Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Is it not wonderful to have the Labour party, of all people, accusing us on this? I am looking at the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—don’t worry. I read a tweet only this morning in which the Labour Whips Office was celebrating the fact that only 75 Labour Members rebelled against the amendment yesterday.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am slightly pleasantly surprised to see the Secretary of State still in his place—[Interruption.] I suspect that if I am surprised to see him in his place, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are significantly more surprised. Particularly as the negotiations go on to look at our future and long-term relationship with Europe, they will inevitably impinge significantly on matters that are properly and constitutionally devolved to the three devolved nations of this Union. This week, we saw the Government force through without debate provisions allowing Ministers unilaterally to remove and change the powers of those devolved nations. Will the Secretary of State tell us what assurances the people in the devolved nations can have that our interests will not be sold out during the next stage of the negotiations?

[Mr Davis]

First, might I say that I am touched that the hon. Gentleman is pleasantly surprised that I am still here? I am very pleasantly surprised to see so many of his colleagues with him today.

On the important substantive question, the Government came up with a number of proposals during the course of the Bill which sought to arrange the mechanism by which powers are passed from the European Union through to the devolved Administrations. Those proposals were welcomed by the Welsh Administration but not by the Scots one. Nevertheless, we are continuing in our discussions with the Scots Administration to endeavour to come to an agreement, and while we are doing our work on the White Paper, we are also talking to them about the policy elements of that so they can have an input.

[Peter Grant]

I remind the Secretary of State once again that it was not the Scottish Government who refused the legislative consent motion but the elected Parliament of Scotland. Four out of five parties agreed that the Government’s actions were not acceptable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that as the Government’s intentions stand, it would be perfectly possible for the Government to return from Brussels with a deal that substantially damaged the interests of the three devolved nations of this Union, and that the only option that Members of Parliament from those nations would have would be to accept that sell-out or to accept a car crash no deal? That is the Government’s intention just now, is it not?

[Mr Davis]

I made it very clear from the beginning of the negotiation process and the policy creation process that we treat the interests of every nation in the United Kingdom extremely seriously and will defend them to the utmost of our ability. There will be a statement later from the Scottish Secretary on the Sewel convention.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

No, I want to make two more points. I will now be very brief, and I will not expound on all the points I would have expounded on.

The argument that we are undermining the Prime Minister’s position in the negotiations is equally ridiculous. It is based on the proposition that, out on the continent, people do not know that there are divisions in the Cabinet or what the situation is in the House of Commons, and were a whisper to get out about some slightly unusual votes in the House of Commons, this would undermine the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and make that position much weaker.

I suspect that the feeling among those on the continent at the moment is that they are utterly bewildered by the Anglo-Saxons and that they have no idea what we think we are doing. They are not hostile to this country; they are waiting for us to make up our minds about what we wish to negotiate before the negotiations start. All the other Governments have to get the approval of 27 national Parliaments. What they are watching is an attempt by the real zealots in this House to stop this Parliament playing any part in the process, which is totally unacceptable.

The time has come to say that all Government policies on any subject, great or small, depend on the ability to command a majority in the House of Commons on the key principles and the direction in which the country is going. I will certainly vote on that basis and I hope that the Government regret the rather intolerant response and all the pressure they have been applying on my right hon. and learned Friends in trying to resist such an obvious proposition.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. It is always a daunting prospect to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), although I am grateful to him on this occasion for warming up the audience a wee bit.

I do not often go along with the tradition of spending the first part of a speech being enormously grateful for getting the chance to speak in this place. After all, speaking here on behalf of our constituents is the absolute right of all Members. Today, however, it is appropriate for me to acknowledge that I am one of the privileged few because I will get to speak today and, who knows, perhaps even tomorrow, whereas the vast majority of elected Members in this place will not have a chance to speak at all.

If we all got an equal say over the next couple of days, every MP would speak for about 10 seconds—and no, I am not going to call time on myself just yet. Each of the amendments, many of them vital for the future, would be debated for about three minutes. In reality, most MPs will not be called and we will be asked to vote on amendments that have never been before this House and that will literally not even be mentioned by name, rank or serial number in the debate because there will not be time. Anybody who believes that that is an example of participative democracy at its best needs to get out of here and spend some time reconnecting with the real world.

The programme motion that the Government got through today is an absolute travesty of democracy, following days and days on which the business collapsed and the Government were inventing things to talk about because they did not have the political courage to bring this Bill or umpteen other Brexit-related Bills before the House. The idea that we can give proper consideration to 160 or 170 amendments in effectively nine or 10 hours of debate is utterly laughable. It is an indication of how far the hard Brexiteer propagandists and sloganisers have parted company from any kind of rational logic that they and, indeed, many in the Government denounced the Lords for approving 15 amendments that the Government did not like, while welcoming the fact that those self-same Lords approved 166 amendments that the Government asked them to approve. One hundred and sixty-six amendments were requested by the Government, and 15 by the rest of the world, and it is the rest of the world who are the villains and the enemies of democracy in this.

It was inevitable but deeply disturbing to see how the battle lines have been drawn on the front pages of some so-called newspapers, and I know that there was a point of order on this exact point earlier today. Their lordships are the “traitors in ermine”, the “enemies of the people”, as, indeed, are judges in the Supreme Court, for daring to do the job that they are there to do. I am not a fan of the unelected House of Lords, but they are there for a purpose and, whether we agree or disagree with the way in which they have discharged their purpose, the abuse that has been heaped on them in the past few weeks is utterly uncalled for and has no place in any kind of civilised debate.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that, rather than deriding the House of Lords, we should be thanking them for introducing 15 sensible amendments and that the Government should also be thanking them for making hundreds of their own amendments because they made such a Horlicks of the Bill in this place in the first place.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It seems like the definition of an enemy of the people is not based on where they take the decisions but on whether the decision finds favour or disfavour with Her Majesty’s Government. That is not democracy, Mr Speaker. We are heading to dictatorship if someone’s integrity or patriotism is judged on whether or not they agree with the minority of people who sit on the Government Front Bench.

As I have said, and I shall come back to this later, I am not a fan of the House of Lords. I do not think that it is a democratic institution, but it is not the real threat to our democracy. The real threat to such democracy as we have in these islands does not come from people who disagree with what I say or with what the Government say but from those who use terms such as “traitor” or “enemy” to denounce anybody who holds or expresses a view that differs from their own.

This weekend, we will mark the second anniversary of the murder of one of our colleagues. Possibly the last words she heard in this life were “death to traitors”. Surely, in the name of God, we should know that, when we allow the language of hatred to become normalised, the actions of hatred will follow. Today, someone has pleaded guilty to planning to murder another of our colleagues. I say to colleagues on all sides that we can disagree passionately and fervently with each other, but please get the language of violence out of the vocabulary of this debate and of all debates, not just in the few days before we remember Jo’s sacrifice but every day thereafter, so that Jo and others did not die in vain.

As I have mentioned, the SNP are not fans of the House of Lords, but when the House of Lords has passed amendments to turn a bad Bill into a slightly less bad Bill, we will seek to retain those amendments. Let us be clear that, even with those amendments, this is still a bad thing. It will be damaging to all our interests, but if we can make it the least bad thing that we possibly can, we will have achieved something.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the SNP’s official position is that we should stop Brexit outright?

[Peter Grant]

I am not quite sure how to break this to the right hon. Gentleman, but nothing would please me more than to allow his country to implement the decision that its citizens have taken and for my country to be given the right to implement the decision that the people of my country took.

We support the removal from the Bill of a purely arbitrary and symbolic exit day; it does nothing to improve our chances of getting a less damaging deal and makes the prospect of a cliff-edge no deal more likely. It was agreed to only because the Prime Minister was too weak at the time to stand up to the hard-line minority in her own party, who are a vanishingly small minority across the House of Commons as a whole. Recently, the ubiquitous “sources close to the Prime Minister” have been working very hard to spin the line that she is now prepared to face down some of the extremists in her party. May I suggest that she would make a good start by facing them down by supporting the removal of an unnecessary exit day from the Bill and supporting that Lords amendment?

On the amendments to change “necessary” back to “what the Minister deems appropriate,” I am flummoxed by the idea that it needs to be put into legislation that a Minister only does things that they think are appropriate. Do the Government seriously think that their own Ministers will do things that they think are inappropriate? I know that they do things that I think are inappropriate all the time, but imagine having legally to prohibit them from doing things that they thought were stupid, rather than trying to stop them from doing things that everybody else thinks are stupid.

The Secretary of State, who obviously has much more important things to do than staying to listen to the defence of his legislation, told us twice that “necessary” is not a synonym for logical, sensible or proper. The trouble is that the entire Bill is written on the assumption that Her Majesty’s Government are a synonym for logical, sensible or proper, and, indeed, that the whim of a Minister is a synonym for logical, sensible or proper.

The Government do not have a monopoly on logic, good sense or propriety. A Government who lost their overall majority in this place at the demand of the people of these islands should surely have the humility to accept that sometimes, just sometimes, when the ermine-coated lords along the corridor disagree with them, they have got it right and the Government have got it wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman confirms that he and his party want to keep Scotland in the European Union. Can he confirm to me whether he wants to keep Scotland in the common fisheries policy as well?

[Peter Grant]

Certainly not, as currently constituted. If there were a common fisheries policy that actually protected Scotland’s fishing industry, instead of it being used by successive UK Governments as an excuse to sell it out, that might be a different matter.

There has of course been a public vote on the possibility of one of the consequences of a hard Brexit: a hard border across the island of Ireland.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the front page of today’s Financial Times refers to a shortage of doctors? The Tories in Scotland have the cheek to blame the Scottish National party for the lack of doctors, when they are the ones not giving them the visas to get in to the country. The Tories sold out fishing once and then twice. They told us that they would not accept fisheries in the transition agreement and now they are talking as if they are saving the fisheries—the people who have sold out fishermen twice!

[Peter Grant]

Few of us can speak on the fishing industry with such knowledge and authority as my hon. Friend.

The nearest we have had to a public vote anywhere on any of the consequences of a hard Brexit was the public vote against the possibility of a hard border across the island of Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland overwhelmingly rejected such a notion when they endorsed the Good Friday agreement and, of course, the people of Northern Ireland, the only people in the United Kingdom who would be affected by a hard border, voted to remain in the EU. How can anyone argue that the best way to give effect to those votes is for decisions to be taken by Ministers who represent a party with no MPs in Northern Ireland? The people of Northern Ireland have no way of re-electing or not re-electing those Ministers, based on whether their decisions are in the interests of those people.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Is the hon. Gentleman as outraged as I am that it looks as though we will have no possibility to debate those issues today? Is he as surprised as I am that, unless the Department for Exiting the European Union has not kept its website up to date, we do not even have a Minister from DExEU here listening to the debate?

[Peter Grant]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are quite used to seeing Government Ministers abandoning their posts as soon as anybody from the third party in Parliament gets up to speak. He will have to take it up with them why that might be.

At the end of this entire process, we owe it to ourselves, to each and every one of us, to acknowledge that later this year some Members of Parliament—possibly those on the Conservative Benches, possibly those on the Opposition Benches—may in all conscience want to go back to their constituents and say, “I recognise the way that you voted in June 2016. I respect your right to take part in that vote, but in all conscience I cannot be part of a decision that I believe in my heart of hearts will be deeply damaging to your community and to these islands and nations.” Members of Parliament must have the right to say to their constituents, “On this occasion, what I fundamentally believe to be in your interests differs from what you believe to be your wishes.” Each of us should be given the right to go back to our constituents and face the potential political consequences. I have no qualms whatever about the political consequences of following my own conscience if it is against the wishes, expressed or otherwise, of my constituents. That is a decision we all have to be prepared to take from time to time.

This is possibly the most important occasion of this Parliament—and of many previous Parliaments. Members of Parliament must be given the opportunity to decide for themselves where they place the balance between what we believe is best and what our constituents have told us they want. If Members of Parliament are not prepared to face up to that very difficult dilemma, there is a question whether they should be Members of Parliament at all.

[Sir Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. Surely we cannot ignore a referendum that was voted for by this House. The people made a decision and we cannot go against that decision. To say that perhaps they did not realise what they were doing when they voted to leave the European Union is an insult to the electorate.

[Peter Grant]

I never suggested that, although it is perhaps worth remembering that at least one of the right hon. Gentleman’s own colleagues, a Conservative MP, has admitted that they did not vote in the referendum because the question was too hard for them to understand. I wonder how many other people were in the same position. There is a big, big difference between not fully understanding and being stupid. It is an insult for Conservative Members to suggest that anyone who admits they did not fully understand it, or still do not feel they understand it, is stupid.

My comments were not based on suggesting that people did not understand. My comments were based on the fact that the ultimate responsibility we have is to act on what we believe to be the public’s best interest, not simply to follow what we think will get us re-elected next time around. The fact that so many Brexiteers are horrified at the idea that Members of Parliament should be given the chance to make that statement to their constituents suggests that an awful lot of them think that such a statement may be needed. They think that we will get to the end of the process and a large number of MPs will want to go back to the people and say, “I’m sorry. I supported it this far but I cannot support it any longer because I can see the damage it will cause.” I will leave that for Members to think about. I do not expect anybody to be persuaded just now, but I appeal to Members to think about that over the next wee while. It is fundamental to the nature of the representative democracy we have in this place.

Of course, it goes without saying, on the other amendments the SNP will be supporting, that, in this partnership of equal nations, the elected Parliaments of all the equal nations must have a say on the final deal. They must have a much greater say than they have had up until now. With the contempt shown for the devolved nations through the process so far, it is difficult to believe that the intention has been anything other than inflammatory.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I will not give way because I know a number of people who did not support the programme motion will struggle to get in.

The mantra of the “most powerful devolved Parliament in the world” has never been true, but it sounds even more hollow if that “most powerful devolved Parliament in the world” can be stripped of its powers by a party that never wanted it to have those powers, never wanted it to exist in the first place and are intent on acting not just against the majority view of the Parliament of Scotland but against the majority view of Opposition Members of the Parliament of Scotland.

In their continued belief that they and only they are the guardians of common sense, the Government are determined to force this place to have a binary decision on whether we accept the final deal. This is the same Government who keep telling us that the customs union is not a binary decision, the single market is not a binary decision and controlling immigration is not a binary decision. The only time it is a binary decision is when they have to make a decision. The Government are determined that the final decision this Parliament will have to take on what the future will be is “take it or leave it”. For some of us, other futures are available. The Government would do well to reflect on that fact before it is too late. If the only choice they offer is take it or leave it, they may find that the people of Scotland, the people of Wales and the people of Northern Ireland will interpret take it or leave it in a very different way from that which the Government intend.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who gave a thoughtful speech that captured the sense of many people on the remain side of the argument. However, in any debate about Brexit or about Britain regaining sovereignty, we must be clear about why we were in the position we were in the first place.

We joined the European Economic Community in 1973. At that time, people thought of it as the common market. In 1975, we had a referendum. The decision in that referendum was overwhelming endorsement by the British people, who were about 2:1 in favour of remaining in the common market. Since then, the common market has morphed, with no direct say from the British people, into the European Community and the European Union. Once again, Parliament gave the decision to the British people as to whether we should stay or go. There is no doubt about what was decided or what is required.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Out of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union, how many put on the ballot paper that they wanted to leave the single market and the customs union? The hon. Gentleman says that there is no doubt about it, so he must have the answer.

[Chris Green]

In the run-up to the referendum, it was abundantly clear from leave and remain campaigners, including the then Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if we chose to leave the European Union, we would leave the single market and the customs union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Green]

No, I will not take too many interventions. I do not know how many sub-clauses there were in the Scottish referendum, but I suspect—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is as pleasure to begin summing up the debate. I commend the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for the detailed, well-informed way in which she presented the petitioners’ argument. Thank you, Mr Austin, for relaxing the dress code for those of us with a slightly different thermostat. Hon. Members will be immensely relieved to know that I do not intend to adopt the dress code that may have been sported by the hon. Lady’s constituents in Blaydon and people in other parts of the great city of Newcastle upon Tyne at the weekend—that might be a wee bit much for the parliamentary cameras.

We have had an interesting debate, but disappointingly a lot of hon. Members confused the question of a meaningful vote in the House of Commons with the question of a meaningful vote in another referendum. Frankly, that is disrespectful to the petitioners. I understand why people tend to conjoin the two proposals, but the arguments for and against them are completely different. I will focus on the argument for giving elected Members of Parliament a meaningful vote once we know the full details of the deal that has—or, heaven forbid, has not—been struck at the end of the negotiation process. Let us remember that the negotiation process has about four months to go, perhaps five, if we are lucky, so we are running out of time.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) made a stirring speech, but missed the point entirely. I even gave him the chance to come to the point when I asked him how many people who voted in the referendum said in their vote that they wanted to leave the customs union and the single market. The answer is absolutely none. I do not know how many of those 17.4 million people wanted to leave both of those institutions. Perhaps all of them did; perhaps none of them did. We gave people a simple, binary, either/or choice on a question that was far too complicated to be resolved in its entirety by such a vote.

It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that the manifesto on which his party got its only overall majority in this place in 25 years said that we would stay in the single market. The manifesto on which it threw away its overall majority—against what, to begin with, looked like an utterly disorganised and divided Opposition—was the one in which it said that we would leave the single market.

[Chris Green]

I have seen numerous clips on television and read numerous articles in which campaigners from both the leave and the remain campaigns clearly stated that if we voted to leave the European Union, we would leave the single market and the customs union. I have seen abundant examples of people saying that. I am in no doubt that my constituents were perfectly clear about that.

[Peter Grant]

I have seen abundant statements from leading leave campaigners that said that if we left the European Union we would get £375 million for the health service. I have also seen abundant statements from the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Conservative party who said that voting for me to come down here was a declaration of a desire for Scottish independence. Sadly, it was not; we need a bit more than that.

I do not understand the nonsensical idea that the interpretation of any electoral contest should be dictated by what the losers said was going to happen. What a ridiculous way of interpreting a democratic contest! Most Opposition Members who spoke referred to the serious flaws in the way the referendum was set up and conducted, and the way the referendum rules were enforced—or, as is becoming increasingly clear, were not enforced. The fact is that the referendum produced a result. On a UK-wide basis, it produced a result; in England and Wales, it produced a result; in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it produced a different result, and we ain’t going to let people forget that in a hurry.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—my colleague on the Exiting the European Union Committee—rightly drew attention to a number of the false promises that were made during the leave campaign. It is a complete fudge to say, “That wasnae our leave campaign; it was somebody else’s leave campaign. A big bad boy leave campaign done it, and then they ran away”—in some cases, they ran away to become Foreign Secretary.

[Chris Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman has had enough chances to speak, between his substantive speech and his interventions. I note that when questions are raised about the conduct of the leave campaign, he wants to know which leave campaign it was. The question, then, is, which leave campaign won the referendum? If we do not know that, we cannot possibly know which version of leave people voted for.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who is backed up by a substantial majority in her constituency—her constituents are clearly in favour of remaining in the European Union—also drew attention to some of the flaws in the process. Questions must be asked about who provided the massive funding for the leave campaign. I know that opinion polls can sometimes be misleading, but there are certainly many indications that, if it is established that there was something seriously dodgy about how any of the leave campaigns were funded, even people who voted to leave will see that as cheating. That is simply not the way we do what passes for democracy in this place and in these islands.

[Catherine West]

The hon. Gentleman is making some very important points. Does he agree that, once we know more and journalists have an opportunity to uncover more—perhaps in their own emails—we might discover that there should be a police investigation into some of those worrying issues, such as how the money that pushed the vote in a certain direction was amassed?

[Peter Grant]

Some of the revelations of the past few days could certainly lead to that. We now need to ensure those in charge of the investigations have the information they need and are co-operated with fully when they carry them out. That, of course, includes Select Committees of this Parliament. It is fascinating that some of the champions of the “bring sovereignty back to Parliament” brigade ran a mile when Parliament asked them to come in and account for the way they ran their campaigns, but the leave campaign has been full of contradictions from the beginning.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) made an interesting speech. He, too, tended to talk about a second referendum, although he made the point that it is possible to reject the idea of another referendum while supporting the idea that Members of Parliament, who have been guaranteed a vote, have to be given a meaningful vote. I do not think that choosing between an option the Prime Minister says is unpalatable and one she says is unacceptable is anything like a meaningful vote.

I find it extraordinary that a Prime Minister who has told us so often that our relationship with the European Union cannot be based on a binary choice is so obsessed with giving us a binary choice when it comes to the crunch. She told us in October 2016 that controlling immigration is not a binary decision. In March 2017, she said:

“It is wrong to think of the single market as a binary issue”—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 190.]

In October 2016, she said that

“the way in which you deal with the customs union is not a binary choice”—[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 35.]

She must have meant it about the customs union, because she repeated that in November 2016, February 2017 and March 2018. That is only in the House of Commons Hansard. That does not include the number of times she has made the same comments at press conferences and in fancy speeches. In fact, the only time the Government seem to think that this is a binary question is whenever they want a decision to be made. In the referendum, we had a binary choice—in or out of the European Union, without any consideration of the infinite variety of what in or out could be. The Government palmed off any attempt to amend the article 50 Bill. We either had to support it in its entirety or reject it. In the first major speech the Prime Minister made about the European Union, she made a binary decision that we were leaving the customs union and the single market, before anybody, including the Prime Minister herself, had the faintest clue about where we would go after we had left those destinations.

Incidentally, I can advise the hon. Member for Bolton West that there is no such thing as a good no deal at the end of these negotiations. There is no such thing as a no deal that is better than a bad deal. Even the Government could not negotiate a deal worse than what no deal would mean for the people of these islands.

We are now being told that, when it comes to the last chance to avoid a catastrophic hard Brexit, we will be presented with a choice between a possibly horrific deal that the Government have agreed with the European Union and an even more horrific deal that they have failed to agree.

[Chris Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is incumbent not only on our Government but on the European Union to do the best thing for the peoples of Europe, which is to have a good negotiation and a good deal when we leave the EU?

[Peter Grant]

A better way of dealing with it is for the Parliament whose job is to hold the United Kingdom Government to account to concentrate on doing that and let our MEPs hold the European Commission and the European Council to account. The potential catastrophes at the end of the Brexit negotiations are piling up not because the European Union negotiators are not looking after the interests of the population of Europe, but because the United Kingdom Government are not looking after the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. They are looking after their own political skins more than anything else.

Last week’s stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary is a perfect example of that. So they go to nose to nose, probably both threatening to resign if they do not get their own way, and they come up with some kind of fudge. They then realise that they have been so busy fighting to score points off each other that no one has had the idea of trying to put together a solution that will be even vaguely acceptable to our colleagues in the European Union.

The hard-line Brexiteers are bitterly disappointed that Europe has not fallen apart. The 27 remaining member states of the European Union are doing what Europeans do well in a crisis: they are sticking together. Speak to parliamentarians and Ministers in almost any of the 27 countries and there is no suggestion that the Foreign Secretary or the International Trade Secretary will somehow drive wedges between our neighbours in mainland Europe. That will simply not happen, and the sooner the UK Government understand that the better.

The UK Government need to understand that they took a unilateral decision—without the backing of a referendum—to leave the customs union and the single market, and only then started to look at what the consequences might be. We cannot blame the Europeans for that, or the Irish for the catastrophe that the Government may be stoking up on the Irish border; the catastrophe is entirely of the United Kingdom’s making, and it is entirely up to the United Kingdom to sort it out. We cannot ask everyone else to sort out the mess that our own Government have made for us.

There has to be a meaningful vote in Parliament at the end of the process. There has to be a meaningful chance for the devolved nations to have a say—the voices of the devolved nations have been silenced throughout, despite all the promises about them being listened to and respected. None of the three devolved nations has had any real chance to influence the discussions.

The Prime Minister wants us to have a straight binary choice between unpalatable and unacceptable. I hope that we will now say to the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government that neither of those solutions is an acceptable position to put this Parliament in. At the last gasp, Parliament should have the opportunity to say, “No, Prime Minister, we’re not doing it—take it back and think again”—[Interruption.]

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

Order. [Hon. Members: “It was outside!”] Was it? I thought it was someone’s phone in the Chamber. Apologies. I call Peter Grant—[Interruption.]

[Tom Brake]

Demonstrators outside are saying, “Stop Brexit!” Good timing.

[Peter Grant]

They are indeed. I can speak for longer if you want, Mr Austin, but—

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

I thought that was coming from someone’s phone—apologies. Had you finished?

[Peter Grant]

I would love to have that on my phone, but I had finished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

That is a point that I have made on the Floor of the House: there are those within the governing party—though clearly a minority—who want Brexit at any cost to the political stability of our continent and to the economy of this country. They are driven by Brexit above everything, and the Labour party and I do not believe that that is in the interests of this country.

Since First Reading, having a meaningful vote for Parliament on the final deal has been one of the Labour party’s key tests for the withdrawal Bill. We have been clear that a binary “take it or leave it” vote, in a zero-sum game tactic from the Government, will in no way constitute a meaningful vote. Crucially, that view unites Members across parties, and that is why the House voted last December for the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), to give Parliament a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement—to the consternation of the Government.

The Government immediately looked for wriggle room to avoid meeting that ambition of Parliament. The Lords therefore added greater clarity about what constitutes a meaningful vote, by accepting the amendment moved by the Conservative peer, Viscount Hailsham, which provides for a motion and an Act and, in the event of the motion not passing, for any decision on the next steps to be firmly in Parliament’s hands. With two defeats under their belt on the issue, the Government have now moved their own amendment—but they have not moved far enough.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it slightly ironic that the Government and their friends at the Daily Mail are decrying the anti-patriotic behaviour of lordships who agreed 15 amendments that the Government did not like at the same time as agreeing 160-plus amendments that the Government did like?

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. There has been a series of contradictions over the years in the position that some extreme Brexiteers have taken on the House of Lords—some have been its greatest champions and opponents of its reform.

Let me come back to the Government’s amendment. If the House was to vote down a motion under their proposals, Parliament would lose all influence. We would get no more than a statement from the Government informing us how they will proceed, frustrating the ambition of the vote that we had in December. Let us be clear: the Government’s amendment does not stop them sidelining Parliament from a crucial decision that will determine our future relationship with the EU, and nor does it prevent us from crashing out without a deal.

Viscount Hailsham’s amendment is explicit that if we do not accept the Government’s deal, it is for Parliament to determine the next steps. We will not be boxed into accepting “take it or leave it” options. We support the amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out, it is Parliament that is elected to determine the country’s future. Viscount Hailsham's amendment would ensure Parliament directs the Government on how to proceed in the article 50 negotiations, in whatever way it sees fit at that time.

It is right that, in the words of the petition,

“A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson's choice”.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) is no longer in his seat; it is unfortunate that he misrepresented the petition’s objective and the use of “evil”. I do not think that the petitioners mean that a deal of some sort would in no sense be acceptable; their words were simply that the

“choice between a bad deal and no deal”

is not.

When Parliament makes a decision, all options have to be open, but the petitioners need to recognise that Parliament does not have the political mandate to overturn the referendum. To do so would create a democratic crisis. Clearly, some argue for a further referendum—those arguments were exercised today by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), although at one point he seemed confused about which petition he was talking about; and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. But there is no indication of majority public support for a further referendum. There is growing support for a public vote on the final deal, but when polled, people do not want staying in the EU necessarily to be an option on the ballot paper—they are seeking a choice between that deal and a better deal, without looking back at the original referendum choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Although I do not agree with that decision, I accept that that instruction was given. Can the Minister tell me who instructed the Government to leave the customs union and the single market?

[Suella Braverman]

To me and to the millions of people who listened to any of the debate in the run-up to that important vote—as I said, there was a record turnout in many constituencies—it is clear that it was said time and again that leaving the European Union would mean leaving the customs union and the single market. Someone would have had to be pretty isolated and switched off to ignore that central feature of the debate.

That is the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action achieved by any Government in the United Kingdom. After the referendum, the House voted by a clear majority to authorise the Prime Minister to trigger article 50, which provided the legal basis for our withdrawal and commenced the leaving process. In the recent general election, more than 80% of people voted for parties committed to respecting the result of the referendum. That is why I must say at this point that the amendments recently tabled by Labour, and the move in its policy, confirm our worst suspicions. Labour’s policy is now for us to remain in the single market and the customs union, and it seems likely to accept free movement of people. That looks like remain, it sounds like remain—yes, it is a policy in favour of remaining in the EU.

The instruction from the referendum cannot be ignored. The Government are clear that the British people voted to leave the EU, so that is what we must do. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU noted,

“the electorate voted for a Government to give them a referendum. Parliament voted to hold the referendum, the people voted in that referendum, and we are now honouring the result of that referendum, as we said we would.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 818.]

The Prime Minister said in October:

“This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 45.]

The UK can trust this Government to honour the referendum result. We recognise that to do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people, which would have worrying implications for our democracy.

Right hon. and hon. Members may regret the chain of events I have described, and they may regret that there was not a caveat that the result of the referendum could be overturned by Parliament if it did not like the result of the negotiations, but the time to add that caveat was when the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed. I note that many Members in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and the shadow Minister, for instance—voted in favour of passing that Act. That Act did not say that the referendum result would be the best of three, it did not say that, if we did not like the first result, we could go away and rerun the referendum to get the result we wanted, and it did not say that there had to be a certain result. That was the time to make these suggestions—not now, after the public has voted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

The Government will present to both Houses of Parliament the terms of the withdrawal agreement as agreed between the EU and the UK. We will also present the terms of our future economic partnership. There will be considerable opportunity for scrutiny of the terms of our final deal, and the motion will be presented to both Chambers. That will provide Parliament with the opportunity to accept or reject the deal—there is nothing more meaningful than that.

[Peter Grant]

On 25 April, the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee. Its Chair, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), was trying to tease out what the timing was likely to be and, in relation to the details of the final deal, the Secretary of State told us:

“We will know all of it, to the very last bits of the negotiation, way before we are in a position to put it to the House.”

Will the Minister clarify the Government’s present thinking on timescales? When can we expect to get that detailed statement on what the final deal will look like and on what date does she expect to put that to the House for a vote, so we can have an indication as to how many days, weeks, hours or minutes we will have for consideration before that?

[Suella Braverman]

We have been very clear, as has Michel Barnier on behalf of the EU, that we hope that by the time of the October European Council we will be in a position to have a full withdrawal agreement agreed between the EU and the UK, and detail on the terms of our future economic partnership.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. We need to ensure that we progress the negotiations in the interests of the United Kingdom and have a strong, friendly partnership with the EU after we leave. That should be our focus, and issues relating to the Irish border are a key part of that engagement.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is now over 15 months since the Prime Minister promised that the Government would as a priority bring forward a practical solution to the question of the Irish border. Will the Minister enlighten us on when we might get that practical solution to consider?

[Mr Walker]

We have put forward several proposals, which we are still in the process of discussing with the Commission. It is vital that we have agreed on a number of key areas in the joint report, such as the common travel area, the single electricity market and funding in Ireland, and it is right that we get the talks right so that the right language is written into law at the end of the process for both sides to follow.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister and his colleagues are good at telling us what the Irish border will not be, but we are still no closer to having any idea about what it will be. This question could easily have been linked to the previous one, because the Government’s proposed solution still belongs in the realms of science fiction. If the Minister cannot tell us when we will get to see the practical solution that was promised as a priority, will he at least give us an end date—an absolute guarantee—by which, as a matter of confidence, the Government will have brought forward something that is practical or, at the very least, credible?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has pressed us hard on this issue already. The analysis that we published last Friday shows that we are looking at legislative frameworks only in a small minority of areas, and legislation may be required only in relation to a few specific elements. In Scotland, our current analysis indicates that 83 out of 107 powers returning from Brussels will pass directly to Edinburgh on exit. Similarly, the majority of powers for Wales and Northern Ireland will flow directly to Cardiff and Belfast.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is interesting that it took the Government six months to come up with a single amendment to a Bill that threatens to destroy the devolution settlement, but their colleagues in the Scottish Tory party took less than a week to come up with 100 wrecking amendments to a Bill designed to protect the settlement.

Given that the question was about the mechanisms to agree common policy frameworks, will the Minister clarify what the procedure will be if the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill goes through with the Government’s amendment to clause 11? Does the amendment guarantee that common policy frameworks must be agreed by all four nations working as a partnership of equals, or does it still give the UK Government the power to impose the frameworks against the will of the devolved nations?

[Mr Walker]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman congratulates our Scottish colleagues on their work rate. We are, of course, still seeking consent for the Bill, and discussions to achieve that continue. The UK Government have responsibility for protecting the UK’s common market. We cannot have our ability to take action restricted, so we do not think it right for any devolved Administration effectively to have a veto on common frameworks. The UK and the devolved Administrations have always been clear that we will need common frameworks once we leave the EU to make it simple for businesses from different parts of the UK to trade with each other and to help the UK to fulfil its international obligations. The conversation is ongoing, and we will continue to work with the devolved Administrations to secure an outcome that is in the best interests of every part of the UK.

[Peter Grant]

I note the criticism of the Scottish National party, the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Greens, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Government of Northern Ireland—and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, for that matter—for all failing to fall into step with the United Kingdom Government. Is it not a fact that, despite promises of a partnership of equals, the Government’s preferred legislation will still allow a power grab by Westminster against the devolved nations? It looks like a power grab; it reads like a power grab; and it certainly smells like a power grab. Why will the Government not admit that it is a power grab?

[Mr Walker]

It is absolutely clear that not a single power that the devolved Administrations currently have would be taken away or in any way affected by this Bill. We are talking about a significant increase in the powers, as they return from Brussels, for each of the devolved Administrations. I think that is something that all parties should welcome.

European Union Citizenship

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It is a huge pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on his speech, which opened the debate. He set out the case in his usual forensic style, providing great clarity and detail about what is being proposed. I also thoroughly enjoyed the speeches from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who once again proved why he is one of the superstar performers of this Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), who again showed why he is one of the rising stars of Welsh politics, and my parliamentary leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who spoke with her usual great authority, concentrating on the example following the independence of Ireland at the beginning of the last century. She gave us a fantastic history lesson in her contribution.

On the morning after the referendum, on 24 June 2016, I had been given the honour of being the guest speaker at the graduation ceremony of the local further education college in my county, Coleg Sir Gâr. The ceremony was held at the fabulous Ffos Las racecourse in Carwe, in my constituency. Somewhat bleary-eyed and shellshocked after watching the referendum results in the early hours of the morning, I vividly remember standing up at the podium and looking out at the hundreds of young graduates and their families before me. I dropped my speaking notes and went completely off script. Instead of diving into my speech, to talk about how proud they should be of their achievements and how they should look forward to their future, I apologised to those young people.

My apology was based on being part of the political class that had allowed a set of circumstances that would reduce their life chances and opportunities compared with those that had been available to me and the generations before me—primarily the right to travel, live, work, receive healthcare and reside in any other part of the European Union, among other rights. We have had powerful contributions from several Members, and that is the crux of what we are trying to grapple with today.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise to his colleagues that I missed the start of the debate. The reason was that, like the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke a few minutes ago, I am a member of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, and some of us had the privilege of meeting a delegation from the Parliament of Slovakia who are in Westminster.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he does not have to give a reason for intervening. Don’t worry about that; we just want to hear your intervention.

[Peter Grant]

It is highly relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker, because most of the people we met were born in the shadow of the iron curtain. They now have the right to travel all over western Europe and a great deal of central and eastern Europe. Does the hon. Gentleman share my bafflement that while those people are celebrating their fairly recently won right to travel everywhere, we have a Government here that seem determined to take measures that might endanger the right of future generations of UK citizens to travel as freely as our Slovakian friends can travel now?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As always, he makes a very valid point. I congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing on the Select Committee. I was privileged to serve on that Committee with him in the last Parliament, and his contributions are always extremely valuable.

Much of the debate following the referendum has surrounded the economic impact of Brexit. There is little doubt in my mind that the best way to protect the Welsh economy is to stay inside the single market and the customs union, and that has been my position from day one. The issue of European Union citizenship rights of UK subjects, however, has not had the level of consideration it deserves.

At this point, I should pay tribute to Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP representing the whole of Wales who commissioned a report on that issue in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Her work has gathered considerable support in the European Parliament—including, critically, from Guy Verhofstadt, the lead Brexit negotiator for the European Parliament. Indeed, I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has had discussions with Mr Verhofstadt on that issue. I would be grateful to learn from the Minister in his response whether that issue was discussed yesterday with Mr Verhofstadt during his visit to London. The idea has also gained the support of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

I sense, perhaps wrongly, that the British Government have an open mind to what we are proposing today. I am being kind, because it has been a very good-natured debate so far. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—who I am delighted to see in his place and thank for his contribution, which hit the nail on the head—said:

“The aim of this exercise is to be good for Europe and good for Britain, which means good for the citizens of Europe and Britain. That is what we intend to do.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 947.]

In her speech last Friday at Mansion House, the Prime Minister failed to provide any great clarity on some of the main issues that have concerned Members in relation to the British Government’s Brexit policy. However, a part of her speech did catch my attention, when she conceded that, despite her hard Brexit policy, she would seek to negotiate UK associate membership status with several EU agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Absolutely—hear, hear! The point about young people staying in the highlands is critical, but, conversely, their ability to move freely throughout Europe, gain skills and come back is also very important. I have personal experience of this. My two boys went off to work in Europe, gain skills and broaden their horizons. One has already come back to Scotland to add to our economy the skills he gained in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) mentioned, the ability of young people to travel through and study and work in Europe and to live as European citizens has been transformational, not just for them but for our economy—locally, in the highlands, across Scotland and, I contend, across the whole of the UK. We should cherish that. It should not be under threat.

[Peter Grant]

As a student, I not only benefited from the ability to travel in France and elsewhere but spent a month just outside my hon. Friend’s constituency working on a fruit farm in Beauly—which, of course, is French for “beautiful place”. Does he agree that, as well as people from the UK losing out if they cannot travel freely across Europe, if European citizens are restricted in their ability to come here, young people here will lose out on the benefits of mixing with people from a wide range of backgrounds, and as well as the free movement of people, the free movement of ideas and beliefs is vital and should be retained?

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend makes a terrific point that we should pause to reflect on during this discussion, and it is not just about the ability of young people to interact in that way. I have often said that I aspire to be an older person and that I am making good progress—I have used that line before and will do so again. It is not just about young people; European citizenship is key to everyone’s ability to broaden their horizons.

Just today—ironically—there was an announcement about the introduction of free inter-rail travel across Europe. Young people face losing out on that; they face losing out on the end to roaming charges and consequently a loss of connectivity; and, as mentioned earlier, they face losing the European health protection that has enabled them to reduce the cost of living and studying.

Department for Exiting the European Union

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I begin by saying that I welcome the fact that the House now has the opportunity to debate estimates? Like many Members who previously served in local government, I was astonished when I first arrived that the House of Commons appeared to spend no time at all discussing the Government’s expenditure, when many of us would have sat through many hours of committee meetings poring line by line over the expenditure plans of the local authorities of which we were members. I doubt that this debate—this is already evident—will feature the kind of consensus we saw in the last debate on the need for more expenditure. I have to confess that this is one area of Government spending where, to be frank, I wish we were not spending anything at all, but we are where we are following the referendum result.

I will, however, just pick up on one point made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), whom I congratulate on having secured this debate. Perhaps if the Government had not wasted so much time repeating the mantra, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” we would not be spending so much money on preparing for no deal, which would be clearly disastrous for the British economy and, frankly, I say to the Minister, would never get through this House of Commons. That is a consequence of choices that the Government have made.

It is fair to say, and not to be argued with, that relatively little preparation had been made in government for a leave result in the referendum, but clearly the establishment of DExEU was a logical and necessary consequence. I have to say, however, that the civil servants and, indeed, the Ministers who work in the Department face a really substantial and highly complex task, because for 45 years our trade, laws, relationships, rules and standards have been inextricably intertwined with those of our European friends and neighbours. The task we now face is the process of pulling out the plug of that relationship while trying to fashion a new plug in the course of negotiation, and everyone is wondering, when we stick it in the socket and press the switch, what will still work and what will not. The honest answer is that, as things stand, we just do not know.

The Department, of course, has been established from scratch and has recruited very able people from all across Whitehall. Lots of civil servants wanted to work in DExEU because of the nature of the challenge, which is a once in a generation—probably a once in a civil service career—opportunity. The Department has been set the task of both understanding the implications of Brexit and of advising Ministers on the choices that might be made in how to handle it.

On the first of those tasks, drawing on my experience as Chair of the Select Committee, I know that, in truth, the more we look, the more we encounter questions that currently have no answer. On the second, it was clearly sensible of DExEU to, in effect, subcontract to other Government Departments the task of talking at the start of the process to stakeholders about the important issues that Brexit raises, but I have to say that, when it comes to development of policy, I have a great deal of sympathy with civil servants. Unusually, they are not suffering from a lack of money; they are suffering from a lack of clarity from the people who head the Department, Ministers, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet about what the UK Government want.

In my experience, if you give direction to the civil service, it will get on and do the task using all the expertise, energy and ability for which it is highly regarded in this country and around the world. However, all those qualities cannot make up for a lack of leadership, let us be frank, caused by the divisions—open secret—in the Cabinet on what the right thing to do is. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister sought to move Olly Robins, who was the permanent secretary in the Department for Exiting the European Union, across to the Cabinet Office to work directly to her rather than remain in his role as permanent secretary.

Looking at the scrutiny that has taken place thus far of DExEU—reference has been made in part to some of it—the National Audit Office said in July last year that the Government had failed to take a unified approach to talks with the EU. The Comptroller and Auditor General commented, in a rather unusually colourful way, that the Minister had left hopes of a successful Brexit at risk of falling apart “like a chocolate orange”. I suspect that when the history of Brexit comes to be written there will be a special footnote for chocolate oranges, “Mad Max” and this week’s favourite phrase, snake oil. Frankly, they could remain in the dustbin of those footnotes as far as I am concerned.

In November, the NAO reported on DExEU and the Government’s preparations for Brexit. It said, as we heard from the hon. Member for North East Fife who opened the debate, that 310 work streams had been identified. Some mid-sized Departments, in particular the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but also the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, have a lot of issues they need to grapple with. Not surprisingly, there is a lot of work to be done. They have to formulate policy, draft legislation, consult with the devolved Administrations and, in some cases, new systems and processes have to be invented. One task facing the Home Office is how to document 3 million European citizens when, because of the system of free movement we have operated, we do not know who some of them are. The Treasury always starts by saying to Departments that they will have to do all that within their existing budgets, but we know that last summer and autumn it had to review and agree bids for additional funding for 2017-18.

There is a very complex structure across Whitehall for dealing with Brexit, but the Public Accounts Committee suggested:

“No one in the civil service is clearly responsible for making sure that arrangements overall are fit-for-purpose for Brexit.”

In its report of 7 February, the PAC concluded that

“Government Departments have got to face up to some very hard choices”

and that

“the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) and the Cabinet Office do not have a robust enough plan to identify and recruit the people and skills needed quickly.”

I note the high turnover in staff in DExEU. It said there was a need for

“much greater transparency from DExEU, HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office on formally setting out who is responsible for what and on the progress that is being made.”

It said that accountability was unclear and that that

“risked undermining speedy decision-making”.

I will come back to that point. It also said that there was a

“paucity of information in the public domain”.

On that last point, it is frankly extraordinary that so many decisions have been made about the kind of Brexit the Government wish to pursue in the absence of any estimate, any evidence or any analysis whatever. When the Secretary of State admitted to me, in testimony to the Select Committee, that when the Cabinet decided to leave the customs union it had done so without having before it any assessment whatever of the economic impact, that said it all. Having given Parliament the impression that detailed impact analysis was being done on different sectors of the economy, we were—I think the whole House was—astonished to discover that this was not the case. It was not a lack of money in the estimates that caused that; it was a lack of policy and an apparent lack of interest.

We have before us the exit analysis, which the latest Humble Address instructed the Government to pass over to the Select Committee and which has been shared in confidence with all Members of this House and the other place. We have had the chance to see it, and the public have had a chance to read part of what it says, courtesy of BuzzFeed and the Financial Times. We know that for the first time it has attempted to look at some costs of the different choices when it comes to our future economic relationship with the European Union, although Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box—indeed, they were at pains to point it out when we debated the Humble Address—that it does not include the Government’s preferred option. I presume the reason is that those who were doing the modelling did not know what the Government’s preferred option was at the time they undertook that work.

The Brexit Committee has decided that it is minded to publish the Government’s EU exit analysis, but it has asked the Secretary of State whether he would wish any specific details to be redacted on the basis that they would either be sensitive to the negotiations, market sensitive or commercially confidential. As a Committee, we have always argued in favour of as much transparency as possible in the process, without damaging our negotiating position. If we are going to be able to do that, we need as much information as possible.

If the press reports of what the exit analysis has to say are correct, it is clear that the economy will be less big and less strong than it would otherwise have been, because of Brexit. Incidentally, that assessment is shared by many other organisations that have done their own economic impact assessment.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will, to my fellow Select Committee member.

[Peter Grant]

It is now in the public domain, I think for the first time, that the Committee intends to publish as much of these documents as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman see the contradiction in the two claims that have been made by those who oppose publication? On the one hand, the documents contain information that would be very useful to our negotiating partners or opponents in the Brexit negotiations, but on the other, they are so unreliable that they are no good to anybody. Does he accept that there is a blatant contradiction that the Government have to address?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates exactly the point that I was going to make. I should point out that the information about the Committee taking that decision last week came into the public domain when our minutes went up on our website, so it is available for everybody to see.

I was just about to say that the assessments of the economic impact of some policy choices that the Government face have been hotly contested by some. Civil servants have been accused of producing figures to support views that they already hold, rather than undertaking an objective examination of the evidence. I have to say that to attack civil servants and Government economists in this way is both wrong and unfair. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is also a member of the Select Committee, was absolutely right to make the point that the analysis is, rightly, heavily caveated. That is important, because trying to forecast what the future holds is a difficult business, as we all know, and there is a strong argument for saying that if the information is going to be in the public domain, the nature of the caveats should be too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to sum up this debate. Given that we are short on time, I will keep my remarks brief.

There has been interest in this debate from everyone but Tory Back Benchers—it is noticeable that none of them wanted to speak—so I hope we might have even more time next time around. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said that this is the first time we have had anything like a proper chance to examine Government estimates. Who knows? Maybe by the time this Parliament is 321 years old we will have financial scrutiny procedures as inclusive and as thorough as those that the Scottish Parliament put in place before it was one year old, assuming this Parliament ever gets to 321 years old—I would not bet on it.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I cannot take interventions from Members who chose not to put in to speak. There is limited time for the three Front-Bench speeches, and I want to give the Minister time to answer the questions that have been asked.

When it comes to Brexit, DExEU is practically the only Department that has not seen its budget increased during the year. The Home Office needs more money to cope with an immigration system that will do who knows what because we do not know what immigration will look like. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs money for a customs system to deal with who knows what customs arrangements we have after Brexit.

It was interesting that we heard from the Labour Front Bencher that being in a customs union with the customs union is no different from being in the customs union except that it is not enshrined in the treaties. Given that that distinction first appeared in the Tory party’s White Paper shortly after the Brexit referendum, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm tonight whether that is the Government’s understanding: being in a customs union with the customs union is not any different in practice from being in the customs union. Good news it is, partly because it simplifies things and partly because it saves Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about £400 million of unnecessary expenditure.

Interestingly, despite all the other expenditure we have seen in relation to Brexit, a proper analysis has not yet been done as to the likely impacts of all the different scenarios we could be faced with. We keep getting told that the few pages that have been done are so full of caveats that they are not particularly worth while. What does that say about a Government who committed themselves to a hard Brexit—to leaving the customs union and the single market—without a single paragraph of analysis about what the economic impact would be? That is especially the case as we see now that the economic impact is a 5%, 10% or 15% fall in economic growth over the next few years, with billions of pounds wiped out of the economy. The Government have committed themselves to that without even stopping to think about the impact. If that is not complacency and incompetence to an almost criminal degree, I genuinely do not know what is.

The most optimistic noise that the Brexit Secretary has been able to make recently has been to tell us that leaving the European Union will not be quite as bad as “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome”. Previously, the Foreign Secretary predicted that it would be as successful as “Titanic”. That has prompted a bit of a Twitter storm, with people trying to suggest what disaster movies would best describe the process of leaving the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) tried to broaden the description by talking about soap operas. I do not know whether it should be “That’s when good neighbours stop being good friends” or perhaps “Home and Away”, because the Prime Minister tells one story when she is at home here and a very different story when she is away in Brussels trying to woo the European Union.

Rather than talking about a blockbuster disaster movie, it may surprise Members if I say that the Government are actually heading for a real blockbuster of a Brexit. On 1 January 1973, the UK officially joined the Common Market, as it was then known. Wee Jimmy Osmond was at the top of the charts, but a few weeks later he was displaced by those immortal glam rockers “The Sweet”. Those of us lucky enough to be growing up in those times, which were an epitome of a combination of the best possible taste in music, fashion and television, will never forget the lyrics of that immortal song, the only No. 1 they ever had. Its chorus reads like a press statement coming out at the end of a Brexit Cabinet meeting:

“Does anyone know the way?

There’s got to be a way…

We just haven’t got a clue what to do.”

Or, as a constituent more pithily said to me a few days ago about Brexit:

“They couldnae make a bigger bahookie of it if they tried”.

I should explain that that guid Scots word does not mean “elbow”, although given the Government’s performance to date I am not sure they would know the difference.

The only question to be asked on the Brexit estimates today is: if this is how much we have to take away—hundreds of millions of pounds—from our health service, from desperately needed investment in social housing, from our welfare system and from our understaffed and under-equipped armed forces, and spend to create a machinery for a failed Brexit, can we imagine how much we would have to spend to make it work? No Government could make it work, and this Government certainly cannot. They have to change. They have got to get back around the negotiating table and get us away from a cliff edge of a hard Brexit. Otherwise, the amounts of money that have been included in the expenditure estimates for the Brexit Department will be a drop in the ocean compared with the overall cost to the people of these islands.

[Douglas Ross]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) mentioned at the opening of his remarks that there had been no Conservative Back-Bench speakers and he criticised Conservative Members for that. May I ask, through you, whether he would agree that that would therefore be a criticism of the Scottish National party, which in a four-hour defence debate immediately preceding this one could not muster one Back-Bench speaker?

Leaving the EU: No-deal Alternatives

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on securing it and on her forensically detailed devastation of the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. Sadly, 62 of her colleagues are not listening, but I hope that the Prime Minister and her Cabinet are.

Yesterday, among other Brexit hyperboles, the Environment Secretary announced that his colleagues the Foreign Secretary and the Brexit Secretary were the Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo of the UK Government. I had never thought of Ronaldo before when thinking about Brexit, although the word “messy” has crossed my mind on a number of occasions over the past couple of years. However, it strikes me that they are two people who perform all over the world, but always on opposing sides—never on the same team. They also have a very clear vested interest in getting the Brits out of Europe as quickly as possible; with apologies to Chelsea fans, Messi did his wee bit for that last night. I assume that neither of the Cabinet Members in question can copy the tax evasion conviction that Señor Messi acquired a few years ago, so perhaps the analogy breaks down there.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is not about to contradict me on that point.

[Crispin Blunt]

No, although as a Chelsea fan I feel the pain of the hon. Gentleman’s Messi remark.

Since we are talking about the movement of people and services, what is the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of the implications of an EEA-EFTA arrangement—if that turns out to be the deal—for free movement of people post-Brexit and for the United Kingdom’s contributions to the European institutions?

[Peter Grant]

I am not actively promoting the EEA-EFTA option. Although it is significantly less bad than the no-deal option, it is still not good enough. For the record, I repeat that the position of the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party has always been that free movement of people is a good thing, not a bad thing that we have to accept in return for the benefits of free movement of goods, services and capital. It is a good thing for Scotland and—I believe—for the rest of the United Kingdom; I am disappointed that so many people in the rest of the United Kingdom do not accept that point of view. The contribution that EU foreign nationals have made to my constituency is far too important even to attempt to measure in purely financial terms.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) commented that this debate could not be more timely. That is certainly true, especially given the publication yesterday of a letter by the 62 out of 650 MPs who have taken it upon themselves to dictate to the Prime Minister what to do. It is interesting that the demands of 62 out of 650 have to be followed, but the expressed wish of 62 out of 100 people in Scotland in the EU referendum can simply be swept aside and ignored.

I commend the hon. Member for Eddisbury for reminding us that there is no democratic mandate for leaving the single market or the customs union. There is a mandate for two of the four nations in the UK to leave the European Union, but there is no mandate for leaving the single market.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry, but I really do not have much time and many other hon. Members wish to speak.

It is significant that the 2015 election, in which the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that said yes to the single market, was the only one in the last 25 years in which they secured an overall majority in Parliament. Two years later, they entered an election with a 20% lead in the opinion polls, published a manifesto to leave the single market and then lost their overall majority. That does not mean that single market membership was the only thing that mattered, but as an indication of a mandate from the public it certainly does not point to a hard no-deal Brexit.

We always talk about WTO terms as if they would solve all our trade problems. However, apart from the fact that international trade deals cannot be created overnight—the transition period gives the opportunity to complete them, either substantially or totally—it is against the treaties of the European Union to agree to allow the United Kingdom or any other member state to sign and implement trade deals unilaterally or bilaterally outside EU deals.

That part of the 62 Brexiteers’ demands simply will not be accepted by the European Union, and I think they know that; I think that demand is the wrecking amendment with which they are trying to wreck any deal whatever. WTO terms do not cover the single sky agreement: if we leave without a deal, the planes will stop flying. Nor do they cover Euratom: if we leave without a deal, the life-saving medical isotopes will stop coming across the channel in time to be of any use.

A lot has been said about Northern Ireland. I am frankly terrified by the number of hard Brexiteers who are prepared to sacrifice the peace process in Northern Ireland for their ideological obsession with a hard Brexit. I hope that they genuinely do not understand what they are putting at risk, but I fear that they are prepared to risk it all.

If we go for a no-deal Brexit, we will be getting rid of a lot of the boxes on Mr Edmonds’s table. It may well be that the only box left is the one with the penny in it.

European Free Trade Association

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. I am grateful to her for making that point, because such points need to be heard loud and clear so that the misconceptions can be fought off.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I was a bit concerned when the hon. Gentleman referred to pragmatic Brexiteers and pointed at me; I may be pragmatic, but I would certainly not call myself a Brexiteer. I am interested in his suggestion that the UK would be welcomed into EFTA. Can he give us his basis for that? Three expert witnesses appeared before the Exiting the European Union Committee yesterday—I understand three more will appear today—and all of them thought it extremely unlikely that the four EFTA members would want the UK to join, partly because the UK’s population is about four times bigger than the current total population of EFTA, and there would be significant concerns about upsetting the balance of EFTA. What indications has he had from the four Governments of the current EFTA countries that they wait with open arms to welcome the United Kingdom in?

[Stephen Hammond]

I apologise if I, with a sweeping hand gesture, put the hon. Gentleman into the Brexit camp, which he does not wish to be in; that was certainly not my intention. I have had lunch with the president of the EFTA court, and I had lunch with the ambassador to the United Kingdom of one of those countries yesterday, but let me quote the Norwegian ambassador to the EU:

“We would maintain an open-minded stance in the event of an application for EFTA membership. Overall, it is in Norway’s interest to maintain as close trade policy cooperation with the U.K. as possible”.

There is a lot of scaremongering about this point, yet it is clear from speaking to any of the ambassadors that the reality is that they would welcome our application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to begin the winding-up speeches. Scotland’s preferred option was not to leave the European Union at all. It is dangerous to conduct this debate on the basis that all the arguments have been lost. I sympathise with a great deal of what hon. Members have said today, but their starting point seems to be, “We have now lost the argument—we are in for a hard Brexit and for coming out of the customs union and the single market, but let’s see how much we can salvage.” It is not too late for the Government to come to their senses and decide not to leave the single market or the customs union.

It is important that we continue to compare the benefits and disadvantages of EFTA membership not with the hard Brexit that we are heading for, but with where we are now. As hon. Members have said, we had a referendum over membership of the European Union but nobody in the United Kingdom has ever voted in a referendum on the single market or the customs union, so none of us has the right to say that we know how people feel about our membership of them.

I must remind hon. Members of the likely economic impact. Some have decided that the economic forecasts are not worth the paper that they are written on. Presumably they think the billions of pounds it costs to run the Department that produces those forecasts are not worth it either, so I look forward to the Estimates debate in a few weeks’ time—I can think of a big saving to our spending on the Treasury. The Scottish Government’s paper “Scotland’s Place in Europe” indicates that over the 10 years after Brexit, GDP in Scotland is likely to fall by £11 billion a year and public spending is likely to fall by £3.7 billion a year, on top of any reduction imposed from Westminster. That is twice Scotland’s total expenditure on further and higher education, which demonstrates the scale of economic damage that we face.

The UK Government say that they have not done any impact analysis, but they have done analysis of the impact, which is not the same thing. I have not yet seen those papers in their Fort Knox establishment on Parliament Street, so I can only quote from what has already been put in the public domain. The Buzzfeed papers show that the Treasury think that at best we will see a 2% reduction in economic growth, even if we remain in the single market, and at worst we could face an 8% reduction, which would be a recession like none that we have ever seen or ever want to see. We are talking about a serious threat to the economic and social wellbeing of these islands.

I recognise that membership of EFTA—if we are allowed in, although it is still not guaranteed that the four existing members will want us to join—would not be as bad for us as falling off the cliff edge, but it would still be significantly worse than where we are now. I hope that all hon. Members who have argued for EFTA today will not accept that the argument about full membership of the single market or the customs union has been lost. EFTA countries are not in the customs union; we heard evidence from several witnesses in the Exiting the European Union Committee yesterday about what that means for Switzerland. In some ways, the Swiss position appears to be closest to what the Government want, because officially it does not include free movement of people, although in practice it pretty much does.

[Heidi Alexander]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I will give way once, but I am conscious of time.

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand the note of caution that the hon. Gentleman articulates about EFTA, but I also understand that Scottish National party policy is to remain in the single market. If his party does not favour remaining in the European economic area by staying in EFTA, how does it propose to remain in the single market?

[Peter Grant]

As I said, our best option is to respect the wishes of the 62% not to be dragged out of the European Union, but if that option is taken off the table—

[Paul Masterton]

indicated dissent.

[Peter Grant]

I note that Scottish Conservatives want to pooh-pooh the idea that 62% of the population of Scotland can just be ignored. My concern about EFTA is not that I do not like what it offers, but that it does not offer nearly as much as we have now. In particular, it does not involve membership of the customs union.

Switzerland does not have what it regards as a hard border with the European Union. Apart from its border with Liechtenstein, it is completely surrounded by land borders with EU countries, but most people travelling in and out do not notice anything like a hard border. Nevertheless, it estimates that approximately 2% of vehicle traffic is stopped and searched. Applying that model to the only land border that the United Kingdom will have with the European Union would result in 200 stop-and-searches a day near the border on the island of Ireland. That is simply not acceptable, and it cannot be allowed to happen.

Even the most favourable—or least unfavourable—scenario for leaving the customs union is likely to create significant security problems in Ireland. It is not just about having a hard border. We have an agreement on all sides that there will be no infrastructure on the Irish border, but it is very difficult for somewhere inside the customs union to have a border with no infrastructure whatever with somewhere outside it. There will be significant repercussions for the whole of Ireland if the United Kingdom leaves the customs union.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Peter Grant]

I really do not have time.

Those repercussions are among the reasons—they are possibly the single most pressing reason—why we have to persuade the Government that they have got it wrong. The unilateral and politically motivated decision to leave the customs union was a mistake, but there is still time for it to be rectified. There is still time for the Government to accept that they got it wrong and that they do not have a referendum mandate to take us out of the customs union or the single market.

I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that the four EFTA countries are among the wealthiest in the world by GDP per capita. It is not only EFTA countries that are in the top 15 or 16, and certainly above the United Kingdom; so are Luxembourg, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Denmark, none of which are in EFTA but all of which are in the single market. Membership of the single market and the customs union may be a factor, or it may be that all the countries I mentioned and all four EFTA countries have the status of being small, independent, modern European nations—perhaps that is what we should be looking at, but that is an argument for another day.

I must sound a final word of caution. Although hon. Members have referred favourably to the Norwegian and Swiss situations, we were told yesterday in the Exiting the European Union Committee about the Swiss People’s party, which is a bit like UKIP with a Swiss accent but is the biggest single party in the Swiss Parliament. It has initiated the process of calling a referendum—a popular initiative, as the Swiss constitution describes it—to extricate Switzerland from EFTA and pull out from agreements with the European Union. Although a lot of countries originally saw EFTA or the European economic area as part of an accession process to get from nowhere to full membership of the European Union, it appears that there is a big danger of the hard right in Switzerland treating EFTA as a way of cutting its links with the European Union. So let us be careful: we may think that the minority in this House who want a hard Brexit will be satisfied and let things lie if we somehow persuade the Government to go for EFTA, but it will not be long before they seek to follow the Swiss example. They will agitate for a referendum as they did before, not on leaving the European Union this time but on the hardest of all hard Brexits.

As I have said before, and as I think the vast majority of hon. Members believe, a hard Brexit would be economically and socially calamitous for the people of these islands. It is still not too late for the Government to give a guarantee that they will not go for that kind of Brexit. They should not simply say that they want to join EFTA, but go further and say that they want to remain in the single market and the customs union—not for two or three years after we leave the European Union, but for as long as we possibly can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Fernandes]

We are seeing a rise in manufacturing and in exports, and UK foreign direct investment is at a record high. The economy is doing very well, and there have been encouraging signs and votes of confidence in the UK economy since Brexit. As we enter the next phase of the negotiations, we want to ensure that the automotive sector benefits from any arrangement. That will be a priority for the Government.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

We now know—no thanks to the Government—that all the analysis that the Government have done to date shows that Brexit is bad news. We know that the Prime Minister was shown that analysis a few days ago, and we know that the first thing she did was to jump on a plane to China. Will the Minister confirm the accuracy of the reports yesterday that the Government’s analysis also shows that their obsession with cutting EU migration will be seriously bad for the British economy?

[Suella Fernandes]

We are in the middle of the negotiations, but when it comes to migration, it is clear that the UK will be committed to designing its own immigration policy, which is determined by skills, talent and brains. That is what will drive our economy forward, and that is what will create jobs and growth.

[Peter Grant]

My question was whether yesterday’s report was correct. I take it from the Minister’s attempt to dodge the question that that report, like the previous ones, was entirely accurate. Given that the Government’s own analysis shows that leaving the European Union is bad news, leaving the customs union is bad news and leaving the single market is bad news—and now that we know that cutting immigration from the European Union is bad news—do the Government have any plans, at any time before Brexit day, to adopt a strategy that is based on facts and evidence, rather than on blind ideology?

[Suella Fernandes]

The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not Government policy. It comes with significant caveats and is limited in nature. It is clear that there are significant benefits from our departure from the EU and the customs union. First, we have the chance to pursue our independent global trade policy and foster growing economic ties with fast-growing economies for the first time in 40 years. Secondly, we will be free from the common external tariff, which could lead to a drop in consumer prices for British citizens. Lastly, we have the golden opportunity to build a new customs arrangement with the EU that is world-leading and enables prosperity, jobs and growth.