Article 50

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

A whole series of special circumstances apply. When I first visited Northern Ireland after taking up my present post, what came up were matters such as the importance of the border and the single energy market, and we will continue to pay attention to those matters. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am going to be very careful about answering questions because of the ongoing election process, but I think she should take it as read that we take this issue very seriously indeed.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is no longer in the Chamber, told the House on at least five occasions that the Sewel convention had been placed on a statutory footing by the Scotland Act. Today the Supreme Court said that that was not the case. Which of those contradictory judgments currently holds the confidence of Her Majesty’s Government?

[Mr Davis]

It was not a contradictory judgment. This is a reserved matter.

Leaving the EU

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it allows me to emphasise again that not only is that his interpretation and mine, but it is the EU’s interpretation. What he says is quite true: once we have invoked article 50, that is the end of the matter —we will be leaving the EU. That is my understanding of the process, and I would like confirmation that I am right.

I would also like the Minister to clarify what will happen should the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s ruling that Parliament should have a vote on any decision. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, leaving the EU will entail divorcing ourselves from all of the EU’s institutions, rules and regulations, including the single market, the customs union and the free movement of people—except under terms negotiated between the UK and the remaining member states. That is what my constituents understood, and it is what they voted for by a large majority in last year’s referendum.

Nationally, the United Kingdom voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Some Members have said that that result is indecisive and should be ignored, but most of those Members were elected to this place with a lower percentage of the vote than 52%. Does that mean that we can ignore their opinion? I should add that, in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the margin in favour of leave was 62% to 38%.

I also add that my constituents who voted to leave are absolutely livid that some professor at Cambridge University called Nicholas Boyle is reported to have said:

“The referendum vote does not deserve to be respected…Like resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, 17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.”

That is a disgraceful slur on my constituents and the rest of the 17 million decent people who voted to leave the EU—many of whom were Irish, Welsh and, indeed, Scottish.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman may have anticipated my point. I was going to say that, although he correctly pointed to the respective statuses of the United Kingdom and Great Britain earlier, there is clearly a massive flaw in the quote he read out. It was not 17 million people only from England; sadly, there were some in Scotland who voted to leave as well—although not very many.

[Gordon Henderson]

It was not my quote; it was by a professor of German from Cambridge University. He is a far more intelligent person than I am, but I understood that it was not only English people who voted to leave. I should add—the hon. Gentleman will probably realise this from my name—that my father comes from Glasgow. He is a proud Scot, but has lived in this country for 69 years. He is first and foremost British and considers himself so. Not only are those people called lager louts and vandals by this two-bit academic, but they are accused by other remainers, including Members of this place, of not understanding what they were voting for last June and of not being aware of the implications of an out vote. In addition to being insultingly patronising, that accusation simply does not stand up to even the flimsiest scrutiny.

Before the EU referendum campaign even started, the then Government sent every household an expensive leaflet, funded by taxpayers, setting out why people should vote to remain in the EU. Let me quote verbatim from that leaflet. It said that voting to remain would

“protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country—a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.”

That was a pretty clear warning, but still 17 million people voted to leave the EU.

The remainers also tell us that although a majority voted to leave the EU, they did not vote to leave the single market. Let me quote from the Government leaflet again:

“Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.”

That, too, was pretty clear: a vote to leave the EU was also a vote to leave the single market. But still 17 million people voted to leave.

Having lost the referendum, some remainers are attempting to change the rules of the game. They are now saying that the referendum was only advisory. That is twaddle. Let me read another couple of quotes from the Government leaflet. The first is this:

“This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom. It is important that you vote.”

That is reinforced by a second quote:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

Voters in the United Kingdom as a whole decided to leave the EU. It is now for the Government to deliver what was promised and get the process started by invoking article 50. They should not be preventing from doing so by those remainers who are unable to come to grips with the result of the referendum.

Some remainers argue that article 50 should not and cannot be triggered without first obtaining the approval of Parliament. I do not remember those people pointing out during the referendum campaign that the Government’s promise to implement any decision taken by voters was illegal. Instead, it is only now that they are trying to subvert the will of the people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I do not think I have ever raised a point of order since becoming a Member of Parliament. Is it in order for us to comment on the merits of a case that is sub judice before the Supreme Court? Should we not wait for the Supreme Court to decide before we comment on whether or not article 50 needs parliamentary approval?

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I do not really feel legally qualified to give a ruling on that, so I will permit the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) to continue with his contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to sum up on behalf of the Scottish National party in this debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing it.

In his opening speech, the hon. Gentleman reminded us that the requirement of the UK Government is to deliver and implement article 50 in accordance with the United Kingdom’s own constitutional requirements. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for reminding us, among other things, of the very special—indeed, unique—place that Northern Ireland has in the constitutional requirements of the United Kingdom. I hope that, whatever else happens, nothing in the implementation of article 50 will jeopardise in any way the very fragile and tenuous peace process that is still, thankfully, just about in place in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey quoted some figures and made some assumptions about the percentage of the vote that various MPs received from the electorate. I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) actually bucked the trend that he referred to, because she got just under 57% of the vote in her election. Modesty forbids me from telling the House that I got just under 60%. Members will have worked out immediately that both those numbers are higher than 52%; indeed, they are also both higher than 55%, which is a number that is quite significant for some of us. Admittedly, though, they are far short of 62%, which is the percentage that matters most to me in this debate, because 62% is how many of my people said they wanted to stay in the European Union.

[Gordon Henderson]

I will just point out that 62% was also the majority in my constituency here in England.

[Peter Grant]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his great persuasive powers in achieving that result. I delicately remind him that I did not say 62% in my constituency; I said 62% in my country. There is an important difference.

The final comment that I will make in relation to the hon. Gentleman is that I share his distaste and despair at the tone of some of the debate before, during and after the referendum, and I certainly completely distance myself from the description that he referred to, which was used against all of the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU. I respect the right of people to take their own decisions. I may sometimes be horrified, dismayed, appalled or disappointed by the decisions that they take, but I will respect the decision that the people of England have taken and I also respect the decision that the people of Wales have taken. I ask Members to respect the views that have been expressed by the people of Scotland.

However, I gently have to remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the first time in the last few years that opponents of change have told packs of lies to the population during a referendum, and I also have to say that I do not remember him protesting as loudly the last time it happened, which was in Scotland.

The debate is about the process for leaving the European Union, but it would be foolish to try to talk about the process without talking about where we want to be at the end of it, because knowing where we want to be can have a huge impact on the process that we choose to follow, and the way that we implement the process can significantly affect our chances of getting the results that we want.

What are the objectives and how have they been arrived at? Well, we have got some clarity on the first question, but not a great deal of clarity on the second. We now know something about the objectives. We now know that the Prime Minister’s objective is not to have free movement of people, but we do not know exactly what she wants instead. We now know that the Prime Minister does not want to be part of the single market; we just do not know what she wants to be part of instead. And we now know—well, we knew already—that when we negotiate this avalanche of new trade deals with everybody and their dog, who, according to the Foreign Secretary, are queuing to do deals with this wee pocket of land in the north Atlantic, those deals will not be subject to adjudication by the Court of Justice of the European Union; we just do not know whose jurisdiction they will come under. In other words, we know a great deal about what the Prime Minister does not want, but we are not an awful lot further forward in knowing what she does want.

Shortly after the referendum, the Liberal Democrats—yes, they do sometimes have their uses—came up with the phrase that the referendum result told us that people wanted to leave but we did not really have any idea about where they wanted to go, and I am not convinced that things have changed very much since then.

We cannot even get reliable and consistent answers from the Government about how they will decide on their objectives. Yesterday, in answer to my question about the Scottish Government’s paper, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House:

“I gave him”—

That is, Mike Russell MSP—

“an undertaking that we would debate that paper at the next JMC (EN), as it is known in Whitehall jargon, and that is what we will do. I have been very careful not to comment publicly on it”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 798.]

He was referring to the Scottish Government’s paper—

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Matthew Pennycook.

New Partnership with the EU

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I have tried throughout the past six months not to respond to the sometimes emotional comments from various people around the continent. I am slightly surprised in my hon. Friend, however, because he of all people would pull me up if I confused access to the single market with membership of the single market. Pretty much every country in the world that is not subject to sanctions has access to the single market. We will have access to the single market. The question is about the terms. My job and the job, frankly, of everybody, including the Opposition, is to persuade our opposite numbers in Europe that it is also in their interests that we all have equal access to each other’s markets, and that is what I intend to do.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his speech, and for recognising the correct place to make this statement; it certainly was not at Lancaster House. Today, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have completed an unholy trinity of worthless Westminster promises to the people of Scotland. They promised to take account of the 62% remain vote in Scotland and to consider all options for Scotland’s future. They have broken that promise today. They promised during the referendum campaign and in their election manifesto that leaving the EU does not mean we have to leave the single market. Today they are breaking that promise. As for the promise they made in 2014 that remaining in the United Kingdom would guarantee Scotland’s place in Europe—well, we all know where that has gone. I hope the Secretary of State will pass the message back to his boss that if she insists on giving Scotland only one option to remain in the European Union, Scotland will take that option.

We know with certainty that Brexit means hard Tory Brexit. We do not know what it might be disguised as, but we know what it will be. Will the Secretary of State accept, even at this late stage, that the promises that he and Prime Minister made must be honoured? Exactly how does he propose to recognise the 62% remain vote in Scotland and the overwhelming—nay, unanimous—view in Scotland that our membership of the single market and free movement of people into and out of Scotland are essential for our wellbeing? Has he actually read the Scottish Government’s paper, “Scotland’s place in Europe”?

[Mr Davis]

indicated assent.

[Peter Grant]

Given that he is nodding, will he give an undertaking that the paper will be properly and thoroughly discussed at the Joint Ministerial Committee meeting next week? Finally, will he give an undertaking that before any non-returnable steps are taken, the Parliaments of all our devolved nations will be given a chance, even on an advisory basis, to consider the Government’s plans before they are implemented?

[Mr Davis]

It has been my privilege to chair the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations on which Mike Russell broadly represents the Scottish Government’s position. I gave him an undertaking that we would debate that paper at the next JMC (EN), as it is known in Whitehall jargon, and that is what we will do. I have been very careful not to comment publicly on it because, as I said, we want to give it the most open debate possible. There are parts of it with which I disagree and parts with which I agree. On the question of the protection of workers’ rights or the maintenance of our terrific universities, I am entirely on side with the paper. I suspect that Mr Russell might be surprised by how pro-devolution I am. Nothing will be taken away from the devolved Administrations and, indeed, we have to decide what passes to them from the European Union. That will be a rational debate based around the interests of the United Kingdom and of Scotland. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) must take it as read that we will take very seriously the idea that we do not allow any part of the United Kingdom or any nation of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England—to lose out in this process. We are determined in that.

Exiting the EU: Scotland

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

It may be helpful if I make it clear at the outset that, as a result of the Division, the proceedings have been pushed back 15 minutes: this debate will conclude at 4.45 pm.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Scotland and the process of the UK leaving the EU.

It is a pleasure to speak here under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

Exactly 174 days ago, 62% of people in Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. We are now about three fifths of the way between the referendum and invoking article 50, so 107 days from now, at most, the Prime Minister intends to trigger—probably irrevocably, although that is subject to some discussion—the process of taking us out of the European Union, despite the fact that 62% of us want to stay in.

Two years after that, we face a spectacle in which the citizens who hold sovereignty over one of the most ancient—indeed, most European—of all nations will face the threat of having our European Union citizenship stripped from us: neither because we wanted to rescind it nor because we broke the rules and it was rescinded by the European Union, but because it was taken from us by the actions of a Government who have never held a majority in Scotland during my lifetime.

There will be some on the Government Benches—there are not many here today, admittedly—and possibly even on the Opposition Benches, whose public response would just be, “Tough! That’s the way things go. If you don’t like it, you just have to lump it,” dismissing Scotland’s concerns out of hand. My advice to them is to think very carefully indeed about how such an attitude is likely to be received north of the border.

With this debate, I am not trying to reopen the argument that was won and lost in ballot boxes the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I find it strange that, although I have now accepted that certainly England and Wales are leaving the European Union, some hon. Members who represent constituencies in those countries may be trying to prevent that from happening. I respect the will of the people of England and Wales. They have given a mandate and I understand that the Government seek to implement that mandate. However, I ask the Government to accept—even simply to recognise—the fact that no such mandate exists from the people of Scotland or, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland.

[William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I just wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would remind me of the result of the Scottish independence referendum.

[Peter Grant]

I am delighted to remind the hon. Gentleman that during the Scottish independence referendum, Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative party, promised the people of Scotland that a vote for independence would take us out of the European Union and a vote against independence would guarantee a place in the European Union. I am also delighted to remind him that, in percentage terms, the majority of the people of Scotland who want to stay in the European Union was almost two and a half times bigger than the majority who wanted to stay in the United Kingdom in the Scottish independence referendum.

Just now we are talking about the threat to our membership of the European Union. Other aspects of our constitutional status may well be up for discussion at some other time but, in the limited time available to me now, I will concentrate on the immediate issue, which is respecting the democratic will of the people of Scotland to remain in the European Union.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand to ask whether I could make an intervention. The Scottish fishing sector, like the Northern Ireland fishing sector, voted almost unanimously to leave the EU. It is fed up with the EU telling it what to do, with reduced fishing fleets, imposed quotas and reduced days at sea, and with red tape and bureaucracy strangling our once proud fishing fleets. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for fishing across Scotland and the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, our leaving the EU cannot happen quickly enough?

[Peter Grant]

I certainly understand the frustrations of fishermen and women. I have had some dealings with their representatives in Scotland, but I have not had the same discussions with those from other parts of the United Kingdom, so I cannot speak for them at all. We have to remember that the reason why the fishing industry in Scotland lost out through the common fisheries policy is that, as became public many years later, there was a deliberate decision by the UK Government of the day to negotiate away the livelihoods of our fishing communities in return for something that presumably benefited some other community elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman points to part of the contradiction in the way the European Union operates. Luxembourg, which does not have a fishing fleet for the very good reason that it does not have a coastline, whose population is about the same size as that of Scotland’s capital city, got more votes on adopting the common fisheries policy than Scotland ever had. Regardless of where the European referendum takes us all in the next few years, there are unanswered and unsettled questions about the constitutional status not only of Scotland but of other UK nations in relation to the rest of Europe.

The Government asked the people of the United Kingdom for a mandate on the European Union. They got different mandates from different countries within the UK. That creates a problem—there is no denying that. My concern is how we resolve that problem on behalf of the nation that I call home and that I am here partly to represent.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The concerns in Scotland are the same as those in Northern Ireland, Wales and indeed many local authority areas throughout the UK. However, there are mechanisms: those set up through the Joint Ministerial Council, through the input that Departments in Scotland and Northern Ireland will have in the preparation for negotiations and through the ongoing opportunities for debate in this House and the Exiting the European Union Committee, of which both he and I are members. Do those not give the regions of the United Kingdom the opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard? The important thing is that the Government must respond positively to the concerns raised.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members who have made interventions that the terms of the motion are specifically about Scotland? We should not be trying to develop this into a wide-ranging debate about other parts of the United Kingdom, tempting though I am sure that is.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Mr Howarth. May I just say in response to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that the jury is still out on whether the Joint Ministerial Council is worth the paper that its name is written on? We will find out once we see the position adopted by the UK Government and the evidence—or lack of evidence—of any change at all in their stance to take account of the very different demands and needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom.

It would be easy for the Government to carry on and negotiate a settlement that satisfied just their own Back Benchers and their own priorities, but to do so would be to ignore the distinct constitutional identity of Scotland and their party’s own promises to treat Scotland as an equal partner in the Union. It would renege on the Government’s call for Scotland to lead the Union and would ditch forever the respect agenda that they were so keen to promote barely 24 months ago.

To ignore and dismiss out of hand the wishes and the expressly stated decision of the people who hold sovereignty over Scotland and who are sovereign even over this Parliament when it legislates on Scottish matters would certainly please the hard-liners on the Government Benches for a few hours—until they saw how it was received in Scotland. How it would be received in Scotland is not hard to imagine, so I do not need to dwell on that here.

The first argument for giving Scotland its proper place throughout the Brexit process is that it is Scotland’s proper place. If we are truly an equal partner in this Union and an integral part of the United Kingdom, we are entitled to nothing less than equal partnership. We should be an integral part of the most important negotiations that the United Kingdom has undertaken since 1945.

The second argument stems from the Prime Minister’s repeated claims that she will negotiate a deal in the best interests of all the United Kingdom. How can she possibly know what is in the best interests of all the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom? Who is now telling her what is in the best interests of the people of Scotland? Who in the inner circle of the Cabinet will speak up for Scotland’s interests or those of other devolved nations when—not if, but when—they do not coincide with the interests of other parts of the United Kingdom? The Secretaries of State for the devolved nations are not even part of that core decision-making team. How can it be credible for Cabinet Ministers to say that they will negotiate for what they know is in best interests of Scotland, when they are fighting among themselves about what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom?

By contrast, the Scottish Government are pretty clear about what they believe is in the best interests of Scottish people. Their immediate response after the referendum was almost unanimous and supported across party lines in the Scottish Parliament. They have committed to publishing proposals before Christmas that could deliver as much as possible of what is in Scotland’s interests, while still allowing the UK Government to respect and honour the decision made on 23 June. It is sad but not surprising that before anyone even knows what that document will contain, it is already being torn to pieces by the social media trolls—none of whom, I am sure, has any connection with the Conservative party.

I hope that the UK Government will at least take time to examine the Scottish Government’s proposals. I am not insisting that they adopt them in their entirety, but I would like an assurance that at least they will be examined and given the respect that they are due. That really is the least the UK Government can do, given that for months their party leader in Scotland has been screaming demands to know the Scottish Government’s plan for Brexit. Interestingly, I do not remember ever hearing her asking to know her own Government’s plans for the United Kingdom, but maybe that is more her problem than mine.

I have not seen the Scottish Government’s document, but—again, in contrast to the UK Government—they have been clear and consistent in setting out what they believe Scotland needs to see at the end of the process. We need to retain full access to the single market. If that does not happen, the impact on our economy may be very serious indeed, because Scotland is a trading nation. Our exports support tens of thousands of jobs—not only in Scotland, but elsewhere. They also provide a very tidy income indeed, thank you very much, for Her Majesty’s Treasury. I hope that that will not be forgotten.

We also want to retain free movement of people. The UK Government have decided that free movement of people is fundamentally a bad thing that we should not accept at all, but in order not to have to accept it they are prepared to lose the benefits of membership of the single market. In Scotland, we do not see a conflict, because we want to keep free movement of people. We see free movement of people as a positive. We have benefited as a nation, socially, culturally and economically, from migrants coming in from other parts of the European Union. Our citizens have benefited from opportunities to become immigrants in other people’s countries. We want that to continue, and that is not just the view of the Scottish Government: all the indications are that it is the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland.

I suggest to the Minister that the apparent conflict between Scotland’s attitude to the free movement of people and the attitude of some other parts of the UK, and between Scotland’s determination to remain a full part of the single market and the lukewarm reception that the single market gets in other parts of the UK, can be resolved if the Government are prepared to countenance a negotiating position that seeks an agreement to allow immigration rules to apply different criteria in different parts of the United Kingdom, to meet different pressures on services and needs in the employment market. If they are prepared to accept that—it is now quite common practice in a lot of EU countries—the rules on the single market, trade areas, customs union and so on do not have to apply absolutely uniformly across the whole United Kingdom.

It has become increasingly obvious over the past few years that there are very few areas of public policy in which one size can hope to fit all throughout the United Kingdom. I suggest to the Government today that, for some of the major pillars of policy on which we will need to negotiate agreements in the lead-up to Brexit, one size cannot possibly fit both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

If the Government are not prepared to seek a solution that allows different sizes and different applications of policy in different parts of the United Kingdom, what are they suggesting instead to deliver the stated wish of the sovereigns of Scotland—the 5.5 million people who rightly and inalienably hold the right to determine what the future holds for our nation and which direction it goes in? If they are not prepared to respect that sovereign will, how will they ensure that, when the Brexit process is completed, the people of Scotland believe that they are still valued, equal partners with a mission to lead the Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I absolutely accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s point; we need to conduct the negotiation for the whole United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is important that we demonstrate that our door is open to the Scottish Government and all the other devolved Administrations.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already had a number of discussions with the Scottish Government’s Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe, Mr Russell. Indeed, I welcomed Mr Russell’s comments to the Scottish Affairs Committee on Wednesday 7 December, when he said: “The hotline is working”. I personally attended the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council in Cardiff, with the First Minister of Scotland and Minister Russell, and was pleased to have constructive discussions with that important forum. Such engagement at ministerial level is being complemented by a good deal of engagement at official level. We are holding detailed bilateral meetings with each of the devolved Administrations on key sectors that they identified as priorities, and UK Government Departments are continuing to engage with each of them on their key policy areas.

In preparing for this debate, I decided to revisit the views of the hon. Member for Glenrothes on EU policy. I was pleased to read that last November he said that

“the experts on matters such as fishing and agriculture are very often the people who work in those industries. If we do not listen to them from the very beginning of the process, we will get it wrong.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 79WH.]

I could not agree more. It is crucial that, as we prepare to leave the EU, we listen to voices from across the UK, and, indeed, from across Scotland. I have detailed some of our engagement with the Scottish Government, but that is only part of the picture.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister’s exact recollection of my words is better than my own, but I certainly will not disagree that that is what I have said. Given that we agree that the people who understand the fishing industry best are the people who work in the industry, with hindsight does he accept that a previous generation of Ministers treated the fishing industry very badly when they sold it out to Europe in return for benefits elsewhere?

[Mr Walker]

In this debate, we should focus on the future rather than debate the past, but I think we all accept that we are where we are today because mistakes have been made on Europe in the past.

On our engagement with Scotland and more widely, DExEU Ministers have met more than 130 companies from every sector of the British economy since July. That is one part of a whole of Government effort to speak to every sector and region of the British economy. Behind the scenes, officials across Whitehall are working together to ensure that businesses’ views reach the policy makers who are working to get the right deal for the UK. We have hosted round-tables with universities, energy companies, retailers, professional and business services providers, the financial sector, automotive companies, construction firms, oil and gas companies, farmers, fishermen, the food industry and businesses in regions throughout the UK. That is just the start of a national conversation that will continue as we leave the European Union.

We will continue to speak to businesses of all sizes and shapes, in every corner of the UK, including Scotland. We want to give small businesses the opportunity to have their say. The Prime Minister has held her first business summit with the Federation of Small Businesses, and we have been visiting chambers of commerce throughout the country and speaking to groups representing family businesses. Our Ministers have visited Wales, Northern Ireland and every region in England, and, of course, the Secretary of State went to Glasgow, where he visited the Tontine business centre and held a stakeholder round-table at the University of Strathclyde.

I was originally planning to visit Scotland this week, but the pressure of parliamentary business means that I now intend to travel to Scotland early next year, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union. Incidentally, on my way here from the voting Lobby, I ran into my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, who assured me that he is very much looking forward to a meeting with the Scotch Whisky Association to discuss some of the opportunities of this process. We will listen to stakeholders, including farmers, the fishing industry, and food and drink manufacturers, as well as the universities—including Scottish universities—representatives of some of which I met earlier today.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes touched on the future trading relationship with the EU. One of our first priorities is to allow UK companies to trade as freely as possible with the single market in goods and services—that is the very point he was making. We will work hard to get the best deal for the whole UK, and we are considering all factors carefully in implementing the referendum decision. We are, though, looking for a unique outcome, not an off-the-shelf solution. We are aiming for the right deal for the United Kingdom. As we conduct our negotiations, it is a priority to secure British companies’ trade with the single market in goods and services.

Indeed, we want the best possible arrangement for trade in goods and services with the EU. We are not seeking to replicate any other model; we want a bespoke approach that works for the whole of the UK, including Scotland. This objective is a priority that I believe businesses across the United Kingdom and across Scotland will share. A single UK position in relation to our future relationship with the EU is vital to protecting the UK’s interests as a whole.

For Scotland, exports to the rest of the UK are worth four times as much as those to the EU. This Government are determined to promote Scotland’s future, including through the extra £800 million of capital funding through Barnett consequentials, as a result of the autumn statement. If that funding is used properly by the Scottish Government, it will make a real difference to productivity, jobs and growth, so that the Scottish economy can perform even more strongly in the future.

I note that the hon. Member for Glenrothes and some of his hon. Friends have touched on a role for the Scottish Government in the negotiations themselves. We have made no decisions yet about the format of the direct negotiations with the European Union. Of course, it will be for the Prime Minister to ensure that we negotiate the best possible future for the United Kingdom, and our Department is there to support her, representing the interests of all the UK’s constituent parts. However, it is very clear that in each of the three devolution settlements, the conduct of international relations is a matter that is expressly reserved. In the Scotland settlement,

“international relations....including relations with the European Union”

is a reserved matter. That does not diminish our commitment to engaging the Scottish Government. I say again that the JMC(EN) has an important and enduring role in overseeing these negotiations as they take place.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about Scotland’s position on free movement and I know that in the past he has raised the issue of EU citizens living in the UK. Let me repeat what I have said many times on that: I want and the Government want to ensure the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. We need to do that through negotiation and through a reciprocal agreement that also secures the rights of UK citizens, including many Scottish citizens, living in the European Union. It is absolutely vital that we do that at the earliest possible opportunity, and I hope that we will be able to bring news on that front early in the negotiation process after article 50.

Although it is a priority to do that, obviously it must be done through negotiations. Doing otherwise would risk adversely affecting our negotiating position and hence the position of British citizens, including many from Scotland, who have chosen to build a life with their families in other countries.

This is a very important issue and an important debate, and I welcome the discussion that we have had today. The hon. Gentleman is clear that Scotland’s voice will be heard in this process and so am I. We have established good processes for engaging with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations through the JMC forums. As we have seen today, Scottish MPs are playing a full and active part in the parliamentary scrutiny that is ongoing in this United Kingdom House of Commons. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pointed out, MPs from across the United Kingdom have that opportunity and are taking it.

We are ensuring that channels exist for official-level discussions on the detail and seeking to build a common evidence base. We stand ready to talk to the Scottish Government at any time. I know that we have heard much talk of plans lately in this House, as per the debate last week, and we will set out more of the detail for the UK plan ahead of the notification of article 50 before the end of March 2017.

We will leave the EU as one United Kingdom, but in doing so it is vital that Scotland’s interests are understood and that the voices of the people, businesses and other groups in Scotland are heard.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

12. What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

13. Whether it is his policy to allow EU nationals living in the UK to remain after the UK leaves the EU.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on his election as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee.

We had a very good debate on this matter yesterday and it was clear that Members on both sides of the House wanted to provide reassurance. The Government fully intend to protect the status of EU nationals already living here and the Prime Minister has been clear on that point. We expect UK citizens’ rights in other EU member states to be protected in return. I find it hard to imagine a scenario where, in negotiations, that is not the outcome. At every step of the negotiations, we will seek to ensure the best possible outcomes for the British people at home and overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly, this is something that we will want to secure in the negotiations. We are working on the basis that what is fair to UK citizens in the EU should also be fair to EU citizens in the UK. We will certainly be looking to protect the interests of British pensioners as we go through this process.

[Peter Grant]

The most recent census indicates that 1,588 of my constituents were born in other EU countries. From personal experience, I know that they include doctors, dentists, teachers, nurses, home care workers, residential care workers, pupil support assistants and many more. Why are the Government already able to give unilateral guarantees about the remaining rights of bankers but unable to give the same guarantees to my constituents?

[Mr Walker]

We are clear that it is important to secure the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. We will seek to do so through the negotiations.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I have made the point already that we have duties and responsibilities to British citizens abroad as well as to EU citizens here. We seek to give the latter the best guarantees we can as soon as we can, but the answer to exactly when that will be is not solely in my hands.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I hope that the whole House will accept the Secretary of State’s sincerity in seeking to avoid what I think he referred to as fostering divisions and creating hostility in our communities. In that context, does he believe it is appropriate for Ministers to refer to EU citizens living in the UK using terms such as “bargaining counters” and “cheap foreign labour”?

[Mr Davis]

I do not think I have ever referred to them in those terms—in fact, I know I have not. The simple truth is that they are not bargaining counters. One problem that would arise if we divided the two categories of EU citizens here and British citizens abroad would be that we would turn one of them into a bargaining counter, which is precisely what we are avoiding.

EU Referendum Rules

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting start. Does he agree that if both sides of the campaign are supposed to be balanced, it is irresponsible for anyone to deliver literature in the closing days of any referendum campaign strongly advising people, “If in doubt, vote for the status quo”? If people are in doubt, they should not vote.

[John Penrose]

My point was that had we set up a super-majority as the petition suggests, we would have tilted the rules unfairly in favour of the remain campaign. With a fair and level playing field, both sides are free to make their cases as strongly as they can and to rebut the other side’s case if they feel that it is wrong. The hon. Gentleman clearly feels that some of the points that were made were entirely incorrect, but the correct response was to argue against them and engage in democratic debate at the time, not to try to tilt the playing field towards one side or the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

In that case, let me say two things. First, the hon. Gentleman and the remain side were singularly ineffective in rubbishing that claim, despite the fact that I heard it being rubbished many times. Secondly, he says that working-class voters—Labour voters—would have voted to stay if they had known it was only £200 million a week, but were prepared to vote to leave for £350 million. He has put a price on their vote of the difference between those two sums, which I do not find true.

[Peter Grant]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I will continue, if I may.

If it was a lie for the leave side to refer to our gross contribution without netting off the money we get back, were not remain campaigners just as dishonest to focus on money we get back without mentioning the contribution we make? Remainers frequently claimed, with no rebuttal from the BBC, that the EU gives millions of pounds to universities, researchers, farmers, regions and so on, with no mention that British taxpayers contribute £2 or £3 for every £1 returned to us. They cannot have it both ways and say it is wrong for one side to mention the gross figure, but not for the other. I doubt if the outcome would have been any different if the leave battle bus had painted £200 million per week on its side, rather than £350 million. I met countless voters who said, “My heart is for leave, but my pocket says stay.” They were convinced by “Project Fear” that they would be worse off if we left the EU.

The Treasury analysis of the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU said that

“a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.”

On top of that, we were promised a punishment Budget that would take away benefits from the sick, the disabled and the elderly. None of those things, I am happy to say, have occurred. There has been some hope from one or two Opposition Members that they will occur in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Member for Streatham has pre-empted my next paragraph, so I thank him for that. He may read my speech to prove to him that I am not retrofitting anything.

Although it is not incumbent on the Government to take on board the campaign ideas and slogans of Vote Leave, it would be unwise of any Government to ignore some of the fundamental issues that came to the fore during the referendum campaign, such as the desire for greater domestic sovereignty for this country, for the reprioritisation of Government spending to domestic expenditure—for example, a significant upturn in spending on the national health service—for the control of borders and for greater international trade. Without a doubt, through the negotiation process and in the aftermath of our exit, the Government will need to put to the British people a credible plan on those issues and a whole host of others to have a realistic chance of being returned to government.

That brings me to my fundamental point. The way parliamentary democracy and parliamentary accountability work is that prospective Governments should put forward their ideas. Those ideas should be voted on by the British people, and those Governments should be held to account for the delivery or otherwise of that agenda.

It is helpful to think about the chronology. We are likely to see article 50 invoked relatively soon, I suspect. Then over the next couple of years, as timetabled by article 50, we will see a negotiated position, which I suspect will be in the public domain in the lead-up to the 2020 general election. The Prime Minister will no doubt put forward the Conservative plan for what Brexit will look like in real terms, including on immigration policy, public spending policy, trade policy, defence policy and so on. I am sure the Labour party—I will rephrase that: I hope the Labour party—will be able to put forward an agenda for what its impression of Brexit looks like, including its public spending priorities, immigration plans and international trade plans. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party will do likewise. If one of those parties wishes to say, “Actually, do you know what? None of the deals on the table is good enough. We will rejoin the EU and overturn the explicit mandate from the EU referendum,” good luck to them. They can put that in front of the British people and let us see what they come up with.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman is painting quite a tempting scenario. Is it not the case, first of all, that once article 50 is triggered, the United Kingdom will not have any unilateral right, and if we do not have a negotiated deal within two years, Europe will then be entitled to tell us what the deal is? Secondly, is it not the case that deciding to remain in the European Union is relatively straightforward? However, if the United Kingdom were to try to get back in as a new member state after leaving, the UK as it is now would fail the democracy test and would not be eligible for EU membership,

[James Cleverly]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. Although I disagree with some of the fundamentals underlying it, it is a valid point, but the status quo is as I described it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

This is an interesting debate to attempt to sum up. I clearly do not have time to address all the interesting points that have been made. I apologise to Members whose constituencies I am not familiar with, and also if I miss out their “right honourable” titles. If I do not have time to get around all the points that have been made, Members can assume that if they said something that I agree with, their point was very well made, and if they said something that I disagree with, their arguments were fatally flawed and really should not be heard again.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the intentions of the 4 million-plus people who signed the petition, but in my heart of hearts I cannot support the petition because of its wording. Nor can I support its general thrust, which is that we should have another referendum on EU membership. The most fundamental of my political beliefs is that the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people means that people have the right to be wrong and to take decisions that I personally disagree with. I have had quite a lot of practice at being gutted and devastated about referendum results and at having people who trust me to act on their behalf begging me to force a rerun because there must have been some mistake. I have had to say to them, “I’m sorry, it’s not the way I wanted it to happen.” In both cases, the result did not reflect the way people in Fife voted, but it reflected how the people as a whole voted. We have to respect that. As part of that, though, I will demand and insist that the people of my country have their wish respected as well. That is a red line as far as I am concerned.

We cannot ignore the frustration we are seeing. It is wrong to impugn the integrity, character and honesty of the 4 million people who have asked for a second referendum. I do not impugn the integrity or honesty of the 4 million people who voted UKIP—I suspect that there is not an awful lot of overlap between those two groups of 4 million. However passionately and fundamentally I might disagree with someone else’s view, I will always stand by their right to express it. One of the ills of the politics that we are now seeing come to fruition is that we are far too quick to criticise people’s integrity and question their motives just because they have views that differ strongly from our own. I welcome the contributions that have been made on both sides of the debate, even though I felt that some of them showed poor analysis and I could not possibly agree with them.

I shall pick up on one or two key points. A Labour Member made an interesting intervention early in the debate—I am sorry, but I cannot remember who it was and whether they are still present—suggesting that the demand for a second referendum is damaging to our democracy. No, the demand for a second referendum is a strong symptom of the fact that our democracy is already severely, if not fatally, damaged. A fundamental test of any democratic process should always be that the losers accept that the contest was fair. In this case, a substantial number of the losers do not believe that. If they are honest about it, a substantial number of the winners are probably also not happy about the way in which the contest was won.

Nevertheless, we cannot attempt to rerun the contest. Like other Members, there may be circumstances in which I would support another referendum to confirm our exit from the European Union, although I am not yet convinced about that. We have to stop and ask ourselves: how have weaknesses been allowed to develop for so long in this, the so-called mother of all Parliaments, such that a Government can embark on a course that leads to something that the vast majority of that Government, including the then Prime Minister himself, were convinced would be catastrophic for the nations they had been elected to serve and to lead? How can a Government who had the support of only 36% of those who bothered to turn out and vote lead four nations of 60 million-plus people down a path on which that same Government did not want to embark, when two of the four equal partner nations were determined not to embark on that path? We have been led into a position from which I can see no way for England and Wales to retain their membership of the European Union. If or when they change their minds and try to get back in, I wish them the best of luck, but I cannot see an acceptable way for them to retain membership.

It is unacceptable to suggest that Scotland and/or Northern Ireland just have to follow suit. What the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said was interesting. I agree with him that we can never say, “Thank you very much for giving us your opinion, but damn you, we’re going to ignore you,” but 57.8% of people in Northern Ireland said that they wanted to stay in the European Union. I am not prepared to say to those citizens of one of the nations of these islands, “Damn you, we’re going to ignore you and take you out of the EU, even if you don’t want to go.”

There has been a lot of discussion about the nature of the wildly untrue statements and promises that were made during the referendum campaign. It genuinely scares me that Members of Parliament—honourable Members of Parliament—can sit here in an open forum and say, “Yeah, but people tell lies in general elections and council elections. It is just part of the system.” It should never be part of the system. It is appalling that a Member of this Parliament was found by a court of law to have told a blatant lie, but the law does not provide for that person to be forced to seek re-election through a by-election. There is something fundamentally wrong if the political system not only tacitly but now explicitly accepts that telling lies is an accepted part of the political process. If this whole shambolic affair does nothing more than create a situation in which lies and politics and public life are no longer allowed to coexist, perhaps the cloud will have a bit of a silver lining.

As I mentioned, I have been through two referendums—I hope I do not lose the third, because I think if I lose three times I am out altogether—and the contrast between them could not have been more marked. Other Members have mentioned the Electoral Reform Society report, which highlighted many concerns. I shall give one example. On the Sunday after the Scottish independence referendum, I, along with a lot of campaigners on both sides of the debate, was invited by my local church to attend one of the services of reconciliation that took place the length and breadth of the country. Yes, no and don’t know campaigners and activists literally joined hands in prayer—or whatever was appropriate for those who do not have a particular faith.

The immediate response to the Brexit vote was a substantial and horrific increase in racial violence. If that does not tell us that the Brexit referendum has left a legacy that is far more toxic and poisonous than it needed to be, we are certainly not watching what is really happening in these islands. I commend the two Members who are no longer present for the initiative they took to try to heal the divisions. I do not think those divisions were caused by the referendum. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to the referendum having laid bare the divisions. The malaise in the political process has been brought to a focus by the referendum. That was always going to happen.

The referendum was provoked by the desire of the then Prime Minister to fend off a challenge from the extreme right—not only the extreme right in the Conservative party, but those who were too extreme for his party—rather than facing down the xenophobes who wanted to demonise immigration and hold immigrants responsible for all the ills in our society. It is sad and shameful that neither of the two major political parties went into the last election saying, “You know what? We are not going to be bullied by the keyboard tappers of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. We are going to tell it like it is. We are going to say that we stand for immigration being a positive contribution to our nations. If you want to vote for a Government who say something different, you can have that Government, but we will not be part of it.” Neither of the two major parties was prepared to do that, because getting elected was more important to them than saying what they fundamentally believed in.

I cannot believe how the Labour party produced election material saying, “Vote Labour for strong immigration controls”. I was brought up in the Labour party. The second time in my life that I voted was when I voted for a Labour MP. Interestingly enough, the first time that I voted was in the 1979 devolution referendum, and when we were cheated out of that one it nearly put me off voting for life. I cannot believe how the party I was once pleased to support can have any truck with those who want to demonise immigrants and immigration and blame them for the ills of society. When Labour made that concession—when it started to try to appease the far right, just like the Government of the day—that put us on a headlong course at the end of which Brexit was perhaps inevitable, and the horrific racist and racialistic legacy that has been left in too many of our communities will take a long, long time to put right. I hope that it is put right in time for my friends in other parts of the United Kingdom to be welcomed back into the European Union, but I can tell people something for nothing—Scotland is a member of the European Union now, and I intend for us to stay that way.