Draft Statutory Auditors, Third Country Auditors and International Accounting Standards (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Monday 9th September 2019 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to make a brief contribution. In the Chamber, several hon. Members are still paying tribute to the Speaker; shortly, there will be an application for an emergency debate to force the Government to come clean about what on earth is going on with Prorogation and much else; later, there will be another attempt to force a general election. In Westminster Hall, our colleagues are debating a petition that was possibly the quickest ever to reach more than 1 million signatures. We—the lucky few—are here talking about the Statutory Auditors, Third Country Auditors and International Accounting Standards (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These regulations will not be the news headlines tonight, but perhaps they should be.

If we get this wrong—I think the Government are still getting it wrong on their second attempt—the consequences will be catastrophic for businesses, homes, jobs and the suppliers of big companies. That is why it is important for us to get it right this time. Part of the reason that we are discussing these regulations is that we did not get them right last time, because everything had to be done in such a panic-stricken rush that they were not as watertight as legislation needs to be. We should have been out of the European Union five months ago. We would have been out six months ago without a deal, if some hon. Members on the Government Benches had had their way. Even on such fundamental questions as who regulates those who regulate the conduct and misconduct of multinational businesses, however, we have still not got it right.

As the hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned, auditors tend to be anonymous most of the time, but when we look at the causes of almost all the huge corporate failures, of which Carillion is perhaps the most recent mega-failure, there are always big questions to be asked about why the auditors did not do something and how they could not have noticed. I should mention that although I am a qualified member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which may be why I was given the privilege of coming here this afternoon, I am not qualified to conduct statutory company audits, so I do not have an interest to declare.

As well as the questions that always come up about what the auditors were doing, the inquiry almost always concludes, although it is not inevitable, that the auditors did not break any rules at the time. We have had to completely review—realign, reset and turn inside out—the structure of the institutions that regulate statutory auditors and their profession a number of times. Try as we might, we will always struggle to keep up with the multinational chancers who look for every minor loophole in any regulation to allow their misconduct to go undetected for as long as possible—and often unpunished forever.

It is therefore important to get it right this time. The hon. Member for Sefton Central highlighted some of the concerns. When there are a lot of statutory instruments to get through, there is a danger that among some relatively minor consequential technical stuff that nobody could object to, significant changes to Government policy and to legislation are slipped in, in terms that should be brought as specific items for the whole House to consider, rather than in Committee on the upper corridors of the House of Commons on a wet Monday afternoon. I understand that quite a lot of what is in the regulations needed to be put in there, but the Committee needs to say to the Government that it cannot accept the regulations as they are.

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

I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. I am on the Committee and I am happy to dig into the detail, but I am not getting detail from Opposition Members, although I am hearing opposition from them. The hon. Gentleman says that there are things in the regulations to be worried about; perhaps he could outline them for us, as is the purpose of the Committee, point by point and subsection by subsection. I am happy to sit here and go through it. We have other business in the House of Commons, but as he rightly points out, this is an enormously important issue for the whole United Kingdom—it applies to the whole United Kingdom—for my constituents and for the businesses they are in. I ask him to please outline the details, so we can go through them together in a cross-party way.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman agrees with some of the points I am making. As he helpfully points out, if Government Members were all that interested in going through the regulations in fine detail, perhaps they should have asked professionals in the various accounting and auditing institutions before the Committee. I have no doubt that Government Members will rise to speak in support of the regulations. When they do so, perhaps they will tell the Committee what could have gone disastrously wrong if they had taken the time to get the policy right on their third attempt, and asked the statutory accounting and audit bodies what the regulations would do.

UK Trade and Investment Strategy

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant]

I have been absolutely consistent, before, during and after the referendum, that I will continue to campaign for the best trade deal that we will ever have, which is membership of the most successful trading partnership the world has ever seen. As I have said before, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not there—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I will deal with one interruption before I take another.

I accept the verdict of the people of my nation and of this nation. I demand—I do not ask, beg or plead—that the sovereign will of the people of my nation to remain in the European Union be respected. In return for that, I will undertake to respect the sovereign will of the people of this nation who voted to leave.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the sovereign will of our nation, but we sit in the United Kingdom Parliament. Our country is the United Kingdom and the people of our nation voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. Why does he not respect the will of the people in Scotland from 2014, but suddenly respects it from 2016? He talks about the best and most successful trading partnership in history, but of course, that is the United Kingdom, of which I hope we will always be proud to sit as part.

[Peter Grant]

I am puzzled as to how refusing to respect a referendum that said that Scotland should continue to elect Members of Parliament to sit in this place could be consistent with the fact that I am in this place carrying out my responsibilities as an elected Member of the United Kingdom Parliament for a Scottish constituency.

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten to mention, again, that the single biggest argument of the no campaign in the 2014 independence referendum—I am ready to have a further full discussion about independence whenever he wants—was that if we leave the United Kingdom, we are out of the European Union, so if we stay in the United Kingdom, we guarantee Scotland’s membership of the European Union. That promise has been shown to be utterly worthless.

We have a democratically elected Parliament and Government in Scotland with a mandate to give the people of Scotland a choice to decide on our future. It would be a democratic outrage for anybody to attempt to usurp that, especially considering that this Parliament, not long ago, unanimously and without a Division agreed that sovereignty over the nation of Scotland resides with the people of Scotland. Anybody who did not like that view had the chance to oppose it when it was put to the House; nobody did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I want to get back to the topic that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster diligently set out. As I said, when the starting gun is fired, I will be ready to debate why Scotland’s future is not as a part of the United Kingdom, but that is not why we are here. We are here to debate how the United Kingdom, with or without some of its constituent parts, can find a new place in the world of international trade, having taken a mistaken decision to cut itself off from the biggest and most successful trading partnership the world has ever seen.

Three or four months after we should have been implementing our future trade strategy, we do not know what the aims and ground rules will be; what importance will be given to other trading partners’ respect for inter- national environmental standards; or what requirements will be set in respect of workers’ rights in the countries that produce the goods that we are going to start trading in. Some of our trading partners do not have a good track record on looking after workers in their factories. Nor do we know what weight if any will be attached to the human rights records of the countries that we are chasing for international trade deals.

Since the 2016 European Union referendum, one area of British exports that has done well is weapons sales, because the number of arms licences to sell British weapons to countries that are on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights watch list has doubled. In the last 10 years, the United Kingdom has agreed to the sale of weapons to every single country that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regards as having a bad track record on human rights, with the exception—I wonder for how long—of North Korea.

Is the purpose of our world trade strategy of global Britain not so much that Britain is great, but that weapons are great? Do we intend to continue to expand the policy of selling weapons with little or no regard to their real purpose? Will we start importing goods without any concern as to the conditions that were imposed on the workers who manufactured them? That would be consistent with an independent trade strategy, but I think it would be unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it would be unacceptable and that the trade deals that the United Kingdom will enter into to replace the 40 trade deals that we enjoy through the European Union will insist that standards of environmental protection, product safety and workers’ conditions and rights are at least as high in our trading partner countries as they are under those existing trade deals.

In 2017, the Secretary of State for International Trade promised that the Government would

“replicate the 40 EU free trade agreements that exist before we leave the European Union, so we’ve got no disruption of trade.”

Will the Minister take a second or two of his summing up to list exactly which of those 40 trade deals we have replicated? I suspect that it will not take him long. Again, a promise that was made before and after the referendum—that all those trade deals would be replaced before we left the European Union—has been shown to be utterly worthless. Of course, that promise was not painted on a bus by somebody who claimed that they were not acting as a Minister, but was made by a serving Minister of the Crown.

The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster mentioned the concern that the price of a trade deal might be to open up parts of our services to privatisation and outsourcing where domestic Governments would not have permitted that.

The Government have been very careful to say, “We’re not going to allow the NHS to be privatised.” That is good, but in this part of the United Kingdom, far too much of the NHS is already privatised for my liking. A lot more of the NHS is privatised in this country than would ever be permitted in my country. That is fair enough—if the people of England want to vote for Governments who choose to outsource more and more of their NHS and NHS support services, good luck to them. That is their right. However, the people of Scotland have voted for a Government who have explicitly said, “There will be no privatisation anywhere in our NHS.” As a statement from a national Government, that is something that must be respected.

[Luke Graham]

As the hon. Gentleman is talking about privatisation within the NHS, perhaps he can inform the Chamber now of the percentage increase in privatisation in the Scottish NHS and the increase in expenditure for temporary, locum and non-NHS workers used within our devolved NHS back in Scotland?

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the NHS in Scotland, like the NHS throughout the United Kingdom, has a serious shortage of expert, professional specialist staff. Part of the reason for that is that his Government are making the United Kingdom a less attractive place for people to come and work. They have created a hostile environment. The hon. Gentleman can snigger up his sleeve behind me, but I have cases in my constituency where a healthcare provider had to terminate the contracts of two professionally qualified healthcare specialists because they did not meet the United Kingdom Government’s salary level requirements to be allowed to stay.

If those specialists had worked in London, where everything—prices, rents, wages—is higher, they would have met the threshold. The same provider is allowed to provide services to people in London, but the people providing services to my constituents had their contracts terminated and had to leave the United Kingdom. That is not the fault of the Scottish Government or the European Union; it is the fault of an immigration service that is based on numbers, not on human beings or the need to continue to attract the best talent and the best people we can into our NHS. It is a simple fact that there are aspects of the NHS in some parts of the United Kingdom that are run for profit that, under the policy of the Scottish Government, will not be allowed to run for profit. They will be owned directly and provided for by the public sector.

We can all have different opinions about the best way to run a health service, but it would be utterly unacceptable for a United Kingdom Government or a Scottish Government to impose a way of doing things on health authorities in England that they believed was not in the best interests of their people. It would be equally unacceptable for any Government of the United Kingdom to enter into a trade deal, without the consent of the Government of one of the devolved nations, that would undermine the devolved authority that those nations have. I have not yet heard a categorical, cast-iron guarantee, so I will give the Minister another chance to give an absolute guarantee in his summing-up that there will be nothing outsourced in Scotland’s NHS without the explicit consent of the Government and Parliament of Scotland.

One of the arguments used for our leaving the European Union—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster did not use it today, because it is completely ridiculous—was the claim that, as the United Kingdom has a trade deficit with the European Union and a trade surplus with the rest of the world, the answer was to leave the European Union and only trade with the bits of the rest of the world that we have a trade surplus with. If we only trade with people who we have a trade surplus with, the only people who are going to trade with us are those who have a trade surplus with us, so nobody can trade and it does not get us any further forward.

That argument also completely fails to recognise why it is that, particularly in manufactured goods, the United Kingdom has struggled to trade as an equal competitor with the rest of the European Union. It is because other parts of the European Union take the profits of their industry and put them back into the industry, to make it more efficient, cost-effective and competitive. For too long in the United Kingdom, the profits of industry have disappeared to a tax haven somewhere in the Caribbean or Mediterranean. Because of the way that United Kingdom businesses have run their businesses, they have not kept up.

If we look at the productivity of businesses in the United Kingdom compared with their equivalent direct competitors in parts of the United Kingdom, there is nothing in European legislation that means that Europeans sell more stuff and more profitably than the equivalent companies in the United Kingdom. That happens because they can often do it more efficiently and reliably, sometimes even in industries where the UK previously had a record as one of the best in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

There was a recent case in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office refused to support visits abroad by the First Minister of Scotland. That refusal was welcomed by the Scottish Conservative party.

[Luke Graham]

On a point of order, Mr Davies.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful finally to get the chance to contribute to this debate. I am in a bit of an unusual position—I think I am speaking on day six of a five-day debate, which is a privilege not granted to many.

I appreciate the chance to remind the House of some of the reasons—only some of them, because we have only four hours left and others want to speak—why Scotland cannot and will not accept this deal or anything closely resembling it. For me and a great many of my fellow Scots, probably the most damaging and pernicious feature of this entire deal is the very thing the Prime Minister chose to list as its single biggest benefit. When she emailed all 650 MPs ahead of the original withdrawal agreement debate, what did she choose to put right at the top of her list of reasons for supporting the agreement? The fact that it would mean an end to the free movement of people.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department confirmed that today. Despite his protestations, there were howls of protest from Conservative Back Benchers when my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) made the same point yesterday. I find it astonishing that, given the Environment Secretary’s comments yesterday, the party in government seems more concerned about the welfare and free movement of racehorses than about the welfare and free movement of people. The Conservative party believes that ending the free movement of people is the best aspect of this deal. I beg to differ.

In fact, if end the free movement of people were all the agreement did, that in itself would be more than sufficient reason to consign it to the dustbin. I see young parents in my constituency in tears because the Scotland they have come to know and love as their home—the Scotland that made them so welcome—will not be allowed to give the same welcome to their families. I see our precious health and social care services, on which members of my family rely right now, plunged into crisis because the British Government are deliberately making it harder for them to recruit the staff they need. I see my home country, which is known throughout the world as one of the most welcoming and hospitable on the planet, being dragged into a mire of xenophobic, small-minded isolationism by a governing party that has been resoundingly rejected in every election my country has seen during my 58 years on planet Earth. When I see those things, the only response I can give with any kind of conscience is that I will resist the agreement with every cell in my body and for every second that I am granted to remain in this life.

If our people had been told the truth in 2014—if they had been told that the price of continuing to be governed from London would be being part of this vile policy—there would be 59 fewer Members of this Parliament and the national Parliament of Scotland would be exercising full sovereignty as a full partner member of the European Union family.

Members on both sides of the House should look themselves in the mirror and examine their consciences carefully. Is it not utterly despicable that some people set out in 2014 deliberately to target EU nationals, who had the right to vote in our referendum because that was the right thing to do, and say, “You’ve got to vote to be ruled by Westminster because otherwise your future as EU citizens in Scotland could be under threat,” but those EU nationals then saw the rights they enjoyed and expected their families to enjoy taken away from them as a result of a decision their home country voted against in a referendum they were banned from taking part in? I really wonder how some people in this place can sleep peacefully at night.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point about the 2014 referendum. It is despicable when EU nationals’ rights are played with as a bargaining chip, so can he speak to the comment by the then Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, that 160,000 EU nationals in Scotland would be stripped of their right to remain in Scotland if it did not get access to the European Union? There was no unilateral guarantee like the one the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have provided from Nicola Sturgeon then. Why is it okay for the Scottish National party to use EU nationals as bargaining chips but despicable of us to guarantee their rights?

[Peter Grant]

I say first to the hon. Gentleman that his Government refused point blank to give the immediate unilateral guarantees the Scottish Government asked for the day after the—[Interruption.] No, they refused point blank to do it. Nicola Sturgeon was pointing out to EU nationals in Scotland the danger of continuing to have an immigration policy that was reserved to this place. She was not stating what would happen in the event that Scotland became independent; she was warning what might happen in the event that we did not. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the fears being expressed now by tens of thousands of people in Scotland are exactly the fears they were warned about by the then Deputy First Minister.

Let me remind the House of one of the boasts the hon. Gentleman made when he intervened on the shadow Home Secretary. Unless I am very mistaken, he boasted that he had fought to get his constituents passports. The Conservative party is proud of the fact that people who came here to live, work and contribute as a matter of right now have to seek the services of a Member of Parliament to fight to be given the passport that should be theirs as a matter of right. If the Conservatives think that is something to be proud of, that demonstrates once again how far their moral compass is from anything that could ever be accepted in Scotland.

That is only when we consider the moral and humanitarian arguments against what the British Government are seeking to impose on us. It would be bad enough for them to embark on such a regressive, socially divisive path if they thought that it would make us better off, but every one of their own analyses, of which there are quite a few—in fact, just about every credible analysis ever made of the economic impact of free movement of people—tells us that it is good for the host nations, and good for the peoples of the host nations.

The Government’s own analysis shows that, no matter what Brexit scenario we end up with, ending free movement and slashing the rights of immigrants to come here on anything like the scale that they intend will damage our economy. So even if we subscribed to the Thatcherite gospel that there is no such thing as society, but just a collection of individuals—even if we followed that creed of “Let us look after ourselves, and to hell with everyone else”—ending free movement of people would still be the wrong thing to do. To subscribe to this Government’s anti-immigration and anti-immigrant philosophy, we would not just need to be selfish; we would need to be out of oor flaming heids.

On 19 December, during the final Prime Minister’s Question Time of the year, I asked the Prime Minister to name one single tangible benefit that would compensate my constituents for the social and economic damage that we know ending free movement of people would cause. She could not give a single example. If the Home Secretary wants to listen, I will give him a chance to stand up and name one benefit to my constituents of ending free movement, but even if he were interested enough to listen, he would not be able to do so.

In fact, I will happily give way to any Conservative Member who wants to take the opportunity to answer the question that the Prime Minister dodged. None of them wants to do so. No Conservative Member can identify a single tangible benefit that my constituents will see. By their silence, the Conservatives are telling me that I cannot vote for this deal. By their silence, they are telling me that ending free movement of people is not good for my constituents—so how dare they ask me to support it?

The Prime Minister dodged the question, just as she and a succession of Ministers have dodged every difficult question that they have ever been asked during the Brexit process. Indeed, the ongoing debacle over parliamentary scrutiny of this shambles demonstrates that we have not only a Prime Minister and a Government who have lost control, but a Prime Minister and a Government who will cynically play the card of parliamentary sovereignty when it suits them, but will use every trick in the book—and quite a few tricks that are not in the book—to try and stop us doing the job that we were elected to do. They spout their creed of parliamentary sovereignty sometimes, and at other times they do everything possible to undermine it.

They Government went to court to try to prevent Parliament from having any say in the triggering of article 50. They have whipped their own MPs—although not successfully in every case—to vote against allowing this debate even to happen. I have noted on every day of the debate that those who claim that allowing it to take place was an act of treason have not exactly been backward in coming forward and asking to join in at every opportunity. The Government abuse their privileged position in respect of setting parliamentary business to try to strip the meaningful vote of any actual meaning. Like bad-loser, spoilt-brat football managers the world over, they have even resorted to ganging up on the referee to complain and accuse him of cheating every time he gives an offside decision against them—and not just during the 90 regulation minutes of points of order on Wednesday; the Leader of the House even tried to do it again during a wee bit of penalty time yesterday morning.

The Government are mounting an intense campaign of what can only be described as misinformation to frighten Parliament, to frighten our citizens, to frighten businesses, to frighten everyone, into believing that they must accept this deal because it is the only possible deal and the only alternative is no deal. That is simply and palpably not true, and the Prime Minister knows it is not true. How can I be sure that the Prime Minister knows it is not true? Because she has said so herself on at least half a dozen occasions that I can trace. She has said it at the Dispatch Box, and she has said it in television interviews. She has told us that it is not a simple choice between her deal and no deal.

In an attempt to scare the no deal brigade in her own party, the Prime Minister was forced to admit that if her deal failed, Brexit might not have to happen. When I first saw that reported on the BBC website, I thought it must be a mistake, but if it was, it is a mistake that the Prime Minister has made nearly every day since then. Her clearly stated position is that we are not faced with a simple binary choice between her deal and no deal. We still have the option of keeping the deal that we already have. Staying where we are is always an option. The status quo is always available. The best of all possible deals is the deal that we have right now, and I must say to my colleagues and good friends on the Labour Benches that it is the only possible deal that meets their six tests of an acceptable Brexit. If they could only get their act together and accept that, between us we could stop this madness with absolute certainty.

Earlier this week, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), in what I have to say was the most shambolic appearance before a Select Committee that I have ever seen, managed to walk into a trap and make an admission that he had been trying to avoid making throughout the meeting. It was a trap set—presumably by mistake—by one of his own fellow hardline Brexiteers. He was asked:

“Minister, would you agree that, by taking no deal off the table, it weakens our hand in negotiations with the EU?”

His reply was “I would, yes.” Members should think about that for a minute—apart from the slight technical point that there are no negotiations with the EU, because the deal has been done and the negotiations have finished.

Not only the Minister, but one of those hardline Brexiteers in the European Research Group, has admitted that the Government have it in their power to take no deal off the table. Why would they leave it on the table when they know, and everyone knows, that it is the worst possible outcome? Why would they try to force a situation in which it the only alternative, which is what they want us to believe? Why, in recent weeks, have they spent so much time and money telling businesses, trade unions, voluntary organisations and everyone else something that they know is not true?

Only the Government could answer those questions, but when it is put in the context of all the other shenanigans that they have been up to, it seems obvious what they are doing. They know that the Prime Minister’s deal has absolutely no chance of getting through the House on its own merits. In fact, I think most Ministers have known for months that as soon as the Prime Minister set her stupid red lines, there was no possibility of an acceptable deal that complied with those red lines, but instead of doing the right thing—instead of persuading the Prime Minister that she had to change her approach— they set out to try and pauchle the whole process. They were determined that the only vote we would ever have—the vote, remember, that they do not want us to have at all—would be rigged. They knew that the only good thing about the Prime Minister’s deal was that it was not quite as bad as no deal, so they set out to fabricate a situation in which they tried to tell us that no deal was the only alternative. That is why we have seen the Prime Minister’s almost Damascene conversion, virtually overnight, from “No deal is better than a bad deal”—which, by the way, is in the Conservative manifesto—to “Any bad deal is better than no deal”.

That is just one example of the hypocrisy and the double standards that we have seen from this Government, but perhaps the most brazen example of their double standards—and that is saying something—appeared in a tweet earlier this week.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Immigration has been a big part of the Brexit debate and one of the most contentious issues in modern political times. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) made it clear that the matter should be debated robustly and respectfully, and I hope to do that in my remarks. Like many others, I recognise that immigration stirs passions, and that this House must have the courage to confront an issue that vexes not only our country and our constituents, but the United States and many EU and Asian states. Immigration is an important issue for me. I have been lucky enough to live and work on three separate continents and to experience the immigration regimes of the People’s Republic of China, the Kingdom of Thailand and the republic of the United States of America. I have been through their immigration systems and have seen costs and benefits.

The United Kingdom has had a significant amount of immigration over the past two decades. A Migration Advisory Committee report makes it clear that the experience of immigrants and immigration across the United Kingdom has been different, which is reflected in the numbers. England has far more foreign nationals and people born abroad than Scotland—5.5 million versus 358,000, and 16% versus 9%. That shows that the UK as a whole is not the backward, narrow-minded backwater that so many Opposition Members keep trying to suggest, but a booming international country that has welcomed and always will welcome people who want to live and work here.

First, I want to respond to the criticisms made by some Scottish National party Members, because their contributions have been ill-tempered and poorly judged. They talk about the UK and Scotland as though they are one place, but we know that that is not true. Net migration in London was over 88,000 in 2016-17. In Glasgow, it was just over 5,000. In Perth and Kinross, which I share with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), it was 148. In Clackmannanshire, which sits entirely within my constituency, the average was 15 a year between 2004 and 2016.

Secondly, other parts of the UK are not hotbeds of anti-immigrant sentiment. According to the British social attitudes survey in 2016, there was a variation of only five to six percentage points between Scotland, Wales and England in terms of opinions on immigration, and that is with Scotland having experienced immigration in the thousands and England and Wales in the millions.

Thirdly, SNP Members make themselves out to be champions of EU nationals, but in 2014 the then Deputy First Minister, now First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, clearly said that EU nationals would be stripped of their right to remain in Scotland if Scotland separated from the UK and therefore the EU. They were used as a bargaining chip. It was despicable then and it is indefensible by the SNP Members now.

[Peter Grant]

While this debate has been taking place, BBC The Social, a wonderful fairly new social media channel based in Glasgow, has posted a video of a young woman called Patrycja who arrived from Poland 12 years ago with £100 in her pocket and is now running a vital charity for vulnerable young women in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Immigration Bill should be changed to prevent the next Patrycja with £100 in her pocket from coming to Scotland and bringing the benefits that today’s Patrycja has brought?

[Luke Graham]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has ever listened to any of my speeches. I am one of the most liberal and pro-immigration politicians in the House. To those who want to work here, live here and contribute, our door should be open, and Patrycja is a fine example of that. I welcome her, just as I welcome the Syrian refugees who have experienced racism in my own constituency. In the last month, I have had grown men in tears in my constituency office because of the racism they are experiencing in my constituency in modern-day Scotland. That racism must be called out and addressed in Scotland, in England, in Wales—anywhere it appears in the United Kingdom—and it will be.

We as politicians should be engaging with this debate. My hon. Friends have talked about being honest and direct. That is completely right. The Migration Advisory Committee report is very clear that immigrants are net contributors to our economy—they make a beneficial contribution to our country—but it also recognises that, where there have been high concentrations of immigration, public money has not followed. We have to invest in the infrastructure so that the burden of immigration—in terms of numbers and public services—is borne by the Government, not individual constituents trying to integrate and contribute.

In my constituency, we have formal advice from Clackmannanshire Council, which is SNP-run, saying that the SNP-run NHS—I have the letter here and I am happy to put it in the Library—has to be mindful of accepting refugees to the area because of the lack of GPs in Clackmannanshire. This shows that the SNP has not managed public services such that we can welcome people to our country.

The immigration proposals and the opportunity through Brexit to shape our immigration policies are very important. We do not need to get lost in a vicious circle of negative stories about immigration. We can talk about the positives, as Members from across the House have done. We have a fine opportunity to develop new visa schemes and forms of co-operation with other countries, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned earlier when he talked about e-gates. We could use our innovative and entrepreneurial spirit to go one further and consider a US-style green card, which in the past has had cross-party support, although the green might be a problem—I would be happy for it to be blue, if that satisfied other Members.

Let’s be honest. When we are discussing immigration, we are not talking about faceless numbers; we are talking about real people who come here, contribute and make our country better. We need to break the vicious circle. We have a chance to develop a more innovative and welcoming immigration system in this country. Immigration is a sign of success, not failure, and I hope it will continue sustainably once we have left the EU.

Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

I would find that astonishing, but I am sorry to say that I am getting used to it, because that is exactly what the hard Brexit campaign has been doing since the referendum was run. In fact, we have still not had a proper debate in this place about what exactly was the reason for Nigel Farage, even before the result was declared, conceding defeat and then changing his mind when the result was announced. It is possibly the only time in history that he has deliberately talked down his own chances of success. I wonder what that could have been about. We are not allowed to discuss that yet, but I sincerely hope that one day, we will be allowed to.

Let us get back to the question in hand: the relationship that the United Kingdom will have with the European Union. I say first that I want us to have a relationship, because after listening to the attitude expressed by many who have spoken from the Tory Benches over the last weeks and months, I wonder whether some of them want to have any kind of relationship at all. I wonder whether some of them still think that the relationship is the one that applied between the United Kingdom and some parts of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, and whether some of them think that somehow Europe is a colony of the United Kingdom, just waiting to be brought back into the mother-fold. I do not want any part of that kind of relationship with Europe or anywhere else. I want to be part of a nation that regards all other nations on Earth as equally respected partners, that will stand up for its own rights alongside all of them, and that respects the rights of nations throughout the world to govern themselves.

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

The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about respecting other nations, but does he not find it slightly ironic that someone from a party that is based on dividing itself from the country that it currently exists in is then talking about respect for other nations?

[Peter Grant]

The House agreed unanimously two weeks ago that the people of Scotland were sovereign. It has unanimously and irrevocably abandoned any claim it ever had to the right to usurp the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. It would be bad enough hearing that kind of nonsense from a Member of Parliament with no understanding of Scotland, but to hear it from somebody who claims to represent part of Scotland is utterly ridiculous.

I will explain once again. I cannot do it in words of one syllable, though, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman might need somebody to explain it to him. I respect the results of the referendum in all four nations of these islands. I respect the result of the referendum in England and Wales, but that respect is conditional on it being established that the result was not rigged. I respect the decision of the people of Scotland and demand that each and every MP in this Chamber respect it likewise. I also respect the decision of the people of Northern Ireland—they get left out of this far too often. Their decision was not for a soft border to be introduced, or for the border to be magically moved a few miles inland to avoid any infrastructure at the border. The people of Northern Ireland have voted overwhelmingly on two occasions now for no border controls or infrastructure between them and their southern neighbours, and no solution that the Government put forward that breaks that decision of the people of Northern Ireland can be tolerated or should ever even be contemplated.

In respecting the results of the referendum in our four nations, I want to see the Government put forward proposals that recognise that the biggest partner in this Union voted to leave but that two of the four equal partners voted to remain. Scotland voted to remain by a majority of 24 percentage points. That was the size of the gap. It was not a close-run thing; it was overwhelming. There was a remain majority in every count declaration area in the country.

None the less, we are told that the way in which we are to be dragged out of the EU will be dictated not by proper discussions, on equal terms, between Scotland’s Government and the UK Government and will be determined not by listening to the views of the MPs and MSPs elected to represent Scotland but by a minority of Members of a minority governing party who think that because they can shout the loudest they have the right to tell the Prime Minister what to do. I was disappointed that she caved in to the minority, instead of seeking to find consensus across Parliament.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I will try once again, but I have my doubts.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about minorities. The SNP is in a minority Administration in Edinburgh. It does not own Scotland and it cannot speak for all of Scotland. We are here—Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative MPs—speaking for our constituencies in Scotland. We want to remain part of the United Kingdom and my constituents will respect the votes of the United Kingdom.

[Peter Grant]

I would expect everyone in Scotland to respect the result of the Scottish general election in 2016, which returned a majority of MSPs who supported independence and a Government with a mandate that said that if Westminster did to Scotland exactly as it is doing now, it would be grounds to give the people of Scotland a chance to control their own fate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

No.

I accept that there are Members here who have a great love for their country, however they describe it, and who want their country to go in a different direction from the direction in which I want my country to go. However, I remind Members once again that this House no longer claims the right to dictate to the people of Scotland the direction in which our country will be taken. This House unanimously accepted a proposal. The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke in favour of it. No one spoke against it. The United Kingdom Parliament has never had the constitutional right to rule over the will and against the consent of the people of Scotland. What has changed in the last few weeks is that the United Kingdom Parliament has finally recognised that. What I am asking the Secretary of State to do, what I am asking the Minister to do, what I am asking the Government to do—

[Luke Graham]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the British constitution. There are Scottish Members of Parliament here, representing our constituencies and representing Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is no sovereignty of this place over Scotland. While we still have MPs in this place, this place is sovereign. The hon. Gentleman is out of order, and he is not telling the truth to all the people who are in the Public Gallery today.

Leaving the EU: Implications for Scotland

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on a United Kingdom basis, but I gently remind him that we were elected with a substantial overall majority of Scottish seats in this place. As has been pointed out, the Scottish Government were elected on a manifesto commitment as well, which they will put into practice. Incidentally, his party was elected in 2015 on a manifesto that said it would keep us in the single market, so I do not know what its manifesto will be in next year’s general election.

As I said, 62% of the sovereign people of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. We ignore that at our peril. If Scotland votes a different way from other parts of the United Kingdom, or if the Scottish Government and the UK Government, or their Parliaments, disagree, that does not create a constitutional crisis. It might create a political crisis, but a constitutional crisis happens only when those in power refuse to accept the will of the people. Clearly the UK Government intend to ride roughshod over the demand—not the desire, request or plea—of the people of the Scotland that our voice will be heard and that our links with our European partners will not be sacrificed on some altar of far-right ideology in a vain attempt to keep the Conservative party together.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fine point about respecting the will of the people. Will he now publicly, for everyone in the Chamber, finally respect the will of the people in 2014, who voted by a 10-point margin, rather than by a four-point margin such as in the 2016 referendum, to stay in the United Kingdom? Here is your opportunity, sir—please take it.

[Peter Grant]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed, but we are in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is a kind of acceptance that, for now, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. However, there is a legal principle that subsequent legislation always trumps previous legislation if the two are incompatible. What about the mandate in 2016 for the Scottish Government to give the people of Scotland a choice if Scotland is threatened with being taken out of the European Union against our will? Nobody forces the Scottish people to do anything. The Conservative party want to deny the people of Scotland the right to set our own future. They want to deny the people of Scotland the right to remain in the European Union, which 62% of us have demanded. In percentage terms, the majority to stay in the European Union was almost 2.5 times bigger than the majority to stay in the United Kingdom.

The Conservatives do all this fancy footwork—I call it the Maradona trick. They take the vote on one side in one referendum, and to back up their argument they compare it with the vote in a different election on a different day on a different question. I call it the Maradona trick because it would mean that Argentina were still in the World cup—Argentina scored three goals and Brazil scored only two, so Argentina stay in the World cup and Brazil go out. Totally ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than the attempts of the Scottish Conservatives to set one part of the electorate against another based on an election or referendum held on a completely different day.

The fact that the Scottish Conservatives turn up to a debate about Scotland’s place in Europe and spend most of their time arguing for the lost cause of Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom says it all. They cannot argue the benefits to Scotland of leaving the European Union, because there are none. The damage done to Scotland by being forced to leave the European Union against our will is even greater than the damage that would be done if we left on our own terms and with the will of the people.

The people of Scotland are our masters; they are our sovereigns. There is no absolute parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland. There is no absolute sovereignty of the monarch, nor will there be of anyone who replaces the monarch in the future. The people are the absolute sovereigns, and our sovereigns have told us what to do. Brexit threatens to deny the people of Scotland the right to have the country that they have decided they want to have. Anyone who ignores the people in that context does so at their peril, because the people of Scotland will not be kept silent.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) shakes his head, with that smug smirk that he is so fond of.

[Peter Grant]

It is not a threat to say that the people have spoken and will ensure that their voice is heard. If the Scottish Conservatives are afraid of the voice of the people, what are they doing here?

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I will give way just once more, on the off-chance it is worthwhile listening.

[Luke Graham]

I will try to make it worth the hon. Gentleman’s while. I am still caught on the Maradona comment; if only I could rival those skills. Does he not realise that not only Scotland but London, Manchester and Bristol voted to remain? Should all the different parts of the UK that did not vote the same way threaten to leave? I do not think so. There are different views across the United Kingdom. Everyone should be respected, and not threatened.

[Peter Grant]

I am trying very hard to think of a way of saying, “The people of Scotland are sovereign,” in words of one syllable. The difficulty that some Government Members have is that the word “Europe” is more than one syllable, so some of the arguments seem to be beyond them. The people of London are not sovereign over London. I would argue that the people of England are sovereign over England—I am quite happy with that. England is a nation. What a fall from grace it is, in just over a year, for someone who came down here to stand up for Scotland to say now that Scotland is a city of England and has no more rights to self-determination than the great cities of England. Scottish Conservatives came down here saying that they would stand up for Scotland, and suddenly they are not speaking for Scotland, but talking about Scotland as some kind of equivalent to Leeds, London, Manchester or anywhere else.

Scotland is an “equal partner” in this Union of nations. Those are not our words, but the Government’s words from 2014. It is not an equal partner of a city, region or county council, but an equal partner of the other nations in the Union. The sovereigns of that equal partner have said, “We want to stay in the European Union.” If that choice is not made available to the people of Scotland within the United Kingdom, it will be made available to them by some other means.

Customs and Borders

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I have previously severely criticised Parliament’s inaction as seen in its failure to properly scrutinise the Government’s approach, for example through the European Scrutiny Committee, but today we see Parliament doing what it should be doing. It is just a pity that we knew before we started that the Government will not listen. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) called for everybody to get together behind the Government. How about the Government just once getting themselves together behind the overwhelming will of Parliament and behind what they know as well as we do is the overwhelming will of the people?

Let us stop this nonsense about a referendum vote to leave the customs union and the single market—no, there was no such vote. There was a vote to leave the European Union, and we have been told that that became a vote to leave the single market because that was what the losers said would happen. I am fascinated by the idea that, after an election, the winners are expected not to implement their own manifesto but to bring about what the other side said would happen if the eventual winners got in. Tory Members might want to look at what the Tories said would happen if the SNP ever won an election in Scotland, as we did in 2017, 2016 and 2015, and on many other occasions.

It is dangerous to give the people a binary choice but then to claim a democratic mandate to interpret the infinite number of variations of what that binary choice might mean. I do not have the right to say that the people who voted leave wanted to stay in the single market and the customs union, and nobody has a right to say that those people wanted to leave, but what I do have the right to say is that 62% of people in my country voted to stay in the European Union. Those who insist that we should be working for the best Brexit for the people of Scotland have to accept that the sovereign people of Scotland have said that the only good Brexit is no Brexit. If we must have Brexit, we want Brexit to hold us as close as possible to the European Union.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I do not have time to take interventions.

A lot has been said about the Irish border. Let us remember that it is now 15 months since the Prime Minister promised, as a matter of priority and as soon as possible, to bring forward her practical solution for the Irish border that was consistent with leaving the customs union. We have seen nothing. None of us has any idea what that practical solution will be. None of us even has any idea of when the Government will have any idea of what that solution will be. It is deeply offensive to a great many people of good faith on all sides and in all communities in Northern Ireland to accuse them of blackmail when all that they are saying to us is, “For heaven’s sake, please do not destroy the great work that has been done,” which I think was perhaps the greatest act of reconciliation and peace-building that certainly these nations—these islands—have seen, and that perhaps has been seen in the whole of Europe.

We talk about taking back control of our trade, but we cannot take back control of our trade. Every trade deal has to be bilateral. We are not in the empire anymore; we are in the Commonwealth. We are a community of nations and we have to treat other nations with respect. We are in the best trading partnership in the world; why would we want to leave?

Leaving the EU: No-deal Alternatives

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant]

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Monday 22nd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. However, I want to make it clear that I respect the wish of the people of England and Wales, as expressed in the referendum. I insist—I demand, as do my constituents—that the wish of 62% of people in Scotland, as well as the wish of the majority vote in Northern Ireland, should be respected too. That does not have to mean that some should be in the EU and some out, but it must mean seeking—not necessarily reaching—a solution and deal that, as far as possible, recognise the diverse views in these islands. We keep being told that we are a partnership of equals. It would not be acceptable for the express wishes of 62% of voters in England to be cast aside in contempt, as is happening to the express wishes of 62% of voters in Scotland.

I was pleased that some speakers in the debate discussed the absolute need for a deal on Northern Ireland, so that we know what the status of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be. Most people in the United Kingdom did not think that that would be an issue during the referendum; it was hardly raised in any debate. It was a major issue in the debate in Northern Ireland, but in most of the rest of the United Kingdom, if it appeared anywhere, it would be at the bottom of page 22 of someone’s submission. Incidentally, I include myself in those comments: I did not appreciate how fundamentally damaging a hard border and a no-deal Brexit could be to the Northern Ireland peace process. That does not mean that people in mainland Great Britain voted stupidly; it simply means they did not have the information at their disposal. Would that knowledge have made a difference to their votes? We do not know. It is too late: that horse has gone.

It is not too late to make sure that there is a deal that protects the promises that the Government of these islands made to the international community and the Government of the Republic of Ireland at the time of the Good Friday peace agreement. There is a guarantee that there will be no border controls on the Irish border. That is what everyone whom the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee spoke to in Northern Ireland desperately wants. The Committee spoke to senior police officers who are still leading the fight against terrorism, representatives of community organisations, and politicians—any elected politician who came to see us, including a number from Sinn Fein.

It was perhaps surprising how much unanimity there was across the spectrum about the fact that we cannot afford a return to the days of armed border checkpoints across the island of Ireland. Many of the people we spoke to—and not only on the nationalist-leaning side—believe that if we leave the European Union without a deal it will be almost impossible to prevent border posts from returning, and to prevent the return of other things from the sad history of that island.

There were several contributions by Scottish Conservatives, every one of whom, completely unprovoked, tried to reopen another referendum argument, which is not on the agenda just now. The Scottish Conservatives want a public debate involving the whole population of Scotland, about its future place in the world. I am ready for that, but it is interesting that no matter the subject being discussed they always manage to talk about that.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

It was legal according to the wish of the people of Catalonia. The referendum in Gibraltar was illegal, but the United Kingdom was quite happy to recognise it and act on its result—and I think it was right. We must be very careful about quoting the European Union as the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable as a way for any nation or people to seek to determine its own future. That does not quite sound like taking back control to me.

To go back to the matter we are supposed to be debating—the petition signed by just over 137,000 people across the United Kingdom—part of the issue I have with it is that some of the statements of fact at the start are quite simply untrue. The European Union is not, and never has been, intent on deliberately punishing the United Kingdom for a decision by its people. For all its faults, at its heart, the European Union wants to see itself as an organisation that respects democracy. That is why, despite the comments from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has not been able to stay for the rest of the debate, it will not be easy to get back in after we leave. The United Kingdom would be disqualified from applying for membership of the European Union because we are not democratic enough, since more than half of our legislators in the UK Parliament are not elected but appointed on patronage.

The European Union sees itself as an organisation that wants to recognise the will of the people, whether in elections or referendums. What it has said, and will continue to say—I do not think the Government have quite got this yet—is that under no circumstances will the European Union allow the United Kingdom to have a better relationship with the EU by leaving than we would have had had we stayed. That is perfectly understandable and logical; it would be astonishing if it did anything different.

The petition also talks about a “settlement fee”. There is no settlement fee. There have been discussions to agree the liabilities that the United Kingdom has accrued through commitments it made as a member of the European Union, and any liabilities due to come back to the United Kingdom in the same way. Although it is on a bigger scale and more complex, it is a bit like somebody deciding to leave the house they rent before the end of the month and expecting to get a couple of weeks’ rent back because they decided not to stay until the end of the rental period.

If we scale that up several million times, that is what the European Union has been saying to the UK and what the UK has accepted in its relationship with the European Union. Talking about it as a settlement fee or a divorce payment, as many in the media have done, is misleading and steers people down the path of saying, “This is clearly unfair. Let’s just leave without even bothering to wait to fulfil our international legal obligations.”

I think the reason that the petition has attracted so many signatures has been mentioned. There is a clear malaise about politics in these islands. People are fed up with politicians and political parties. They are fed up with the notion that someone can tell blatant lies during a referendum campaign and it does not matter as long as they still win at the ballot box. People do not want that any more. They are fed up with politicians who make promises when everybody knows the promise will be broken.

I am sorry to say that we have not seen any change in that practice from the present Government; we only have to look at the backsliding on the firm commitment that there would be changes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in the Commons on Report to avoid any undermining of the devolution settlement. That was a clear promise given by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which was completely ignored when the crunch came. When politicians are allowed to break promises like that and get away with it, it is no wonder that the public begin to lose faith in all of us.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Gentleman has made a few valid points in his speech about ensuring honesty and clarity over the course of this debate. He made specific reference to clause 11, which was debated in the main Chamber just last week. In the interests of clarity and honesty, does he accept that amendments were not made because there are ongoing negotiations between the devolved Administrations and Her Majesty’s Government? An agreement has not yet been reached and when it has been we can table amendments and make them? Does he also accept that it is not over yet? The Bill goes to the House of Lords but it will come back to the Commons, when both he and I will have the chance to approve, reject or propose amendments in lieu.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

No, I will not give way just now.

When we look at Conservative Members’ responses to statements by the sovereign Government of Ireland over the last couple of days, we have to wonder whether they recognise that that country’s Ministers have not only the right but an absolute responsibility to speak in the interests of their citizens. If what they say happens not to coincide with the interests of citizens in the rest of the British Isles, that might be something for negotiation.

Even despite the Government’s misguided ambitions for the role that they think Britain is entitled to play, that role is being catastrophically undermined by the shambles—“shambles” is as strong a word as I can use in the Chamber—of Brexit. Nor is it helped by the fact that we have a Foreign Secretary of whom people in the west of Scotland might say, “You cannae take him anywhere,” to which the response would be, “Or you have to take him twice—the second time to apologise.” When the Foreign Secretary assured us that he had had a number of meetings on the Myanmar crisis, I could not help wondering how many were required for him to apologise for the crassly insensitive and offensive way in which he referred to the people of Myanmar in one of his official pronouncements. We can joke about the buffoonery of the right hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in the Chamber. Everybody can say things that are stupid and wish that they had not, but if they start to make too much of a habit of it, especially if they hold as important and sensitive a position as Foreign Secretary, the time comes when the Prime Minister has to start asking whether she has the right person in the job.

We have heard a lot from Conservative Members during our Brexit debates about how leaving the European Union will open up all these wonderful markets for the United Kingdom. It might open up the American market, if we comply with the requirement announced two weeks ago by the American Secretary of Commerce to drop our opposition to genetically modified foods and chlorinated chicken. That is too high a price to pay, so I hope that the Treasury Minister who sums up today’s debate will confirm that if that is the requirement, there will be no deal with the United States of America.

I remind the House of a report published in the last Parliament by the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union on the Government’s negotiating priorities, particularly in the context of global Britain. Paragraph 170 says:

“The Government should seek a UK-EU Free Trade Agreement…which covers both goods and services and retains the mutual recognition of standards and conformity assessments.”

It finishes:

“The Government should maintain the maximum possible flexibility in its negotiating approach to achieve these outcomes.”

I am not quite sure how unilaterally deciding that the customs union and single market are off the table counts as flexible or anything like it.

Paragraph 198 says:

“The Government must provide more clarity as to the features of its preferred customs arrangement with the EU and how it will differ from a customs union.”

That report was published months and months ago—certainly before the election—but we still do not have that clarity from the Government. We hear the same platitudes, the same soundbites and the same slogans, but we still have absolutely no firm and concrete proposals, even for how they are going to square the circle of the border that runs across the island of Ireland, never mind how they are going to reconcile the irreconcilable and maintain full access to the single market when those who set it up made it perfectly clear that countries can be in or out, but cannot have full access without being members.

Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that there has been a sex change while I have been on my feet; I apologise to both of you. We hear the Government talk about prioritising the rule of law—the previous speaker referred to that. That is an excuse for turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the brutality of the Spanish police against some of the citizens of Catalonia.

Why is it that we have annual state visits and state banquets for a Prime Minister whose Government act unlawfully in their occupation of the sovereign territory of Palestine? The UK Government believe that Israel is breaking the law by doing that, so why do they continue to have official state visits for the Prime Minister of a country that the Foreign Secretary believes is acting unlawfully, if the rule of law is so important to Her Majesty’s Government?

We often hear that the wishes of residents must be paramount. With regard to the residents of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, I agree with that 100%. What account have the Government taken of the wishes of the former residents of the Chagos islands, whose treatment by previous UK Governments could properly be described as ethnic cleansing or indeed abduction? By today’s standards it may well fall under the UN definition of genocide, which includes the forceful or fraudulent removal of a population. What account has been taken of their wishes? It seems to me that if we steal something from someone, the only way to make an apology seem sincere is to offer to hand it back. Having stolen the islands from their population, no apology can be sincere unless the Government are prepared to offer to hand them back.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

No. Time is short and I do not want any other hon. Members to miss a chance to speak. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] If the hon. Gentleman has put his name down to speak, he will get the chance; if he has not, it is unfair on those who have done and who may have prepared speeches.

The debate so far confirms that the direction in which the Government intend to take all four of these nations is very different from the direction that the people of Scotland have made it clear that they want to take. The United Kingdom Government’s vision of their place in the world is very different from how the people of Scotland see our place in the world—I suspect it might be very different from how a lot of the ordinary people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland see their place as well. If the Government believe that Scotland has no option but to follow their lead and be dragged into fulfilling a role in the world that is not the one we want, they are making a mistake as monumental and momentous as any in the catalogue of disastrous misjudgements that we have seen by Ministers in this Government over the last two years.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Luke Graham

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- 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.