constitutional and democratic responsibility to make sure that we honour that instruction in the best way possible. One way to do that, if it is impossible to avoid Scotland being torn out of the European Union against our will, is to retain as much as possible of the benefits that our people get from EU membership, and that is what I want to address by speaking to our new clause 45, which will be decided at a later date, and Plaid Cymru’s amendment 217.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend was indeed correct to say that hate crime rose after the Brexit referendum, but for the sake of accuracy it is worth reminding ourselves that, while it rose in the UK on aggregate, it actually fell in Scotland.

[Peter Grant]

It is certainly correct to say that reported hate crime fell. I was made aware of a couple of cases in my own constituency of hate crimes not being reported to the police, for reasons that I did not understand but had to accept on the part of the victims. We have to be careful because, rather than there being a reduction in hate crime, perhaps it is being under-reported, but my hon. Friend makes a good point.

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

This has already been raised in the Chamber, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that today’s story in the papers about whatever the Russians did that may have skewed the Brexit referendum result is a very worrying issue?

[Peter Grant]

It would certainly be worrying if any major power was able to use dirty tricks to influence the result of a democratic process in any country. It may be worth remembering that it is not that long ago that David Cameron pleaded with Vladimir Putin to interfere in another referendum to ensure that he got the result he wanted. It is important that, if we are going to criticise and call out foreign interference on behalf of our opponents, we should also be prepared to call out foreign interference in our favour.

It is important for the people I represent and the nation that has sent me to this Parliament to be one of its representatives that we seek to retain as much as possible of the benefit of European Union membership, even after we have been forced to temporarily leave it, so we should seek to reverse the Government’s unilateral decision on membership of the single market and the customs union. Plaid Cymru’s short amendment would help to do that by ensuring that, even after leaving the EU, the Government have no authority to leave the European economic area without a further vote of this Parliament.

The first benefit of that would be that the 4 million would be able to relax, if the UK Government say today, “We got it wrong. We’re staying in the European economic area and in the single market.” All the worries about settled status and all the paperwork that people have to go through just to guarantee the rights that they already have would stop, as would all the concerns about how we square the circle of borders or no borders at different stages between the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom remain in the single market and the EEA.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain what on earth he is talking about has got to do with the two clauses under discussion?

[Peter Grant]

I am speaking to amendments on the amendment paper, if the right hon. Gentleman would care to look at them.

I have no great expectation that the Government will accept either Plaid Cymru’s amendment or the SNP’s proposed new clause, which will be decided at a later date, but I want to continue to remind them and their Back Benchers, as well as Opposition Back Benchers, that we do not have a final, irreversible decision on the single market. We might not even have an irreversible decision on the European Union, but we certainly do not yet have an irreversible decision on the single market and membership of the European economic area.

There is a way in which the Government can extricate themselves from the mess that they have created for us; end the torment of 4.5 million people who still do not have an absolute legal guarantee that their children will be allowed to finish at the school at which they have already started; ease the daily growing concerns of businesses the length and breadth of these islands that do not know whether they will be allowed to import raw materials or export finished goods; and ease the concerns of our public services that their essential workers, including care workers, nurses and doctors, may not be able to continue to move here to serve our people. It is all right for the bankers, of course, because there will be an exception for them. They will have free movement, but nurses, doctors and care assistants are apparently not important enough.

Even if, for political reasons, the Government cannot ask their Back Benchers to support amendments either today or during later Committee sittings, I ask them to think very carefully about what I am saying. There has not been a referendum to leave the single market, so the situation can be changed by the will of this Parliament and the support of the Government. They do not have to go back on their promise to respect the result of the referendum to leave the European Union, but they can reverse the headlong charge towards the cliff edge and make sure that the Bill actually delivers what it is supposed to deliver, and that means we have a soft landing instead of falling off the cliff edge in March 2019.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

I rise to speak in support of clauses 2 and 3. It is a pleasure to participate at Committee stage, which is one of my favourite stages of debate because it is a time when we can all can come together in a mature way to look at the detail of the Bill and debate it as grown-ups. May I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches, and indeed to all hon. Members, that I certainly intend to take very seriously the points that have already been made, and those that will be made today, in future Committees days, and—I assure my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) of this—on Report?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

The good news coming out of this debate is that everyone in the House agrees with clauses 2 and 3, on which the clause stand part decision will be made shortly. We are all in favour of them because they are pretty straightforward. Clause 2 says that all the European law that came to the United Kingdom by way of directive is now fully incorporated into statute law and statutory instruments in the United Kingdom, and that that will continue. All that law that comes to us directly as a regulation or a Court judgment will, up to the date of exit, be transferred and incorporated into good UK law by virtue of the legislation before us, and particularly by virtue of clause 3.

It is good news that we all agree with the main item on the Order Paper for this afternoon, so why are we having a long debate? My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General got to the heart of the debate during their interesting exchanges. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and agree with a lot of what he said.

The issue revolves around what scrutiny and interest Parliament should take when the transfer of European law that currently directly affects UK law requires some changes. Most of us think there are going to be a lot of changes and that most of them are going to be entirely technical or minor. They will adjust the EU to having one fewer country in it, recognising that we are no longer a member, or adjust the appeal body to a natural appeal body that is already well established by statute in this House, which is a UK body, not a European body. It is the right of the House and of Parliament to decide how much scrutiny any one of those things needs and to give it the proper attention required to check that the Executive are doing a good job.

We all want to ensure continuity of the law. We recognise how many changes and proposals are involved, so we need a way of sifting so that Parliament can concentrate on the ones that could be genuinely contentious or are more material than the others, thereby ensuring that Parliament does not waste too much time. Parliament must decide how much it trusts Ministers to do the sift for it, and I look forward to hearing further thoughts from my colleagues on the Front Bench on exactly how that process is going to work. Personally, I trust the Ministers. From my point of view, the changes are all going to be technical and I do not believe that there is going to be any attempt to change the law. Were there any such attempt, Parliament would be well up to the challenge and there would be an almighty row pretty quickly.

[Peter Grant]

There is a need for Parliament to be able to trust the Government, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have indicated through their actions so far that they are not prepared to trust any Parliament in which they do not have an absolute majority? Were the Government prepared to trust Parliament to a greater degree, we would not be having to go through some of the constitutional hoops that are before us.

[John Redwood]

I think Parliament is doing a good job of explaining to Ministers exactly what Parliament wants, and I think it is going to carry on doing that. I have every confidence in Parliament. I look forward to hearing what more can be said from the Front Bench in due course. I think it is all going to be technical and so can be done expeditiously, but clearly Parliament needs to be satisfied. I am completely satisfied that in the areas for which the official Opposition would like there to be some kind of reserve or special status, there is absolutely no intent to amend, change or repeal on either side of the House.

I have heard strong assurances from all parties that there is absolutely no wish to water down employment protections or environmental protections, and I see absolutely no evidence that anyone would try to do that. I am quite sure that, were they to try, they would soon discover that there was an overwhelming majority in the Commons, on the Government and Opposition Benches, of very many people who would say, “You cannot do that,” and we would have every intention of voting it down.

Those laws already in place came via directives and are very much at the heart of what they are trying to protect. They are trying to protect something that Parliament has already put through as UK legislation. No manifestos or other party statements have threatened them, which implies that those things are at risk. It is also important to remember that when many EU directives were implemented—whether by Conservative, coalition or Labour Governments—that was often done in a way that went beyond the minimum standards that the directive required. Where it was possible to go beyond those standards, quite often successive Governments decided to do just that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

13. What discussions his Department has had with the devolved Administrations on the timescale for invoking article 50 of the treaty on European Union.

[The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister has visited Scotland and Wales already and has made it clear that she wants to achieve the best possible deal for the whole of the United Kingdom on leaving the European Union. She has also made it clear that article 50 of the treaty on European Union will not be triggered before the end of the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

It is perfectly right, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that all parts of the United Kingdom, including the Governments of the devolved Administrations, should be able to participate in the process of developing the United Kingdom’s approach to these negotiations. That does not mean that any of the parts of the United Kingdom has a veto over this process: so, consultation most certainly, but veto I am afraid not.

[Peter Grant]

At a time when Brexit is already causing more than enough confusion, the Prime Minister is saying that article 50 will definitely not be triggered before the end of the year, but the Brexit Minister has said that it definitely will be. Will the Attorney General clarify for us who is correct in articulating present Government policy?

[The Attorney General]

No, I do not think there is any confusion. We must ensure that there is clarity about the United Kingdom’s position going into the negotiations, and that we have done that work before we begin them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is for the United Kingdom Government to determine the point at which article 50 is triggered. We should do so when we are ready.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I also suspect that the hon. Gentleman sees more people in work and being helped into work in his constituency. As I said, we remain absolutely committed to tackling the root causes of poverty—worklessness and low educational attainment—and to making sure that children do not grow up affected by the blight of poverty. He will probably agree that an arbitrary consideration of whether somebody is over or under a financial income line by a matter of pounds does not change lives. What changes lives is tackling the issues set out by the Prime Minister in his speech on Monday.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

16. The Secretary of State insists that the Government are not changing the definition of child poverty, so will they accept the findings of several respected organisations, including, most recently, the Resolution Foundation, which has indicated that, as a direct result of the summer Budget alone, between 300,000 and 600,000 children and 3.7 million and 3.9 million people on these islands will move into poverty by 2020? What discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the likely impact of the changes on poor children on these islands?

[Mr Speaker]

I gently point out to the House that there is a difference between asking a question and leading an Adjournment debate.