European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Paul Blomfield

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

Thanks to the hon. Gentleman’s friends, I have little time to speak and I do not want to take up time that the Minister will want towards the end.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), whom I have a great deal of respect for, for the length of service that he has given to this House, simply got his facts wrong. He spoke about when Oliver Cromwell addressed this Parliament. Oliver Cromwell had been dead for 50 years before this Parliament existed. That is even if “this Parliament” means the Parliament of Great Britain, because the Parliament of the United Kingdom did not come along for another 100 years after that. Even with the protection of the Almighty, Oliver Cromwell would not have smelt too nice if he had come here 150 years later.

As for the nonsense that because an Act of Parliament was passed in a previous Parliament, this Parliament does not like to do anything about it, what happened to the sacred principle that no Parliament can bind a successor? If that principle did not exist, we would not need elections at all, but some people on the Conservative Benches think that having elections is some kind of democratic outrage—“They shouldn’t be allowed”, or, “People don’t need the chance to change their minds.”

The same people also say that in the 2017 election, over 80% of people voted for the two major UK parties whose manifestos said they would respect the result of the referendum—I think that was a mistake by Labour, but it cannot be changed now. In 2015, however, 85% of people voted for parties that said they wanted to stay in the European Union. How can it be that between 2015 and 2017, 80% of the people were allowed to change their minds, but between 2016 and 2019, 3% are not allowed to change their minds?

As for that idea that everyone knew what they were doing in 2016, no less a person than the Attorney General admitted this weekend that he had misunderstood and that the Government had underestimated just how complicated it was going to be. If the Government’s chief legal adviser did not realise how complicated it was going to be, what chance did 33 million other people have in casting their votes?

It is right that Labour supported article 50 at the time, but Labour made a lot of mistakes at the start of the process—serious tactical mistakes—and I am pleased that a lot of them are coming around to understand and to make good those mistakes. I am a bit worried that their leader might be about to make the biggest tactical mistake on Brexit of the whole lot, but I hope he can be pulled back from that.

The single biggest difficulty, as has been said, is that the Prime Minister has made a mess of the negotiations from day one. Conservative Members complain about the number of times that she promised, “We’re leaving on 29 March”, as if that was some kind of day handed down on tablets of stone from Mount Sinai, but it is just another example of the Prime Minister creating utterly impossible expectations. I am sorry, but if the Prime Minister’s impossible expectations cause problems for the Conservative party, that is not my problem, and I want to see the day when it is no longer Scotland’s problem.

Far too much of the debate about Brexit has not been about what is in the best interests of this generation; it has paid no regard at all to the interests of future generations—it has been all about what is in the best interests of the Conservative party. It might be best for us all if the Conservative party’s existential crisis came to its natural conclusion and the rest of us could get on with building a better nation, a better set of nations and a better society for us and our descendants.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thought I would inject a new tone into the debate and focus on the amendments. I will be brief.

I thank the peers for their work on the Bill in an exceptionally short time, reflecting the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves. Since we last debated it, the Prime Minister has—later than we would have liked—reached out to the Opposition, and we are engaging fully in that process. In that spirit, we are pleased to join the Government in accepting all the amendments. Amendments 1 to 3 tidy up the Bill to ensure that the motion is put to the House tomorrow. Amendment 5 makes a significant but helpful change to the Bill. Events have overtaken us since it was presented last week, and the Prime Minister has already written to the President of the European Council indicating her intention to seek an extension to the article 50 process until 30 June.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Paul Blomfield

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. As for the idea that we should not take part in the elections because we do not know how long our MEPs will be there, let us remember that some of them are never there anyway. I remember the Scottish regional elections in 1994, which we knew were for councils that would exist for a very limited time, but they actually had a higher turnout than was previously the case, because people were energised and motivated and understood what they were about. If the hard-line Conservatives do not want to take part in European parliamentary elections, that is entirely up to them, but I do not want my constituents to be denied an opportunity to vote for their representatives in Europe, whether that is for two days, two years or a full parliamentary term.

We will certainly support the drafting amendments tabled by the right hon. Members who introduced the Bill—given how many Lords amendments are often required to sort out the mistakes in Government legislation, despite all the resources that the Government have at their disposal, it is a bit much to be nitpicking about the fact that there were a couple of drafting errors in this Bill. It would have been nice not to have to rush the Bill through the House in such a hurry. It would have been nice if the Government had actually listened to what Parliament has been saying, in Back-Bench business debates and Opposition day debates, for the past three years. They have refused to listen, which is why the only way to make them listen is by Act of Parliament. That is why we will support the two amendments I have mentioned, and I hope to see the Bill go through to Third Reading.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I will not repeat the general points I made on Second Reading, but I want to briefly outline the Opposition’s views on the amendments.

We will obviously support amendments 13 and 14, which are helpful drafting amendments, and will vote for clauses 1 and 2 to stand part of the Bill. We will support the Government’s new clause 13 with a clarification from the Minister. Normally we would support the affirmative procedure, but we accept the Government’s reasoning in this case, given the fast-moving situation and the need to ensure consistency between EU and UK law. We will support the new clause subject to an assurance from the Minister now that if one of the principal Opposition parties prays against the statutory instrument, the Government will urgently facilitate a debate on the Floor of the House.

We will oppose all the other amendments. Let me explain briefly why. Amendments 20 and 1 and new clause 5 seek to impose different dates. We should have learned from the withdrawal Act that putting exit dates in statute denies the flexibility we might need, and those amendments are clearly designed to frustrate the Bill’s objectives. We oppose amendment 21 because we believe it is right for the Government to come back to the House if the EU offers a different date. We oppose Government amendment 22 because it undermines the purpose of the Bill in relation to parliamentary approval to seek or agree an extension.

We oppose amendment 6 because it is designed to frustrate the process and, as Members have pointed, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting. We oppose new clause 4 because it would limit Parliament’s opportunity to shape decisions. I am surprised that, after his lengthy contribution, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is not here to hear our views on these points.

We oppose new clause 7 because it seeks to put a date in the Bill without saying so. It puts the cart before the horse. We should determine what extension we need and then deal with the consequences—even if that means elections, although that is not ideal—and not limit ourselves in that way. If we need a longer extension, we will presumably want the UK to have a voice in EU institutions—not simply the Parliament, but the Council and the Commission—and a judge in the Court of Justice. On that basis, we oppose that new clause and the other amendments that I have identified.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Peter Grant and Paul Blomfield

Monday 19th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I hate to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong. I will send him a copy of his party’s own leaflet, which criticised the Government for offering only a conditional referendum, criticised Labour for not offering one at all and said there should be an in-out referendum and the result should be binding. He should take care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan pointed out that we should all take care, when reflecting on these issues.

It has been informative to watch as the “No deal is better than a bad deal” mantra has finally been dropped by almost everybody on the Conservative Benches. We have watched people who have been parroting that for quite some time rush into the TV studios over the weekend, seeking to secure support for the Prime Minister’s deal by saying, of course rightly, that no deal would be a disaster for the country.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is slightly strange that the Prime Minister tries to frighten remainers by saying, “If you vote down the deal, we will leave without a deal,” while at the same time she tries to fight off the ERG by saying, “If you vote down the deal, we don’t leave at all.”?

[Paul Blomfield]

I do; it is a reflection of the corner into which the Prime Minister has painted herself.

Petitioners should be reassured that we, as Opposition parties, will work across the House to ensure that we do not face a no-deal scenario. When the deal is inevitably voted down, the Prime Minister must follow the direction of the House. She has been intent on denying Parliament a truly meaningful vote, just as we have been intent on securing it. We will not accept the premise that she is trying to present —“It is my deal or no deal, take it or leave it, like it or lump it”—and nor will Parliament. When the deal is voted down, we need maximum flexibility and all options on the table.

We will demand a general election, as hon. Members would expect, and I hope that some Conservative MPs, although perhaps understandably reluctant to vote for one after their last outing, may come to realise that it would be in the interest of the country to break the deadlock. If they do not, then all other options must be kept open, including a public vote that would include remain as an option on the ballot paper.

The Government have spent the last two and a half years putting the interests of their party before the interests of the country, pursuing a divisive split from the EU rather than seeking to build a new and close relationship, and negotiating within their warring party rather than negotiating effectively with the European Union. They have failed the country. Our people need and deserve better, and this Parliament will need to ensure that they get it.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Debate between Peter Grant and Paul Blomfield

Monday 11th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

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

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

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

[Peter Grant]

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

[Paul Blomfield]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“choice between a bad deal and no deal”

is not.

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

European Affairs

Debate between Peter Grant and Paul Blomfield

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification, but we are not seeking a customs union comparable with Turkey’s. We are seeking a comprehensive customs union which replicates the current arrangements that we enjoy with the EU.

Let us move on to another area. We need to be honest about the central issue on which many of those who campaigned to leave focused their campaign and which influenced the votes of many—immigration. Taking back control of our borders was a powerful promise, creating expectations that the Government really have no plan or intention to deliver. The Government have had control of non-EEA immigration for the past eight years and in every one of those years it was greater than EEA migration.

The Government know that things will not be changing significantly. Two weeks ago, that ardent Brexiteer, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the National Farmers Union that

“agriculture needs access to foreign workers.”

He promised to maintain that access, for both seasonal and permanent workers. He was echoing the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, who said in Estonia last year that it will take “years and years” for British citizens to fill the employment gaps, and that in the meantime Estonians would be welcome to come to work in the UK. At Mansion House, the Prime Minister talked about a future labour mobility scheme with the EU.

The difficulties of squaring the expectations unleashed by the leave campaign with the interests of the economy are no doubt the reason why the Government have delayed the immigration White Paper, yet again, and do not look set to have a new system in place by the time we depart in March 2019.

[Peter Grant]

When the hon. Gentleman referred to the numbers of non-EEA migrants, I was a bit concerned that he almost sounded as if he was sympathetic towards the Government’s obsession with treating immigration as a number that should be brought down rather than as something that benefits our nations economically and socially. Will he comment on the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at the Scottish Labour party conference in Dundee last weekend, in which he referred to the EU as something that allowed low-paid workers to be brought into the UK, thereby driving down wages? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with a growing number of Labour Back Benchers that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong to say that and should apologise?

[Paul Blomfield]

We have always been clear—as indeed, have the Government—about the benefits of migration. That was not what the Leader of the Opposition said in Scotland. There is no evidence that migration drives down wages. There is an issue, which Labour would tackle—it has been in our manifesto for the past couple of elections—on the exploitation of European workers, and those from other countries, in the UK. We need tougher labour-market rules and enforcement to tackle those issues.

The Prime Minister was right to say in Munich and at Mansion House that she was ready to cross her red lines on the European Court of Justice in relation to security, because of the importance of security to this country. She is clearly right: security is vital. I think she was influenced by the fact that, as a former Home Secretary, she had an intimate understanding of the issues and recognised the consequences of failing to reach an accommodation. If security is vital to this country, as it is, is not the economy, too?

The Prime Minister was right to talk about hard truths, because the British people, whether they voted leave or remain, will not thank politicians who deliver a damaging Brexit on the basis of a false prospectus. The former Prime Minister John Major was right, too, when he said that it is right not only to speak truth to power, but to speak truth to the people. Let us face up to the hard facts: there will be no Brexit dividend for public services, as the Chancellor confirmed again on Tuesday; there will be no significant change to migration; there are no real red lines on the European Court of Justice; and there will be huge damage to the economy, according to the Government’s own analysis.

It does not have to be like that. If the Prime Minister had said, “This country voted to leave the European Union, but it was a close vote. It was a mandate to go, but not a mandate for a deep rupture”, and if she had said, “We will leave, but stay close: in a customs union, as close as possible to the single market, a member of the agencies and partnerships that we have built together over 44 years”, she would have had the overwhelming support of this House. Instead, she has let a tiny band of extreme Brexiteers in the European Research Group set the agenda. It is not too late: she could reach out to the majority of the House and the majority of the country to adopt a sensible approach—to adopt Labour’s approach—and I hope that she will.

Student Loans Agreement

Debate between Peter Grant and Paul Blomfield

Monday 18th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is perhaps making all our speeches redundant: she has summed it up in a sentence. Nevertheless, I will continue.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me cite one of my constituents who has written to me. Rachel Stamper is due to graduate soon from Sheffield Hallam University. She started her degree—a bachelor of arts in early childhood studies—back in 2013. She made careful calculations before she started. She looked at what the Government said—that she would have to pay back on the money she borrowed. Like everybody else, she was told that from April 2017 the £21,000 repayment threshold would start to rise annually with average earnings. She based her decision to go to university on that information, because she thought that she could trust the Government.

Rachel made the calculations about what she could afford on the basis of the trust that she put in the Government. Now, she expects to pay thousands more over the life of her loan, because, given her area of study, she will graduate with an incredibly socially useful degree, fulfilling a positive and useful role within our society, but she is not necessarily going to be a high earner. As Rachel said to me, this is about more than “just money”:

“A retrospective change will destroy any trust I, and future generations, have in the student finance system, and perhaps even more widely, in the political system as a whole.”

This proposal was part of a double whammy announced by the then Chancellor after the election last July. As Osbornomics seems to have been rejected by the new Prime Minister, perhaps we now have a little bit of wriggle room to examine some of its more toxic components. This change is clearly one of them, because the first part of that double whammy was the abolition of maintenance grants, which in many ways overshadowed the decision we are talking about today. Nevertheless, the change in the threshold is important because it will have a genuine impact on graduates.

Why are we here today? Why are the Government proposing this change? My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North made the point very well. Going back to 2012, the year before the system came in, many of us argued that the proposed new system was not only unfair, but that it had not been properly thought through—there was a back-of-an-envelope calculation of what the cost would be. In particular, we talked about the cost of unrepayable debt—the so-called resource accounting and budgeting, or RAB, charge. I remember the Universities Minister at the time, for whom I had a high regard, arguing on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committee on Education, on the number of occasions we scrutinised him about it, that he was confident that the RAB charge would settle at around 28%. As the conversation went forward over the years, he talked about 30% and then the upper 30s. Then it was 40% and finally, in our last exchange in the Select Committee, he said that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was modelling it at more than 50%, at which point the new system was clearly costing us more than the old system, on top of being unfair.

Something had to give, and it was clear before the last general election that something was going to give. I asked Ministers on the Floor of the House for assurances that they would not make students pay for the Government’s own mistakes by changing the terms of the system. I was told, in this great language that people use before elections, that there were no plans to do so. Well, no sooner were the votes counted than the plans were rolled out.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would have studiously examined, as we all did, all the election manifestos at the time. He will be aware that there was no mention whatsoever of the change in the Conservative manifesto, yet it was imposed within a few months of the party coming to power.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which goes back to the issue of trust that is at the heart of today’s debate. We pushed the Government on the matter in the previous Parliament and there was no indication that the change was going to happen. We looked at the manifesto, and there was no indication there either. As soon as the election was out of the way, it happened: graduates being forced to pay for the Government’s mistakes. As the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) said, there was a consultation on the change. People think, “A consultation—presumably that is because the Government want to listen,” which is not an unreasonable starting point. Some 84% of the respondents said, “This is a bad idea.” What is the Government’s response? “Great stuff. We’ll go ahead.”

We face a system in which not only are those who did not expect it being asked to pay more, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) pointed out, those who will earn the least will be hit the hardest. The Government’s equality impact assessment said:

“In terms of lifetime earnings, our analysis shows the greatest financial impact will be concentrated on those with around median lifetime earnings (between £20,000 and £35,000)”.

The figures are clear—the Government’s own figures. A graduate earning between £21,000 and £36,000 will pay an extra £6,100. By contrast, those earning more than £40,000 will pay an extra £400 and those earning more than £50,000, an extra £200.

A recent Sutton Trust report shows that although the overall average extra repayment will be £2,800—on the trust’s numbers—the gender pay gap means that women graduates will be disproportionately affected. Black students will also be disproportionately affected. The Higher Education Statistics Agency destination of leavers data show that, although the variance in non-black graduates’ salaries is larger than that for black graduates, there is more of a bunching effect for the latter, between £20,000 and £30,000, which is the salary range that will be most affected by the proposed changes. All those discriminatory impacts conflict with the Government’s stated objectives of widening participation in higher education and of trying to get those who are not traditional participants engaged more fully. All that mess is because of the Government’s initial mistakes in introducing the 2010 system.

I represent more than 36,000 students, more than any other Member of Parliament. Thousands graduate from the two universities in my Sheffield constituency. Because of this measure, Sheffield graduates are being made to pay for the Government’s mistakes, with the terms of the deal being changed long after they signed up to it. If a second-hand car salesman tried, years later, to get a customer to pay more than the contracted deal, he would be referred to trading standards. With a bank, there would be action by the Financial Conduct Authority. Why should the Government be subject to different standards? This is fraudulent behaviour. It undermines trust in the Government and confidence in the student loan system. I urge the Minister to think again.