Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome the chance to contribute to this debate. I hope that we can concentrate on the fundamentally important matter at hand. This debate is not about which party’s position on Brexit has been more chaotic; it is about the importance of making sure that Parliament and the public have information to which they are entitled to hold us all to account. A few minutes ago, I was reminded of what a pity it is that these analyses were not available before 23 June 2016.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and those in the leave campaign had a moral and an ethical duty to do this work and to give a proper timescale, as we called for at the time of the Brexit debate? Does he think that the assessments were not published because the Government are scared of the truth or because they would not fit on the side of a bus?

[Peter Grant]

I suspect that it may have been all the above and more reasons besides.

Is it not ironic that yet again, in response to a decision that was supposed to restore sovereignty to Parliament, for those who believe in such an idea, it now appears that even the Parliament that exercises sovereignty on behalf of Her Majesty does not have the right to instruct the Government to make representations to Her Majesty on our behalf? We can ask, and the Government can simply ignore—well, they cannot ignore, but they can say, “No, we’re no’ doing it,” which apparently is not the same as ignoring. What an utter shambles of a way to run a sweetie shop, never mind a country.

I have been a very long-standing supporter of open government and freedom of information. I remember as an opposition SNP councillor being in the strange position of enthusiastically supporting legislation proposed by the then Labour-Lib Dem coalition in the Scottish Parliament against complaints from Labour councillors that it would somehow undermine the working of the council. I believe that improved public availability of information always leads to better government. Occasions when information needs to be restricted, or some information needs to be redacted, should be seen very much as the exception rather than the rule.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a legal case pending, which my colleague in the European Parliament, Molly Scott Cato, is leading. Does he agree that rather than going through all the extra work, time and taxpayers’ money involved in fighting a legal case, the Government should just show us what it is in the public interest to show us now?

[Peter Grant]

I was going to say that, not having seen the information, I am at a disadvantage compared with the Cabinet, but I am not convinced that I am, because I do not think most of them have seen it either. I am perfectly prepared to accept that some of it—perhaps quite a lot of it—cannot be made public, but I do not think a document exists that cannot be made public in some form. If the Government really want to give the public information, there are always ways in which details can be removed.

The comment has been made that we are talking about public information, paid for by the public and produced by a public organisation, which exists only for the benefit of the public. I always take the view that information should be disclosed where possible and withheld only where necessary. My view of freedom of information was eloquently expressed 250 years ago, and I am pleased that Madam Deputy Speaker is still here to hear this, although she is no longer in the Chair:

“Here’s freedom to them that wad read,

Here’s freedom to them that wad write,

There’s nane ever fear’d that the truth should be heard,

But they whom the truth would indite.”

I appreciate that for some Members, that might be a difficult thing to think about just now.

I have always been convinced that far too many public bodies have hidden behind statutory exemptions in freedom of information legislation, not to protect the interests of the public but to protect the interests of those who withhold the information. That seems to have played a significant part in the Government’s thought processes in this instance. A member of the Government originally claimed that even to confirm that the analyses existed would somehow fatally undermine the UK’s negotiating position with the European Union. It is hard to see how anybody could make the UK’s negotiating position any more untenable than it already is, but let us look at how making any of the information available might weaken the UK’s position.

It seems to me that there are three possible scenarios. In scenario 1, the secret information shows that the UK’s position is a lot stronger than any of us suspected—I do not know; that might be possible—so instead of negotiating from a position of weakness, the UK is negotiating from a position of considerable strength. How does it weaken our negotiating position if those on the other side of the table think that we are strong, rather than weak? It does not, so in scenario 1, it is in the UK’s interests for the European Union to have the information.

In scenario 2, the analysis simply confirms what everybody knows and what analysis from everybody else under the sun has already indicated, which is that leaving the European Union is seriously bad for the UK economy, that it is seriously bad for us socially and culturally, and that it will weaken our reputation worldwide, emboldening other potential trade partners to push for ever more difficult and damaging trade deals and ensuring that we have to go cap in hand to look for them.

[John Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it is at all possible to have a worse fishing policy and to do more damage to the Scottish fishing industry outside the EU than in it? Why does he not speak up for Brexit, because it has lots of great features?

[Peter Grant]

I do not think that it is possible for any Government to sell out Scotland’s fishing industry in the way the UK Government did 50 years ago. That is a matter of public record, but it could not be made known to the fishing communities or anyone else for 30 years, because it was covered by the Official Secrets Act at the time. That is the reason why Governments withhold information for as long as possible—not in the interests of open government, but to protect themselves from proper public scrutiny.

I return to scenario 2. If it shows exactly what everybody already knows, how can producing more evidence to confirm what we already know possibly damage the UK’s position? It cannot, so scenario 2 cannot cause any damage.

[Ian Paisley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you are able to rule on this matter before any more confusion is added to the debate. Is it your understanding that the motion as presented, if carried, leaves open to Her Majesty’s Government the timing of when they choose to lay these matters before Parliament and that, if that is the case, the Government could lay these matters before Parliament after the negotiations?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The answer is that it is for the Government, not for me, to respond on that point. There has been a question about whether this is binding. What is binding is the need to carry forward the debate. Let us have no more ado.

[Peter Grant]

The third scenario—many of us are increasingly convinced that this is what has happened—is that the detailed analysis indicates that the damage caused by Brexit will be even worse than any of us previously feared. Yes, that would weaken and fatally undermine the UK’s negotiating position. It may well be that the analysis shows that Brexit is such a catastrophic decision that we should not do it at all. What kind of Government in possession of that information would choose to hide it, rather than to act on it? It seems to me that the only scenario in which releasing any of the information can possibly undermine the UK’s position is if that information shows that the damage caused by Brexit is worse than any previous analysis has indicated.

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

Is there not an unattributed briefing from a Minister who has said, “We either destroy the Conservative party, or we destroy the country”—that was their choice of words—and in this case are they not choosing, by hiding these documents, to destroy the country rather than to destroy the Conservative party?

[Peter Grant]

I could not comment on that quote, but throughout the Brexit shambles there have been plenty of instances when it has been very clear that the Government are acting in the interests of the unity of the Conservative party, rather than in the interests of the United Kingdom—not that the attempt to retain unity in the Conservative party has been too successful.

Last week, the Secretary of State for Brexit got into a real muddle when he was asked whether the Government intended to make any of this information available to the devolved Governments and in particular, under questioning by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), whether the assessment of the impact on Scotland would be shared with the Scottish Government. At first, he seemed to cast doubt on whether such an assessment existed at all, and then he admitted that it probably existed, but he was not sure it would ever be shared with anybody. Then he assumed it had already been shared with the Scottish Government—it still has not been shared, by the way—and, finally, he acknowledged that it had not been shared yet but eventually would be.

By a process of elimination—or, perhaps, by accident—the Secretary of State therefore managed to say the same as his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland said to the Scottish Affairs Committee 24 hours earlier. It is concerning, but not surprising, that the Minister appears to have departed from that today. It seems that as soon as two Ministers agree on something, a third has got to disagree with it almost on principle. The fact is that, even a week later, the information has still not been shared—none of it. The relevant Minister in the Scottish Government, Mike Russell, has had to write to the Secretary of State to remind him of the undertaking that was given and to ask for that information to be shared so that, for example, discussions in the JMC can be more meaningful than they have been until now.

Another possible reason for the Secretary of State’s reluctance to share any of the information comes from an answer he gave later in the same evidence session last week:

“I am not a great fan of mathematical models. They are almost always wrong.”

He referred to a revelation from Norman Lamont who, when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, was told by the Treasury that he would become the most unpopular man in Britain and that that was the only thing Treasury staff ever told him that turned out to be correct. The Secretary of State went on to say that, sadly, the Norman Lamont story was true:

“I am afraid it is the truth. These models are never right.”

The models produced by the Government at the public expense are never right. That will make for an interesting Budget in a couple of weeks’ time. What kind of a defence is it to tell a parliamentary Committee, “The reason why we will not give you access to information that has been produced at great public cost is that we do not believe it any more than you do”?

The Government have previously refused a formal freedom of information request, as was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). They refused even to confirm whether some of these analyses existed, because they were concerned that even to confirm that such documents existed or that such analysis had taken place might lead some to take precipitate action as a result. This comes from a Government who were excessively precipitate in holding a referendum before people really knew what they were voting on. They were precipitate in triggering article 50 before they knew what it would mean, and they were precipitate in calling a general election, which did not turn out particularly well. It is therefore a bit rich for them to be concerned about anyone else acting in a precipitate manner.

I am not a scholar of Latin, but I remember as a student teacher, over 30 years ago, hearing a very experienced chemistry teacher asking a class of pupils doing experiments involving chemical elements being precipitated in a test tube whether any of them knew about precipitates in the Bible. He explained to them, because he was of a generation that could recite the Bible in English and Latin, and probably in Greek as well, that the word “precipitate” came from the Latin word “praecipitare”, and “se praecipitare” was a verb used in the Bible to describe the actions of the Gadarene swine as they launched themselves off a cliff edge.

I will never ceased to be amazed at just how many prophecies in the good book come true sooner or later. The Government have been precipitate throughout this entire sorry affair. They have artificially, unilaterally and quite arbitrarily put immense time pressure on themselves, this Parliament and the overworked staff at the Department for Exiting the European Union and elsewhere.

It is no defence against that chaos or against the repeated display of incompetence we have had from the Government for them now to say that we cannot trust the public with information that exposes the full damage that the Government’s incompetence will cause. The electorate were sophisticated enough to understand after the vote in the referendum that when the Government said we could still be in the single market if we were out of the EU, they did not mean it. The electors in east London were sophisticated enough to know that when a Minister told them, “If we leave the EU, we will stop immigration from the EU and those of you who have family in Bangladesh, India or Pakistan will be able to bring them over to replace those people,” that was rubbish. The electorate were sophisticated enough to know that when someone who is now a Minister promised £357 million more for the health service, that was Boris being Boris. They were sophisticated enough to know that we never believe anything the Foreign Secretary says. Well, we do not need to be too sophisticated to realise that, I suppose.

So the electorate are sophisticated enough to known that all the promises that were made before the referendum really did not mean anything, yet they are not sophisticated enough, or educated or intelligent enough, to look at an impact assessment, or a summary of an impact assessment, and make their own decisions about the competence and the re-electability of a Government who got us into this mess in the first place.

Without even having seen this information, I believe it is not being made widely available because it demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that leaving the EU is the wrong way to go. Leaving the single market would be catastrophic for these islands and the Government should change course before they follow the Gadarene swine over that cliff edge.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am always delighted to be faced by the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that privilege should be enjoyed by the House as a whole.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

We have a withdrawal Bill that has not only been delayed, but just has not come to the House in any of the three or four weeks in which we expected it to, and we do not know when it will. We have the former UK ambassador to the European Union telling us that the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiations is in danger of leaving the UK “screwed”. The negotiations are being led by somebody who thinks that Czechoslovakia is one of the countries with which we are negotiating, although unlike the Cabinet, Czechoslovakia is split into only two parts and they are still on amicable speaking terms. The Government refuse to publish the truth about the impact of Brexit, saying it is confidential, despite the fact that between 2013 and 2014 they published 16 different analyses of the potential impact of a yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The Prime Minister is having to make emergency trips to Europe to try to bail out her failing Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for any vote to be meaningful, we must be in possession of the full facts? Will he therefore agree that Parliament will have sight of the Government’s recently produced analysis before a vote takes place, and will he confirm that the Administrations of the three devolved nations will be treated as equals, as the Government have promised, and that they will also have a timeous and meaningful vote before we leave the EU?

[Mr Davis]

Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s substantive question, may I just correct him? He talked about Czechoslovakia. The Minister involved was correcting somebody else; he was not asserting a belief that that was who we were negotiating with. I would prefer that to be on the record.

Yes, with the full facts, absolutely; that is why the vote has to take place once the draft deal is concluded. At that point, we will know precisely what the withdrawal deal amounts to and what the framework for the future arrangement is.

EU Exit Negotiations

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said that Members who arrived late should not be standing. The message is clear, and it ought to be heeded. It is discourteous to ignore it. End of subject.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

About a year ago, the Prime Minister said that we cannot expect a running commentary, but in truth we would not have to run very fast to keep up with the negotiations. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has already commented in similar terms to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, but he might have added that, before pressing the accelerator, we should check whether we are heading towards or away from a cliff edge.

We have seen one humiliation after another for this Government. They tried to drive a wedge between the Commission and the 27 sovereign states from which it takes its mandate and authority, so will the Secretary of State assure us that the Government will stop playing these games and accept the Commission’s mandate, rather than attempting to undermine it and thereby undermine their own position? He claims that the UK is being reasonable, but is it reasonable to go in with red lines already firmly dug into the sand before the negotiations have even started? That does not look too reasonable to me.

The Secretary of State assures us that he has never talked up no deal, but he has not talked it down, either. Other influential voices in his party talk up no deal all the time. The Prime Minister still has not withdrawn her claim that no deal is better than a bad deal. Rather than just not talking up no deal, will the Secretary of State absolutely rule out no deal today as the worst of all possible deals?

Finally, on the rights of EU nationals living here, I had a distressing meeting last week with representatives of the Fife Migrants Forum. They told me of their first-hand experience of immensely talented, hard-working young people who have made Fife their home but who are now making plans to head back to Poland, Slovakia or wherever else, not because they do not like living in Scotland but because they do not think the United Kingdom will make them welcome. Will the Secretary of State commit to guaranteeing in law the rights of those citizens, rather than continuing to use them as negotiating capital?

[Mr Davis]

There were three questions there, which I will take in sequence. First, on separating the 27, nothing could be further from the truth; the worst thing for the UK would be for us to have to deal with fragmentary groups of the European Union, as we would never get an answer and that would lead us to the Walloon Parliament outcome on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Canadian treaty, so we have not done that at all. However, we should also talk to each of the 27 to see what their own interests are, as those of Poland and Lithuania may differ from those of littoral states such as Holland or Belgium, and differ again from those of Spain and Italy. We talk to all of them on a continuous basis to make sure we know what they want.

To pick up the hon. Gentleman’s last point, about his Polish constituents, let me say that we also go to those Governments to explain precisely what we have on offer. There have been times in the past few months when the European institutions have not reflected what we intended to do. For example, in a perfectly legitimate and reasonable mistake, Guy Verhofstadt said that we were not going to give European citizens the right to vote in local elections. That was not true, so we corrected it directly with the Governments.

As for no deal, the issue is straightforward: we are intending, setting out and straining every sinew to get a deal. That will be the best outcome, but for two reasons we need to prepare for all the other alternatives. The first is that it is a negotiation with many people and it could go wrong, so we have to be ready for that. The second is that in a negotiation you always have to have the right to walk away: if you do not, you get a terrible deal.

UK Nationals in the EU: Rights

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I apologise, Mr Streeter. I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Minister or you, but the curse of conflicting appointments has landed on me, and I must be elsewhere at 3.30. I will stay and hear as much as I can of the debate in the meantime.

I am acutely aware of the importance of the EU citizens employed in my constituency. If I removed the EU citizens among the ancillary staff in my hospital—never mind the highly qualified surgeons and others—the hospital would shut. If I removed the equivalent people from the care homes in my constituency, those would shut. If I removed the Lithuanian bakers from Speciality Breads, an excellent and award-winning company in my constituency, that company would have great difficulty finding replacements. The largest greenhouse complex in Europe is in my constituency. It is the size of about six football pitches and grows tomatoes hydroponically, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Those tomatoes are harvested by Poles and Romanians. Why? Despite my requests and the company’s endeavours, it cannot recruit British labour to do the job, not because of price but because it is hard work and there are not enough people available to do it.

I accept entirely the arguments about the necessary people—not merely the highly qualified and skilled, but the semi-skilled and unskilled—from the European Union and beyond who work, live, enjoy life and pay taxes in this country. However, this debate is about the plight—I use the word advisedly—of United Kingdom expat citizens living in what will be the remaining 27 member states of the European Union. Most of them are in France and Spain; significant numbers are in Italy and Greece, and there are many others dotted around.

There is an imbalance of about three to one between European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom and Brits living throughout the rest of the European Union. Moreover, the European Union citizens—by and large, but not exclusively—are working. The overwhelming majority of the UK citizens are retired, so they have much less room for manoeuvre, and they are very frightened people.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I have certainly seen evidence to suggest that the age profile of UK citizens living overseas is different from that of EU nationals living in the UK. What is the evidence for the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the overwhelming majority of UK citizens in the rest of the EU are retired? I think those were his exact words.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I think I am right that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) referred to the House of Commons Library, which provided those statistics, but my evidence is from my own eyes—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on the considered way he presented his thoughts. This aspect of Brexit is incredibly important. It is about the reciprocal arrangement that needs to be in place to ensure that the people who live, work and play a part in our local economy can and will continue to do so, as will British nationals living and working in the EU and making contributions to their local economy.

Hon. Members know that I supported leaving the EU. I am a confirmed Brexiteer and my constituency is of the same mind, but I recognise the issues for EU nationals in my constituency. It seems the situation will be mutually beneficial—indeed, that is what the figures indicate. As usual when it comes to European issues, Britain gives more than it receives. The latest available data suggest that in 2015 there were around 1.2 million British citizens living in EU countries compared with 3.2 million EU citizens living in the UK. It is not hard to work out that it is in everyone’s interest to make arrangements to continue to benefit those who are working.

[Peter Grant]

I am puzzled and a little concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. The claim that Britain gives more than it receives in relation to EU migration falls back on the fact that there are more EU nationals in the UK than there are UK nationals in the EU. That implies that immigrants take from communities rather than put back into them, but in my constituency, immigrants who have come into Glenrothes in the centre of Fife from the European Union have contributed greatly. I want them to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

[Jim Shannon]

In two seconds I will be saying the same thing. I have been very clear from the outset of Brexit that our leaving Europe is not a purge of non-British people from our shores. It is the ability to ensure that those who come here and make the most of what we have to offer also give back locally. In the two major sectors of agri-food in my constituency of Strangford, 40% or 50% of the workforce is European. They are needed, so we sought assurances from the Prime Minister. When the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, she visited my constituency at my invitation. She understood the issues, although we did not get assurances from the Prime Minister or the Minister at the time.

It is important to mention that the people who live in the Republic of Ireland can travel across to Northern Ireland to work, and people in Northern Ireland can travel across to the Republic of Ireland to work. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who spoke earlier, referred to nurses in hospitals and care workers. Such matters are important for me as well.

The current system as described in the briefing paper shows that free movement is central to the concept of EU citizenship. It is a right enjoyed by all citizens of the European Union. All EU citizens have a right to reside in another EU member state for up to three months without any conditions other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. After three months certain conditions apply, depending on the status of the EU citizen and whether they are a worker or a student. Those who opt to exercise their free movement rights are protected against discrimination in employment on the ground of nationality. The provisions in relation to social security are clear. EU citizens who have resided legally for a continuous period of five years in another EU member state automatically acquire the right to permanent residence. To qualify for permanent residence, students and the self-sufficient must possess comprehensive sickness insurance cover throughout the five-year period. I mention the stats because it is important to have them on the record.

It is clear that the Government’s White Paper that was published in June, which sets out proposals for the status and rights of EU citizens in the UK after the UK's exit from the EU, allows for those who are EU citizens present in the UK before a cut-off date and with five years’ continuous residence in the UK to apply for a new settled status that is akin to an indefinite leave to remain. I need the provisions to continue in my constituency.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. I know we are all aware of these points, but they bear repeating out loud. I do not see how anyone can have a problem with securing our shores and ensuring that those who live here, work here and pay in here have protection. By the same token, it should naturally apply that those who live and work in Europe should have the same protections. I know that the Minister is a fair, honourable and compassionate man. I look to him for a way forward, to alleviate the fears of hon. Members on this side of the Chamber. My mum was a great person—mums are great people, because they always tell stories about what is important. She always said that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to allow 3 million people to remain here to live and work, surely 1 million Brits in the rest of the EU can do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Like many who have spoken today I appreciate the chance to speak in the debate, but am deeply angry that it is still necessary, because the questions should have been settled on 24 June, not left unsettled and uncertain 15 months later.

I do not see any conflict, or any need for a trade-off, between the rights of people from one country living in another and the rights of people from that other country living in the first. The UK Government should have unilaterally and immediately moved to give absolute guarantees, not to give rights to European Union nationals living here but to respect the rights they already have and always will have, and they should have done so not to use that as a bargaining position or a negotiating manoeuvre but because it was morally and ethically the right thing to do. The Governments of the other EU nations, individually and collectively, should also have moved quickly, to give unconditional guarantees to respect the rights of UK citizens living in their countries, not because it would have looked good on the negotiating table but, again, because it was morally and ethically the right thing to do.

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the majority of the burden to fix the mess must rest with the UK Government; let us face it, the UK Parliament created this mess. No one in Europe asked for an EU referendum. No one in Europe asked the Prime Minister to make the unilateral decision that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market—that was not even a question on the referendum. We have never had a vote by the people of these islands on whether they want to leave the single market, or whether they want to give up on the benefits of the free movement of people.

I do not have time to comment on all the contributions we have had, but we have heard many interesting comments from Members on both sides of the Chamber, complimenting, for example, the significant benefits that EU citizens bring to each and every one of our constituents. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who is no longer in his place, propounded and compounded the old myth that the vast majority of people from the UK who live abroad are retired, with the implication that somehow they do not really contribute to their host nations. They do. Their contribution is different perhaps to that of EU nationals to the UK, but it is still a contribution, and such people are often greatly valued by the countries in which they live.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that walking away with no deal threatens Scotland’s world-leading higher education and research sector? Our researchers have to be able to move freely to the EU, and European researchers to our universities and research centres, so that we benefit mutually from the expertise.

[Peter Grant]

I absolutely agree, and it is not only Scotland’s exceptional universities that are under threat; every research-based university and institution in the United Kingdom is in danger of losing out because of short-sighted folly.

One thing the debate has demonstrated is the absolute folly of those, particularly on the Tory Benches, who still try to tell us that we could just walk away today without a deal and it would make no difference. What a betrayal that would be of the 4.5 million people who, right now, are worried about whether their basic human rights will be respected: the right to continue to live in the house they already live in, and the right for their children to keep going to the school they already go to and keep playing with the same friends. Those rights are not ours to give and take away; they are rights that people have because they are human beings. For Ministers even to use phrases like “bargaining chips” to deny that they are treating people as such, makes it clear that somewhere, deep down inside, that is part of the thinking.

Every time we have discussed in the Chamber the rights of EU nationals living in the United Kingdom, the chorus of protest from the Conservative Benches has always been, “We are very concerned about the rights of UK citizens and UK nationals living in the European Union.” Today, those Members have been given a full 90-minute debate in which to express those concerns, and where have they all gone? They can turn up in their hundreds in the middle of the night to vote for the process to start removing the rights of those UK nationals, but when it comes to speaking out for them it is another matter. I can understand that some of them had other things to do, but when 320 of them cannot stay for the full 90-minute debate, that tells us more about where their beliefs and values really lie than anything we might say.

It is now six months since the Brexit Secretary told us that reaching an agreement on the rights of nationals in each other’s countries would be

“the first thing on our agenda”.

He went on to say:

“I would hope that we would get some agreement in principle very, very soon, as soon as the negotiation process starts.”

We are now a third of the way through that negotiation process, and the Library, in analysing the joint technical note of 31 August 2017, has indicated that there are five areas on which agreement is close and 20 on which it is nowhere near. In other words, in one third of the available negotiating time the progress on our No. 1 priority is that 80% of it is nowhere close to being agreed. That is what happens when human beings are used as bargaining chips instead of saying, right at the beginning, “This is what we’re going to do because it’s the right thing to do.”

We should never forget that the position of the UK Government in relation to the two sets of citizens is very different: we can ask other people to respect the rights of UK nationals living overseas, but we can absolutely guarantee the rights of non-UK nationals living here. Once again, I repeat the call for the UK Government to do that, not because it might make the Europeans do something we want them to do but because morally it is the only acceptable course of action.

The debate should have concluded on 24 June. The reason it has not is that the Government’s obsession with being seen to get hard on immigration has got to the point where any price, but any price, is worth paying. The economic price of losing our membership of the single market will likely be counted in hundreds of thousands of jobs and losses of tens—possibly hundreds—of billions of pounds to our economy.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the insurance giant, Chubb, is just one of the latest large companies to announce plans to move their headquarters from London—to Paris, in this instance—after Brexit. Would he consider it likely that those EU nationals who can still come to the UK—and still want to—might not have jobs to come to?

[Peter Grant]

It is not just that they might not have jobs to come to; the question is why on earth they would want to come when they look at the welcome they get from a leaked Government draft proposal that wants to start discriminating against people depending on the letters after their name, or when they have seen the unbridled joy on the faces of Government supporters when it was announced that every week since the referendum has seen a reduction of 1,000 in net migration from the European Union. In other words, the Government’s message to EU nationals is, “We are going to say that you’re welcome, but we’re actually happy that every week 1,000 people just like you have given up on the UK and gone to live somewhere else because they no longer feel they have a welcome future on these islands.” That should make us all feel utterly ashamed.

At its heart, the European Union was set up primarily as a trade union, an economic union. It is described as a political union, which it clearly is not. Fundamentally and most importantly, the European Union is now a social union, about the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe. Who could possibly want to see further division between those peoples? Union between the peoples of Europe should be what we all strive for. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) hit the nail on the head perfectly in the first few minutes of her speech—and, indeed, in the rest of it. We have spent far too long talking about constitutions and politics, quotas and legislations, and not enough talking about human beings. Today, we are talking particularly about the plight of well over a million human beings who just happen to have birth certificates that say they were born in these islands. Their rights are important, as are those of the 3 million people who live here but were born elsewhere, and those of the 60 million people who will have to cope with the aftermath of this mess, long after some of us are no longer here.

I hope that there is still time for the Government to wake up to the folly of what they are doing. It is not too late for them to say, “We have messed up completely; the only way to get out of this mess is to agree to remain in the single market and to agree that the free movement of citizens between the nations of Europe should continue in perpetuity”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on calling this debate and I thank all those who have contributed. I hope I can provide some constructive clarification, as he challenged me to do. The future of UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK is an incredibly important issue, as we have heard from so many Members today.

All hon. Members here will be aware that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have prioritised the strand of negotiations on citizens from the start of the negotiating process, and we have welcomed progress in those negotiations from the other side. It is essential that we provide certainty and continuity to the 4 million people affected—3 million EU citizens living in the UK and, as hon. Members have said, 1.2 million UK nationals living in the EU.

In June, we published our policy paper on safeguarding the position of EU citizens living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU, which a number of hon. Members have referred to. It clearly set out the UK’s position across a number of key areas of citizens’ rights, including residency rights, access to benefits and public services, and—as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) just touched on—mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the paper made it very clear that that was without prejudice to our commitment to the common travel area and arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Those areas are, of course, being dealt with in a separate strand of the negotiations, which is also making good progress.

We are all agreed that it is of great importance that we reach a swift resolution through negotiations with the European Union on citizens’ rights. We have been engaging on those matters at pace, and I hope I can show hon. Members that we are making progress. Hon. Members have focused today on the status and rights that UK nationals are afforded in the EU, but as many have said, it is important that we secure the rights of EU citizens choosing to make their lives in the UK as well.

Rights for UK nationals who have already built a life in the European Union have been a key focus of negotiations in the first few rounds. It is essential that we provide certainty and clarity on all the issues as soon as we can. We have held positive and constructive discussions and there is clearly a great deal of common ground between our respective positions. We have taken significant steps forward in both the July and August negotiation rounds. Someone suggested that we did not agree on two thirds of issues, and agreed on a third, but the reverse is true. In our published tables, there are many more green issues than red or yellow ones. Importantly, many of the areas in dispute are where the UK’s offer is currently going beyond that of the European Commission.

[Peter Grant]

I am happy to plead guilty to being the hon. Member in question. I think the figure that I quoted was 80% to 20%, taken directly from the House of Commons Library analysis of the August negotiations. Is he telling us that the Library researchers have got it wrong?

[Mr Walker]

I would never dare criticise the Library researchers, but we have agreed on more issues through July and August, and there are many more green issues in the papers than red ones.

As the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) set out, many UK nationals are worried about whether they will be able to continue to access healthcare in the member state they have settled in. That is why we have placed great importance on resolving that issue. In the August round, we agreed that we would protect existing healthcare rights and arrangements for those EU citizens in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU, present on the day of exit. That means that British residents and pensioners living in the EU will continue to have their healthcare arrangements protected both where they live and when they travel to another member state, by using their EHIC card, which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate held up earlier.

We also set out our intention to continue to uprate pensions for UK citizens living in the EU, subject to a reciprocal agreement. We know that it is important for many UK nationals to be able to continue to work across borders after we exit—the hon. Member for Sheffield Central raised that point. That is why, in the last round of negotiations, we agreed that we should protect the rights of frontier workers, which I know is particularly important for the Gibraltar-Spain border.

On aggregation of social security contributions, we have agreed to protect social security contributions made before and after exit by those UK and EU nationals covered by the withdrawal agreement. That means where an individual has moved between the EU and the UK, their contributions will continue to be recognised—for example, when determining their state pension entitlements. As we have previously set out, such pensions will be uprated every year, as they are now.

Although we are making good progress, there of course remain areas of difference between our position and that of the EU. As shown in the joint technical note that was published on 31 August, it is clear that we want to go further than the EU in some areas. For example, the EU does not plan to maintain existing voting rights for UK nationals living in the EU, but we think that that is an important right. We want to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK to stand and vote in municipal elections, and the reciprocal voting rights that UK nationals enjoy when living in the EU.

The EU is also suggesting that UK nationals currently resident in the EU should not be able to retain onward movement rights if they decide to move within the EU. We have always been clear that we should seek to protect that right for UK nationals currently resident in EU member states, and we will continue to push for that during negotiations. Furthermore, we are seeking to ensure that individuals who have started but not finished their qualifications—as in one of the examples the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) gave, about a nurse in training—continue to have those qualifications recognised after we leave. We recognise that that is a hugely important issue for many UK nationals in the EU; we will return to it in future rounds of negotiations.

Progress in those areas will clearly require flexibility and pragmatism from both sides, but I am confident that we are close to agreeing a good deal for both UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. A number of hon. Members touched on the important issue of family reunions. Our policy paper on citizens’ rights set out that family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen in the UK before the UK’s exit will be able to apply for settled status after five years, irrespective of the specified date. We believe we have taken an expansive approach to the issue, and we hope that the EU will do the same for UK citizens. We remain open to exploring that and potential methods of dispute resolution over time with the EU, to understand their concerns and to look at all constructive suggestions.

We are, of course, keen to move on to discussions about our future relationship and the future partnership between the UK and the EU. I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by colleagues throughout the debate on the immigration system that the UK will implement once we withdraw from the EU. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on that issue. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, I will not comment on leaked drafts; however, we have repeatedly been clear that we do not see the referendum result as a vote for the UK to pull up the drawbridge. We will remain an open and tolerant country, which recognises the valuable contribution that migrants make to our society.

Since the referendum, we have engaged with businesses up and down the country to build a strong understanding of the challenges and opportunities that our EU exit brings, including access to talent. We are very aware of the importance of future mobility in particular sectors. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and the hon. Members for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) all mentioned the importance of research. I draw their attention to our recently published paper on science and research, in which we made it clear that researcher mobility is associated with better international networks, more research outputs, higher quality outputs and, for most, better career outcomes. We said in that paper that we will discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers engaged in cross-border collaboration.

The UK is a world leader in research collaboration and we recognise that the ability of UK citizens to travel within the EU, and EU citizens to contribute to our science base, is vital to that co-operation. We are carefully considering the options open to us. As part of that, it is important that we understand the impact of any changes we make to sectors of the economy. The Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to build an evidence-based picture of the UK labour market to further inform that work.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and a number of other hon. Members spoke passionately about the contribution of EU citizens to their constituencies, but it is right that the point has been made—by Members on both sides of the House—that UK citizens in the EU also make an important contribution. We will set out initial proposals for a new immigration system later in the autumn, and we will introduce an immigration Bill to ensure that Parliament has a full and proper opportunity to debate that system, which will apply to EU nationals in future.

Of course, many British citizens will also wish to live and work in the EU after the UK’s exit and we will discuss those arrangements with the EU in due course. Our embassies and ambassadors across the EU have engaged extensively with communities and expats in individual countries. Throughout this process, as we seek to reach agreement with the EU about citizens’ rights, we will want to do everything that we can to reassure those people.

The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) gave a couple of concerning examples from her constituency of people who are well established in this country and deserve that reassurance. If she writes to me or the Home Office about those cases, we will look into them in detail and make sure those people get the reassurance that they undoubtedly should receive. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Home Office; I know an apology has been given for those letters. Throughout the negotiations, we will seek to secure the best deal possible for UK nationals—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I have said already that we will put our overall negotiation through legislative consent motions; I have made that point previously. Let us come back to the core of the argument. The argument being put is that everything that belongs to the European Union now belongs to the devolved Administrations, but that clearly does not work, as I will come on to say in a minute.

The common frameworks will be important as they will enable us to manage shared resources such as the sea, rivers and the air, and they will enable the continued functioning of the UK’s internal market. They will allow us to strike ambitious trade deals, administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element and enter into new international treaties, including on our future relationship with the European Union.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and, in particular, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), for their two outstanding contributions.

This Bill, and the whole Brexit process, not only gives us an opportunity but requires us to go right back and think fundamentally about what Parliament is for and what democracy is about. The Scottish National party supports as a fundamental principle the ancient and honoured tradition that sovereignty over the land of Scotland is inalienably vested in the people of Scotland. That principle is not for sale now, or at any time, to anybody.

This Bill seeks to usurp and undermine that sovereignty in a number of ways, which I will mention later. That fact alone compels me to vote against the Bill on Monday night, and it compels anybody who believes in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, and anybody who purports to be here on their behalf, to oppose the Bill on Monday night, regardless of the party that is trying to get them to do something different.

As it is Labour’s reasoned amendment that has been selected, we will be supporting it on Monday night with some reservations. First, given that 62% of our citizens voted to remain in the European Union, I am certainly not ready to give up on that for the people I represent. I fully understand and respect the fact that two nations of the United Kingdom voted to leave, but I ask the Members of Parliament from those two nations to respect the fact that the other two nations voted to remain and that their votes cannot simply be cast aside.

Secondly, the reasoned amendment refers to parliamentary sovereignty. I respect that that is an important principle for some people, but it does not apply universally across the nations of these islands.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the question that was on the ballot paper? It was a United Kingdom question and a United Kingdom vote, and we voted as a United Kingdom to leave the European Union. That is what we decided. Does he not understand that?

[Peter Grant]

I do not know which part of “the people of Scotland are sovereign” the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The people of Scotland are sovereign, and I will defend their sovereignty. I urge all Members of Parliament from Scotland to respect that sovereignty when the time comes.

My final concern with Labour’s reasoned amendment is on the transitional period.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I need to make some progress.

I welcome that we now have a lot more clarity from Labour on the benefits of membership of the single market and customs union, and I welcome that it mentioned those benefits in its reasoned amendment. I am disappointed, given that everybody now knows—the Norwegians certainly know—there is absolutely no reason why being out of the European Union means we have to be out of the single market, that Labour has not yet come round to a position of saying that we should attempt to stay in the single market permanently after the UK leaves the European Union. Having said that, Labour’s reasoned amendment is a vast improvement on allowing the Bill to go ahead unchallenged, so we will support it on Monday evening.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I will not give way just now.

In all the reasoned amendments that have been tabled, MPs from different parties have come up with a huge number of powerful reasons for rejecting the Bill at this stage, which tells us that it has a huge number of serious and sometimes fundamental flaws that mean it cannot be allowed to proceed in its present format. If that is a problem for Government timetablers, tough. The interests of my constituents are far more important than the interests of Government business managers.

I will address four particular weaknesses in the Bill, some of which have already been ably covered. First, the Bill proposes an act of constitutional betrayal. It gives a Tory Government in London the right to claw back any powers it fancies from the elected Parliaments of the three devolved nations of the United Kingdom. That is not just a betrayal of those who campaigned for so long for the establishment of those Parliaments, it is a betrayal of the great parliamentarians of all parties and none who have worked so hard to make those Parliaments succeed.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman talks about representing Scotland, but let us remember that 1 million Scots voted to leave. In fact, a third of SNP voters voted to leave. [Interruption.] Those are public stats. What he is actually saying is that, if he truly wants to represent his constituents, he should respect the democratic will of the United Kingdom, which is what he, like all of us, is in this Parliament to do. If SNP Members want to be stronger for Scotland, I suggest that they engage by tabling detailed amendments rather than trying to create a wedge between the nations of the United Kingdom.

[Peter Grant]

I will happily see the hon. Gentleman’s 1 million Scottish votes to leave the European Union and raise him 1.6 million Scottish votes to leave the United Kingdom, not to mention the 2 million or so who voted to remain in the United Kingdom, because he and his colleagues promised unconditionally that that was the way to protect our membership of the European Union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Grant]

I will take no more interventions from people whose position on the European Union has changed so radically over the past couple of years.

Returning to the attempt to grab power back from the devolved Parliaments that so many of us worked so hard to establish, many of those who take the greatest credit for their establishment, such as the great Donald Dewar, are not here to see the success of what they created, and I shudder to think what they would have thought of these attempts completely to emasculate all three devolved Parliaments.

We are seeing a betrayal of the promises—one could almost say the “vow”—that certain people made to the people of Scotland just three years ago: the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, they said; Scotland should lead the Union, they said; parity of esteem and an equal partnership of nations, they said. What definition are they using if the Prime Minister, who takes her authority from this Parliament, decides it is beneath her status even to meet the First Ministers, who take their authority from their respective national Parliaments? What definition of “equality” or “parity of esteem” are the Government using? Where is the parity of esteem if the Joint Ministerial Committee, trumpeted by the Tories less than a year ago as the epitome of good relations between our four national Governments, has not met for seven months? I note, however, that, completely coincidental to an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to have an urgent debate on the matter, the Government have now decided they are going to reconvene the JMC at some time in the autumn. I hope they will not fall back on the claim that autumn finishes on 30 November. I welcome the fact that they have given way to some pressure and are now going to reconvene the JMC, but the fact is they have done nothing, even ignoring a request for a meeting by the national Governments of Wales and Scotland, which they had promised to act on within one month. They broke that promise, as they have broken so many other promises to the peoples, Parliaments and Governments of those devolved nations.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be simple and straightforward for the Government to accept the reality of devolution and that where there is the repatriation of powers from Brussels in devolved areas they should go directly to the devolved institutions?

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely—that is what devolution means; if the powers are currently devolved, they should remain devolved.

If we cannot trust the Tories to keep their word on something as simple as arranging a joint meeting of Ministers, nobody in any of the devolved nations can trust their assurances that the draconian new powers in this Bill will not be abused. Our experience of promises from the Tories suggests we cannot take them at their word unless the legislation is nailed down so tightly that they have no wriggle room to go back on their word.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric about some issues needing a “UK-wide approach”. I wonder how the UK-wide approach to agriculture, animal welfare and food standards is going to work in Northern Ireland, because regardless of what the legislative or constitutional position will be, the matter of business survival means that the food industry in Northern Ireland will follow the same standards as are followed in the Republic of Ireland—the same standards as apply in the EU will be followed. So we are talking about different animal welfare standards in Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the UK, and I cannot really see how that is working.

What a UK-wide approach has been shown to mean in practice is that the Prime Minister and a few hand-picked colleagues get the right to dictate to the peoples of these islands and to our elected Governments. For example, the need for a “UK-wide approach” led to Scotland’s fishing industry being sold out by the British Government when we first joined the EU and there is a serious danger that it will lead to those fishermen being sold out yet again as part of the process of leaving.

My second concern is about the all-encompassing powers set out in clause 9, which was superbly torn to shreds by the shadow Secretary of State a few minutes ago. One of the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), described this on Wednesday as an “unprecedented power grab”, and there is no other way it can be described; 649 elected MPs will be expected to stand by and watch while a single Minister, with a single signature, can make new legislation. This includes the right to make legislation that should require an Act of this Parliament. The only requirement there will be on the Minister is that she or he thinks the legislation is a good idea. When we have Ministers who think that welching on the Dubs amendment and introducing the rape clause were good ideas, I am looking for a slightly harder test than a Tory Minister thinking that something is a good idea.

These new powers are often referred to as Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII was a despot with no interest in democracy, who thought Scotland and Wales were just places to be conquered and trampled on, so perhaps this is not such a bad name for something this Government are doing, but using that nickname hides the danger of these proposed powers. Despite his murderous deeds, a lot of people see Henry VIII as a figure of fun and pantomime villain—someone who even got to star in a “Carry On” film. But the fact is that the powers in this Bill are more “Nineteen Eighty-Four” than “Carry On Henry”. The powers that bear his name are anything but funny. They represent a significant erosion of parliamentary democracy; indeed to those Members here who believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, I say that the powers in this Bill are utterly incompatible with that idea. This is not about taking back control to Parliament and resuming parliamentary sovereignty for those nations of the UK where parliamentary sovereignty exists. This Bill threatens to destroy it, once and for all. The powers are designed to allow Ministers to bypass all pretexts of parliamentary scrutiny. It is even possible that we could see an Act of Parliament receive Royal Assent one day and then be repealed by a Minister the next, simply because they thought it was a good idea.

The Government will argue that delegated powers are an essential part of modern government, and I agree. We do not have an issue with the principle of using delegated legislation. We do have an issue with allowing delegated legislation to be abused in order to bypass proper scrutiny. The only way this House can be satisfied that the powers will not be abused is if the Bill is reworded to make it impossible for them to be abused in that way.

The third significant weakness in the Bill has been touched on and it relates to our membership of the biggest trade agreement in the world. We are going to throw that away. We are talking about the loss of 80,000 jobs in Scotland and the loss of £11 billion per year coming into our economy as a result. The figures for the rest of the UK will be proportionate to that. This is being done simply to pacify the extreme right wing of the Conservative party and their allies, whose obsession with the number of immigrants has blinded them to the massive social and economic benefits that these EU nationals have brought to my constituency and, I suspect, to every constituency in the UK. The sheer immorality of the isolationist, xenophobic approach that the Conservatives are trying to drag us down is there for all to see, but it is not just immoral—it is daft. It threatens to destroy our economy. Already we are seeing key sectors in industry and key public sector providers struggling to recruit the staff they need. It was reported a week or two ago that a private recruitment firm is being offered £200 million just to go to persuade workers to come to the UK to work in our health service. I have a hospital in my constituency that we could rebuild for £200 million quite comfortably, yet this money is going to be handed to a private firm to try to undo some of the damage that has been done by the Government’s obsession with the immigration numbers. With the collapsing pound making British wages are worth a lot less to European workers than they were before, with the anti-European rhetoric and hysteria that we still get from Government Members and with the Government still refusing to give European nationals the absolute, unconditional and permanent guarantees that they deserve if they choose to come and live here, those recruitment difficulties are going to become much, much worse before they get any better. The Secretary of State wants our EU partners to be innovative, imaginative and flexible. I urge him to apply these same qualities to his Government’s attitude to membership of the single market.

I have mentioned the plight of EU nationals, and another major concern, which again has been raised, particularly by the shadow Secretary of State, is that this Bill threatens to undermine the rights of not only EU nationals but of everyone, regardless of their nationality or citizenship, who lives on these islands. I hear the promises from the Government, but we have had promises from this Government before. They are not worth the paper they are written on, even if they are not written down on paper at all.

At yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions we had the usual charade of a Tory Back Bencher asking a planted question so that the Prime Minister could confirm how successful the Government have been in bringing down unemployment. She went so far as to say that unemployment in the UK is at its lowest for more than four decades, so let us just think about that. The Prime Minister is telling us that unemployment is lower now than it was when we went into the European Union and the single market. How can the Conservative party boast about having almost done away with unemployment altogether and then say that immigrants are to blame for the huge unemployment problem? The fact is that the free movement of people—free movement of workers—and membership of the single market has not caused unemployment; it has caused employment. It has benefited our economy and helped our businesses to thrive. It keeps schools open in places where they would otherwise have closed. All the evidence suggests that the most successful, wealthiest and happiest countries in the world—those with the highest standard of living, whether material or in the things that really matter, are countries that are open and inclusive. The Government are trying to move us away from that to become one of the most isolationist and isolated economies in the world. Only five countries are not part of a trade agreement, but none of them is a country we would want to see as an example.

The Government’s mantra on Brexit has been about taking back control, but that will not happen—at least not in the way that the people who voted to leave hoped it would happen—because it is not about taking back control to the 650 people who collectively hold a democratic mandate from our constituents to represent them; it is about taking back control from this Parliament and putting it into the hands of a few Ministers. It is about taking back control from the devolved and elected national Parliaments and Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and putting it into the hands of a few chosen Members of a political party that cannot get elected into government in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Bill allows Ministers to usurp the authority of Parliament and gives them absolute power to override the will of Parliament.

A lot has been said about the UK Government’s red lines in the Brexit negotiations, and I will give the Minister one red line from the sovereign people of Scotland: our sovereignty is not for sale today and will not be for sale at any future time—not to anyone and not at any price. The Bill seeks to take sovereignty from us, probably more than any Bill presented to this Parliament since we were dragged into it more than 300 years ago. That is why I urge every MP who claims to act on behalf of the people of Scotland, who believes in the sovereignty of the people and who believes in the sovereignty of democratic institutions to vote with us and against the Bill on Monday night.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on a speech that was fluent, forceful and, at the same time, generous to her predecessor. Her speech has also made me determined me to visit Canterbury, which sounds such a delightful place.

I have a few points: on why people voted to leave in the referendum; on where the Bill stands in relation to why people voted to leave; and on how all the other aspects of Brexit are going, and how they relate back to why people voted as they did. There may be other areas, but there are three that I think are most relevant. First, people voted to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. However they define that sovereignty, the issue was certainly debated forcefully, and it was occasionally raised on the doorstep—I use the word “occasionally” advisedly.

Secondly, people voted to restore some kind of economic independence. People felt that we were spending too much money in Europe and that we would be better off outside, where we could negotiate better trade arrangements with the rest of the world—everything in the garden would be rosy. Thirdly, the issue most commonly raised with me on the doorstep was immigration.

I will briefly address those three points. On the first issue of sovereignty, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) can dance on the head of a pin all they want about what the Bill actually does but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) so forensically demonstrated, the Bill is a transfer of power from Parliament and towards the Executive. That certainly is not what the people in my constituency voted for.

Secondly, on economic independence, apart from the fact that it will potentially cost us £70 billion just to walk away, people did not vote for a worse trade deal and for worse economic relationships within the European community. Okay, I accept that the Prime Minister says, “You can’t leave and, at the same time, be a member of the single market. You cannot leave and, at the same time, be a member of the customs union.” I am sure she is right, but let us be honest about what we know the Government are seeking to do.

[Peter Grant]

Please will the right hon. Gentleman explain Norway’s arrangement? Norway has never been in the European Union but is a full member of the customs union and single market, as are Iceland and Liechtenstein. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that being outside the EU has to mean a country is outside the single market—unless it chooses to be.

[Mr Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The one I was going to make is that if we are being brutally honest, we all know what is going to happen. The Government, through the negotiations, are going to find a set of arrangements as close as possible to being part of the single market but without being a member of it and something approximating the customs union. If they do not do that, they will not be looking after the best interests of this country. That much we know, which leads me on to the question about immigration.

If the Government are going to achieve anything approximating the customs union and some sort of relationship with the single market, the price they are going to have to pay is to agree some sort of approximate arrangements about the free movement of labour between the UK and the EU. Ministers might say, “Well, we can do that.” No, you can’t. The reality is that if the people negotiating on behalf of the EU were to say, “Okay UK, you can have something that approximates the single market and customs union, and you don’t need to worry about any free movement of labour”, they would soon be removed from their negotiating positions. This idea is not realistic.

Where are we in this audit of what we have achieved since the referendum? First, we have a set of arrangements in this Bill that are less democratic, and that give less power to Parliament and more power to the Executive. That is hardly what was promised in the referendum. Secondly, we are likely to be paying £70 billion for the privilege of leaving—not getting £350 million a week to put back into the health service. Finally, if we get anything like reasonable arrangements on our economic relationship with the EU, we are going to have to accept some level of free movement of labour. Everything people voted for is going to be betrayed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I do agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am most grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to put on the record again that we will uphold all our commitments to international law in relation to the environment.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Despite the Minister’s assurances a few minutes ago, clause 9 as it stands will give the Minister the almost unlimited right, with minimal parliamentary scrutiny, to wipe out any workers’ protection that he chooses. Given that they are promising not to do that, will the Government commit today to amending that clause at Committee stage so that the erosion of workers’ rights is explicitly excluded from the powers that that clause will bring?

[Mr Baker]

The powers in the Bill have been drawn widely in order that this country and this Parliament can meet the imperative of delivering a working statute book on the day we leave the European Union, to deliver certainty, continuity and control and, on the area that the hon. Gentleman raises, in order to implement the withdrawal agreement in a way that allows us to leave the European Union smoothly and successfully.

I will not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is looking for today, but I will say to him that as the junior Minister responsible for the Bill on behalf of the Secretary of State, I will look with the utmost seriousness at the amendments that are tabled. What we will not do is accept any amendment that compromises the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to deliver certainty, continuity and control as we leave and to allow us to make the necessary changes to UK law to implement the necessary withdrawal agreement.

[Peter Grant]

The Government believe that clause 9 is necessary because of the huge volume of legislation that will have to go through simply to tidy up potential anomalies in legislation. I am offering them a way out. Why are they so determined to bring in legislation that they do not intend to use, when they will have their work cut out for them to bring in the legislation that they do need? Why will the Minister not commit to putting into legislation the promise that he has just given to the House at the Dispatch Box?

[Mr Baker]

With respect, the hon. Gentleman may be confusing clauses 7 and 9. I look forward to the fullest debate on these matters on the Floor of the House when we come—I hope, Parliament willing—to Committee stage.

EU Exit Negotiations

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The microphone is there, and the speaker is there.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has touched on some important points. No. 1, on the ability to do this deal, we start from a position of exact identity on product regulations and other social regulation—such regulation is what worries the European Union—so we are in the same place. The issue is not one of bringing together massively different economies but of maintaining a reasonable relationship between the regulatory structures of our country and of that organisation.

My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right in one respect, which is that whenever a trade agreement is forged, it will have within it agreements on standards—the Canadian one did, for example—and not just on product standards but on, say, labour law standards. The Canadian deal has labour law commitments to stay above International Labour Organisation standards. In that respect, we are in the same place.

In terms of the implementation or transitionary period—call it what you will—there is now widespread agreement across Europe that it will be beneficial to have an implementation period. How long it will be and how it will work will be decided straightforwardly on practicalities. Three things will drive an implementation period: No. 1 is this Government’s ability to put in place regulations, new customs arrangements, and so on; No. 2 is the ability of companies, corporations and sometimes people to accommodate it, which is principally the issue with financial services, for example; and No. 3 is the ability of other countries to accommodate it. That is why the quote from Xavier Bertrand is important, because it shows a clear intent on the part of major French politicians to bring about the sort of frictionless trade that we want. I find myself largely agreeing with my right hon. and learned Friend, but this is why it is entirely possible to deliver a first-class Brexit for Britain.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and for giving us an advance copy.

The Secretary of State is looking for imagination and flexibility from the European Union, but I do not think there is anyone in the European Union with the fevered imagination needed to think that the NHS would be £357 million a week better off if we left the European Union. Will he clarify exactly what flexibility the UK Government have shown? They were inflexible to the point of obstinacy in trying to avoid any parliamentary oversight on the article 50 process. They set their own inflexible deadline for triggering article 50, and they set their own inflexible red lines before the negotiations had even started, including an inflexible determination to leave the single market without any idea at all as to where we would go instead.

All this has been done over the heads of the devolved national Governments and, to a large extent, over the heads of Members of this Parliament. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has updated the House today, but he has not updated the Joint Ministerial Committee since six weeks before article 50 was triggered, despite a joint request from both the Welsh and Scottish Governments for such a meeting.

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government will now be flexible in having proper, meaningful and constructive dialogue with the devolved nations? Will he now accept that this Government’s continued obsession with immigration is forcing him into a dangerously inflexible position on the single market, threatening 80,000 jobs in Scotland and hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the UK? Or will the Government continue on their present course, charging blindfold towards a cliff edge and relying on the Daily Mail to make us believe that it was all the foreigners’ fault when it all goes wrong?

[Mr Davis]

First, on flexibility, I have just mentioned areas that matter to individuals, such as guaranteeing their pensions, guaranteeing their healthcare and so on, and those areas did involve some flexibility on the part of the British negotiating team, which did a very good job.

On notification, I chaired a number of JMC meetings—I do not do it anymore, as the JMC is now chaired by the First Secretary of State—to keep the devolved Administrations up to speed. Indeed, yesterday I briefed in detail Mike Russell of the Scottish Government and Mark Drakeford of the Welsh Administration. Obviously, at the moment I have a bit of difficulty briefing the Northern Ireland Executive, because they do not exist yet. But the hon. Gentleman can take it as read that the concerns of the devolved Administrations have been taken on board very squarely and will continue to be so in the course of the ongoing negotiation.

Brexit and Foreign Affairs

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Nevertheless, it was a crisp characterisation of an argument that my hon. Friend has been making for many years, Mr Deputy Speaker, and he is as right about it today as he was when he first made it.

An extensive legislative agenda is necessary to prepare the UK for its new place in the world. Working together in the national interest will be crucial as we go through the process in this House and the other place to put the necessary legislation in position to ensure that our laws work effectively on the day we leave the European Union. For my part, I am willing to work with anyone to that end. The sheer importance of this issue makes that essential. The eyes of the country will be on us all, and we will all be judged on our willingness to work pragmatically and effectively together to deliver the verdict of the people in last year’s referendum.

Nothing is more central to this than the so-called great repeal Bill. The principle is straightforward: it is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and to transfer existing European Union law into UK law. To answer a question that my opposite number, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has raised, these rights and freedoms will be brought into UK law without qualification, without limitation and without any sunset clauses. Any material changes will be dealt with by subsequent primary legislation.

I cannot stress enough to the House and to the nation the importance of this Bill in ensuring that we have a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union. Every part of the United Kingdom needs to prepare its statute book to ensure that it can function after we leave the European Union. The repeal Bill will give the devolved Administrations the power to do just that, to ensure a smooth and orderly exit for all. As we have also said repeatedly, we expect there to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration once we exit the EU. That is why, given that the Bill will affect the powers of the devolved institutions and that it legislates in devolved areas, we will seek the consent of the devolved legislatures for the Bill. We would like everyone to come together in support of the legislation, which will be crucial to delivering the outcome of the referendum.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

In an earlier incarnation, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, assured the people of Scotland that Scotland could expect to have devolved power over its immigration policy after Brexit. Does the Secretary of State still agree with that undertaking?

[Mr Davis]

No, I do not remember that, and I have not seen it. I will look into it and come back to the hon. Gentleman. I did not have an earlier incarnation in this job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I wish to start with a statement that will cause anger and disbelief on the Conservative Benches:

“Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. In other words, he has admitted that the notion of taking back sovereignty to this Parliament is nonsense. Some of us have a much more democratic tradition. We believe that the sovereignty that is exercised in this place belongs not in this place, but in the people who have sent us to represent them here. For me, that principle of the sovereignty of the people is a red line, on which neither I nor the SNP will ever budge an inch. That is why 62% of our sovereign citizens say that they want to stay in the European Union. It is not about being defeatist, remoaner or continuity remain, but about respecting the will of the sovereign people. If the nearest we can come to that is to retain our membership of the single market and customs union, then that is what we will do. If that has to mean Scotland looking for a differentiated deal, as has already been guaranteed to Northern Ireland, or having to ask for a special deal as well, that is what we will ask for.

I have one ask for when the Government sum up: will they tell us exactly what is going to happen now with the Joint Ministerial Committee, because there seem to have been two JMCs operating since the Brexit vote? The Government have attended a JMC that was wonderful and so constructive—everybody had a great time and thought that it was very helpful—but the Governments of the devolved nations have attended a JMC that was a total and utter waste of time, for they went and spent 45 minutes being told what the UK Government had decided, and if they were very lucky they might get the chance to decide whether they wanted milk and sugar in their tea or coffee. That is the extent of the consultation we have had so far. It is not enough.

I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) insist in her maiden speech that the Government of Wales must be part of these negotiations. I look forward to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird), using her maiden speech to make the equivalent demand on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Membership of the single market is not the same as access to the single market. Anyone who does not understand that difference really needs to get themselves better informed before they take part in this debate. Those who understand the difference but deliberately try to pretend that they are exactly the same thing have no place in this House or in any other House of politics, because they are simply trying to con the electors.

Access to the single market means you can sell your tomatoes, plums, beer and whisky in Europe. Membership of the single market means the Europeans have got to accept your produce on exactly the same terms as everybody else’s. The difference between membership and access is exceptionally great. As my dear friend the former Member for Gordon, Alex Salmond, used to say, the international guild of Patagonian shoemakers has access to the single market, but that does not do it any good.

Access to the single market on its own is worthless, so unless we can retain membership of the single market and of the customs union, we could be looking at 80,000 job losses in Scotland. That price is not worth paying simply to meet this Government’s continued obsession with immigration. They tell us that we cannot be in the single market or the customs union because we have to get immigration down, but not a single word has been spoken in this debate to explain why cutting immigration is essential. Cutting immigration to the levels that the Tories are obsessed with will cause immense damage to our health service, our public services and our economy. Worse, it will make these nations far less attractive and far less pleasant places to live.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I say first that I respect the views of any Member who acts according to their conscience, and that I have nothing but contempt for any Member who acts purely out of self-interest or self-preservation?

The Government can claim a mandate to take the United Kingdom—or what is left of it—out of the European Union, but nobody can claim a mandate to take anyone out of the single market. That, essentially, is a major part of the reasoned amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. We are being asked to hand complete control of the process to a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who between them cannot even handle a dinner invitation without creating an major international, political and diplomatic stooshie.

The Government, if anything, have a mandate to keep us in the single market. That is what was in the 2015 Conservative election manifesto. I know that Conservative Members do not like to be reminded about it now, but that is the mandate they were given by the people. As recently as 24 October 2016, the Prime Minister told the House:

“I want to get the best possible deal with the maximum possible opportunities for British businesses…to operate within the single market and to trade with it in both goods and services.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 36.]

The fact that as recently as October the Prime Minister wanted to stay in at the very least should tell us that membership or non-membership of the single market is far too important to be dealt with without a single debate or vote in this House.

Some MPs have been subject to unfair pressure to vote in a particular way. Nobody here has the right to tell anybody that they are being dishonest or anti-democratic by exercising their vote. I have had that as well. I received an email darkly hinting that there are a number of people in my constituency who want to leave and threatening me with deselection if I dare to vote against the Government tonight. Given that the email came from Labour Leave, I have no intention—[Laughter.] It did cross my mind that, pension-wise, I could get a much better deal by losing rather than retiring. Maybe when I decide that the time has come to leave, I will stand as a Labour candidate to guarantee my “loser’s pension”. [Laughter.]

The Secretary of State concluded his speech yesterday by asking us to trust the people. What we have heard from the Tory Benches is actually much more than that: what we are hearing from the Tories today and yesterday is the abolition of the sovereignty of Parliament. They have finally accept that the people are sovereign. I welcome that. It is 700 years after some of us accepted it, but they are welcome.

There are four different sovereignties represented here. The sovereignty of my people tells me that 62% want to stay in. We put forward a compromise that respects the wishes of those who want to leave, respects the wishes of those in Scotland who want to remain, and respects the issues of the 55% in 2014. If we are forced to choose between the 55% and the 62% who want to remain in the European Union, I think the Conservative party might get a very nasty surprise indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in extensive discussions with the biopharma industry on that particular issue, and those discussions will continue.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

This week, the Kingdom of Fife is pleased to welcome almost 200 students from around the world who join very nearly 4,000 students from 137 countries at the University of St Andrews. When will that university be given absolute guarantees that nothing about Brexit will jeopardise its reputation as the most international of universities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

We need to engage with the university sector and work with it on a vision for a global Britain that continues to make the UK one of the most attractive places in the world for key talent to come.