European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Last week, the Queen’s Speech was the most important thing to the Prime Minister, and today and previously we have been given all sorts of assurances. It almost felt as though if someone had asked him today whether he would assure them at the Dispatch Box that the moon is made of cheese, he would have given that assurance. His assurances, the Queen’s Speech—it means nothing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that if he continually intervenes, he will be preventing others from speaking. That may not bother him, but I am just letting him know.

[Peter Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have had a lot of assurances from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. We know that some of them cannot be trusted, and therefore we have to assume that we should not rely too much on any of them. He also promised at that Dispatch Box that after Brexit, full control of Scottish fishing would be returned to Scotland, but in fact Government policy is precisely the opposite.

I have gone through the specific concerns that a lot of businesses in my constituency have been raising over the past several years, and I have tried to go through the withdrawal agreement and this Bill to find out what parts of those documents address the specific worries that my local businesses have. To date, I have not found a single concern that has been raised with me on which I can go back to those businesses and say, “It has been sorted if these documents go through.” We get a lot of platitudes and reassuring noises, but there is absolutely nothing in any of these documents that will give businesses the certainty they are looking for. The Scottish Conservatives have even started to misrepresent the views of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce in their desperation to make it look as though the business community is telling us we should go ahead with this. What the SCC actually said was:

“On the surface this is good news but the devil is in the detail…until we see what the deal means for businesses on the ground, many are reserving judgement.”

That was hailed as a ringing endorsement, because it was as good an endorsement as is going to come.

The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said that he was looking for solutions. The House can be satisfied that Scotland has a solution. We have a solution that will get us out of this mess, and we will apply that solution if this Bill goes forward tonight.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman was referring to a show at 9’o’clock on Sunday morning. I do periodically watch that programme—it is not top of my list of priorities, but occasionally I will observe it—but I am bound to say that it was a rather greater priority yesterday morning at 9 o’clock to be playing tennis.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

As well as the unsigned letter that the Prime Minister refused even to grace with his name, he sent another letter, signed in his own name, saying, in effect, “Dear Donald, please ignore the first letter I’ve sent you. I sent it only to comply with an Act of Parliament.” If the purpose of that second letter was not to deliberately attempt to frustrate an Act of this Parliament, what on earth was the second letter for?

Preparations for Leaving the EU

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, the right hon. Gentleman has a new ambition. It is percolating in my head.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

First, may I indicate that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to raise a point of order at the end of this item of business about comments made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier that were deeply offensive to me and many others? However, given the damage that has been done to relationships between the United Kingdom and Germany by the deliberate, malicious and almost certainly inaccurate leaking of a private phone call between the two Heads of Government, will he, the next time he speaks to his very good friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, ask how quickly we can be given a statement by the Cabinet Office that confirms that the culprit—there are only two possible suspects—has been identified and removed from No. 10 before they can do any more damage?

Priorities for Government

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What an invidious choice. I call Mr Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant]

The very limited guarantees contained in the EU citizens settled status scheme come nowhere near the promise the Prime Minister has previously made that no EU national will be any less favourably treated after we leave the EU. Therefore, as well as the settled status scheme, will he now guarantee the right to healthcare, pension rights, the right to leave and return, the right to bring over family, the right to vote and all the other rights currently enjoyed by EU citizens? And does he need to get permission from his Chancellor of the Exchequer before answering that question?

Leaving the EU: Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just been asked to nominate a day. Mr Speaker, you are always a friend of all the Back Benchers. It seems to me that there is a worry about a particular candidate that Opposition Members may or may not like the Order Paper to reflect. If there is a worry about having a choice of how we wish to leave the European Union, I am sure you, Mr Speaker, would find a way to ensure there was parliamentary time. At the moment, however, we do not know what it is we are voting to have a day for. It is a fear of one or two of the candidates. If their fears were to be recognised, I am absolutely certain you would facilitate a debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I always seek to facilitate the House and to ensure that the full range of opinion is expressed. These are matters of debate and, notwithstanding the sedulous efforts to entice me into contributing to it, I feel I must exercise a self-denying ordinance. The hon. Lady has made her own point in her own way, with alacrity.

[Peter Grant]

I say once again that it is not premature for the Opposition to have tabled the motion today. This is the last chance they have, and I, for one, am very grateful they have decided to take that chance. The reason that we need to give Parliament the chance, just once, to set the agenda is that the Government have shown no inclination whatever to do anything to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

Why would a no-deal Brexit be so bad? Let us look at what some of the key drivers of the UK economy have been saying recently. Sydney Nash, from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said:

“For the automotive sector, no deal is simply not an option. Hearing politicians promote a no deal does not fill any of our companies with confidence nor does it fill international investors with confidence. Our strong desire is that no deal be taken off the table.”

Seamus Nevin, at Make UK—many Members will know it better by its previous name, the Engineering Employers Federation—said:

“Our members are quite blunt, they say that a no deal scenario would be nothing short of an act of economic vandalism”.

Tim Rycroft, at the Food and Drink Federation said:

“No deal is something our members are most unanimous about. 45 % say no deal would lead to redundancies.”

Nick Van Westenholz, director of EU exit and international trade at the National Farmers Union, said:

“No Deal would be disastrous for some sectors…It is frankly worrying that that we see it being put forward as a plausible scenario to leave without a deal in October.”

Those are not choice quotes from selected commentators that I have picked up over the last three or four years. All those things were said today, in this Parliament, in evidence to the Brexit Select Committee just over six hours ago. That is what these major economic drivers are saying right now. It is about time the Government and some of their Back Benchers were prepared to listen.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter. I rather assume that she has notified the Minister of her intention to bring it up on the Floor of the House this afternoon. She has made her concerns clear and it is on the record. Moreover, those concerns will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, including at a very senior and cerebral level. I rather imagine that the point she has made will be conveyed to the relevant Minister before very long.

In so far as the hon. Lady asks about redress and what the Minister concerned might do, that really is a matter for the Minister rather than for the Chair, but what I would say to her is that if she does not receive a satisfactory response from the Minister, there is a range of options that she might pursue involving airing the issue through the Order Paper or, indeed, in debate in the Chamber. My advice to her would be to consult the Table Office—which, for the benefit of those observing our proceedings, is a very short distance from here—and the dedicated and outstanding staff of that office will be happy to advise her as to what courses of action are open to her.

My basic advice, which I know can sometimes jar somewhat, but it does have the advantage of being valid, is persist, persist, persist. Go to the Table Office and do not take no for an answer in terms of the right to question members of the Treasury Bench. Of course, if the hon. Lady wishes to seek a debate on the matter on the Adjournment, who knows? She may be fortunate.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code requires any Minister carrying out official business in the constituency of another Member of Parliament to give that Member of Parliament advance notice in good time of the proposed visit. On Friday, the pensions Minister, whom I have notified of my intention to raise this matter today, carried out an official visit in my constituency. My constituency office was notified about it at two minutes to 12 on Friday. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, at what point such short, inadequate notice constitutes contempt as opposed to courtesy? What options, other than continually raising points of order, which are heard and then ignored by Members on the Treasury Bench, are available to ensure that Ministers comply with the ministerial code?

[Mr Speaker]

The convention of notifying a Member of a prospective visit to his or her constituency is strong. It is not in the Standing Orders of the House; it is just that: a convention. Moreover, the merits of the case one way or the other are not justiciable by the Chair. However, the convention is there for a reason. It is about that basic concept of courtesy and respect for each other.

So what do I advise the hon. Gentleman? He can take the matter up directly with the Minister in the form of correspondence or a request for a meeting. Secondly, he could take it up with the Leader of the House, who I know will accept, in common with her predecessor, that she has a responsibility for ensuring Ministers’ compliance with important conventions, including that of providing timely and substantive answers to questions. When that does not happen, traditionally Leaders of the House have accepted their responsibility to remind Ministers of their duty. The other option open to the hon. Gentleman is to ask the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who performs with élan at business questions every week, to raise the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions.

I am concerned that this rather important convention is being quite regularly dishonoured. That seems to me to be wrong. There is no precise time beforehand for notification, but the presumption is that of courtesy. Simply notifying a Member or his or her office minutes or an hour before a visit does not cohere with the spirit of the convention. The hon. Gentleman has reason to be irritated and I hope that that irritation can soon be overcome by a satisfactory explanation, apology and commitment not to repeat the offence.

Article 50 Extension Procedure

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for submitting the urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

Last week, the House voted by a sizeable majority to rule out any possibility of our leaving the EU without a deal. If the Government, by prevarication or otherwise, cause us to crash out without a deal, that will surely be the greatest case of contempt of Parliament in the history of not just this but any Parliament. The Government have 11 days left in which to take the action that they must take to prevent that from happening. When no deal was ruled out last Tuesday, there were 17 days left, so the Government have used more than a third of their time doing precisely nothing. The Minister was full of promises about what they intended to do, but could give no answers about what they had done to seek and secure that extension.

Let us consider the options that we now have. The Minister must accept—I hope that he will accept—that the Prime Minister’s current deal is not coming back. It is finished, and the Government must come forward with another solution. If they do not—given that the House has clearly rejected the threat of being forced out without a deal—and if they cannot sort this out within 11 days, the only option is for them to revoke article 50.

In a written statement on 15 March, the Prime Minister said:

“In accordance with the motion the House approved on Thursday 14 March 2019 the Government will now seek to agree an extension with the EU.”

Why did the Government not start to do that when the Prime Minister made her statement? What was the purpose of delaying for the best part of a week, a third of the available time for the disaster to be averted? Will the Minister vote for the statutory instrument that he mentioned to extend article 50—given that he has already voted against that—or will he follow the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State into the book of shame that lists the names of those who speak in favour of a measure at the Dispatch Box and then vote against it?

Last Tuesday, the Attorney General published his legal opinion, and within hours we were being told by an hon. Member that the Attorney General had extended that advice. Can the Minister tell us whether the Attorney General has amended, extended, reviewed, revised or in any way changed the legal opinion that he published last week? If so, why has Parliament not been notified—or is all the talk about the Vienna convention just a fantasy, an attempt to bring on board reluctant Members to vote for a deal that we now know is dead in the water?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister tweeted that we should all be

“pragmatically making the honourable compromises necessary to heal division and move forward”.

Does the Minister recall that the Scottish Government put forward an honourable compromise in December 2016 that would have prevented this mess and that his Government rejected it out of hand? Why does the Prime Minister not practise what she preached in her tweet yesterday? Why do the Government not now accept that they cannot give the answer themselves and that they must talk to other parties to get us out of this disastrous mess?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have the greatest possible fondness for the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that while I greatly enjoyed listening to his dulcet tones, he did exceed his allotted time: indeed, he took three times his allotted time. I savoured every word, but he did exceed it. It was supposed to be a minute, and he took three.

Institute for Statecraft: Integrity Initiative

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

According to documents that the company itself has filed with Companies House, one of the directors describes his own occupation as “senior civil servant”. Now, it may be that that is his former rather than his present occupation, but a simple glance at his career indicates that he has held a number of senior and presumably sensitive posts within both Her Majesty’s Government and NATO. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government were aware, until now, that this individual held that directorship? Were the Government involved in any way in nominating or recommending him for that position? And what approval of authorisation, if any, did the individual require before he became a director of what is, as the Minister has said, is an independent company limited by guarantee?

[Mr Speaker]

It was very cheeky of the hon. Gentleman to ask three questions, but I am sure the Minister will respond.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the two situations are not only not identical but significantly different. Members of the Scottish Parliament were not about to be asked to cast a binding and final vote on the most important decision they would ever take, to take part in a vote that could have cost £2,300 for every family in the country, or to agree to something that would take 9% off the economy. They were not about to be asked to vote on anything, so the two situations are significantly different.

I am glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman raises the example of Scotland, because the “Scottish Ministerial Code” explicitly recognises that there will be exceptional circumstances when it is in the balance of public interest to disclose legal advice—either in its entirety or in part—that has been given to Ministers. Having raised the question of Scotland, the hon. Gentleman has actually destroyed one of the biggest arguments that those on his own side make. If the argument is—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a mildly disorderly atmosphere in the House. The hon. Gentleman who speaks from the Scottish National party Front Bench is, in my experience, unfailingly courteous and a mild-mannered fellow—[Interruption.] Order. I do not know what he says on Twitter. An hon. Member chunters from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is not quite so obliging or courteous on Twitter. I do not waste my time listening to those ruminations, which are of no interest whatever to the Chair. I am simply saying that the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to develop his argument without excessive noise.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, if the Government’s key argument is that it is unworkable to have a set of rules that allows legal advice to Ministers to be disclosed under exceptional circumstances, that is shown to be nonsense by the fact that in Scotland a different set of rules applies, and does so very effectively.

Related to the precedent argument is the claim that Parliament is not allowed to see Government legal advice under any circumstances. Why not? The reason given is simply that we are not allowed to. I would love someone on the Government Benches who believes in the absolute sovereignty of Parliament to explain why this supposedly absolutely sovereign Parliament is not allowed to do anything it likes, because that is the argument we often hear from them. I do not believe in the absolute sovereignty of Parliament, but for those who do, how can it be that there are any restrictions on what this absolutely sovereign Parliament can ask or instruct Ministers, who are accountable to it, to do on our behalf?

[Peter Grant]

I will not take any more interventions.

As has been said, the last time there was such a significant argument about disclosure to Parliament or providing it with Government legal advice was probably in the run-up to the decision to go to war in Iraq. SNP Members and others in the House argued then that Parliament should have sight of the Attorney General’s legal advice before being asked to vote in favour of war. The SNP was vindicated, as were others. We were shown to be right in asking for that advice to be disclosed, but tragically it was too late for it to make any difference. At the time, Parliament was in possession of the equivalent of what today’s non-selected amendment asks for—the Government’s version of advice, and of such parts of arguments, and of information and intelligence dossiers, that the Government wanted Parliament to see—but not of anything that did not suit the Government. Parliament was given incomplete and, frankly, biased and misleading advice, and it made a catastrophically bad decision as a result. If we are worried about precedent, we should think about the precedent that that might set. I do not believe there is any chance that MPs would have supported the invasion of Iraq if they had been in full possession of the facts that the Government had at the time.

Two days ago, I laid a wreath at a memorial to two young men from Glenrothes who I am convinced would be alive today if Parliament had had such advice at the time it took that decision. I am not suggesting, and nobody should suggest, that a bad decision on Brexit will lead directly to thousands of deaths, but it will lead to enormous financial hardship and huge social upheaval for millions of citizens—perhaps tens of millions—and it could set off an uncontrollable chain of events with the potential to result eventually in the deaths of innocent civilians in parts of these islands.

I want the House to be given the best possible opportunity to reach not the best Brexit decision, but the least worst Brexit decision. In order to do that, we need at our disposal all the advice and information that anybody has been able to provide. If parliamentary precedent or convention, or medieval practices, prevent us from doing our job properly, they have be to be either set aside or changed. The situation is too important to allow medieval procedures to get in the way of the right decision. The Government have already set aside the Sewel convention because we are in an unprecedented position. I suggest that the convention on the absolute confidentiality of legal advice has to be varied on this occasion to get us to the correct decision.

I want every MP who shares collective responsibility for the decision we will take in the near future to know that whether our constituents agree or disagree with our decision, each of us will have exercised our judgment in full possession of the facts. We will then be able to take the responsibility for the decisions that each of us will take. I urge the House to support the motion.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Gentleman completed his oration?

[Peter Grant]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The House will hear in a moment from Mr Dominic Grieve. I am not introducing a time limit at the start—I think there are colleagues from whom the House will want to hear—but we will have to keep it under review.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. First, may I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who, as is often the way when coming from a remote location, has been delayed in transit?

This morning, Scotland’s First Minister launched “Scotland’s Place in Europe: Our Way Forward”, which is the latest in a series of analyses on the ongoing negotiations and sets out the best—or least worst—possible future for Scotland. The first of these Scottish Government analysis papers came 18 months before Chequers and, to date, has not led to a single resignation from the Scottish Cabinet. The sense of unity and the responsibility being demonstrated by the Government in Edinburgh could hardly be in more marked contrast to what we see from the UK Government here today.

Last night, the negotiations collapsed again. Did the Secretary of State go dashing off to Brussels just to fail? Or did he go because his officials had told him a deal was close? If that is the case, surely this House is entitled to know what, yet again, went wrong at the last minute. The Government’s official explanations only make sense if the Prime Minister has decided that the proposal she signed up to last December is unworkable.

The reality of all this weighs heavily across communities, particularly on the island of Ireland. We are three days away from the EU Council summit, and the UK Government continue to show at best disdain and at worst open contempt for the people of Ireland and for the Good Friday agreement. The Government clearly have no real understanding of what communities on both sides of the border are feeling about these negotiations. As long ago as last December, the Brexit Select Committee, despite an over-representation of hardliners, made it clear:

“We do not currently see how it will be possible to reconcile there being no border with the Government’s policy of leaving the Single Market”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am trying to hear the hon. Gentleman. Let’s hear the fella. [Interruption.] Order. I know that there is much noise. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) was pointing out that there is a lot of noise. I am well aware of that fact, and he does not need to conduct the orchestra.

[Peter Grant]

We can see how the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers have responded to her appeal for cool, calm heads. We can understand why she struggles to keep her party together when there are hard questions to be answered.

What was striking was the contrast in reaction from the Tory Back Benchers: when the Prime Minister committed to defend the Good Friday agreement, there was at best a lukewarm response, but there were then three hearty cheers when she said that we were taking Northern Ireland out of the customs union. It tells us where the Tory party’s priorities lie. A Conservative party playing politics with people’s lives for the sake of its own political survival is nothing short of disgraceful.

There is a better way. It is time for the Prime Minister to disown the extreme hard-line minority in her own party. She has the chance to resolve the question of the Irish border to protect jobs, to prevent the economic catastrophe that we face and to respect the result of the referendum in 2016. Will she now accept that she got it wrong? Will she now commit to a damage limitation Brexit and accept that there is a significant consensus in this House in favour of remaining in the single market and the customs union? I say to her to ignore her own career prospects, to ignore the career ambitions of those behind her and to look instead at the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs are at risk if this goes wrong. Will she take her head out of the sand and work with those on all Benches in this House to ensure that a United Kingdom stays in the single market and in the customs union?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

Is it not time for the Government to question seriously whether the current President of the United States is a fit and proper person to be our greatest ally? This is someone who can only be described as a serial child abuser. Putting children into concentration camps is not acceptable. The President has not yet taken the children out of those camps: he is holding them hostage to force their parents to give up their claims to asylum, and he is also trying to abolish due process by having no courts and no judges to decide on them. How can this person be fit for a state visit?

[Mr Speaker]

Too long. Hopelessly long.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will hear other Members if they insist, but the hour is late, so I would ask colleagues to show some sensitivity to the need to move on to the Adjournment debate. If people want to be heard, I will hear them briefly.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave the House an assurance that the new powers over the devolved nations being taken by the Government would not normally be used against the consent of those devolved Parliaments. He used almost exactly the same words as those that are already enshrined in the Sewel convention, which the Government have today cast aside by whipping their own MPs to vote against it. As Members have heard assurances by the Minister, and in some cases have possibly been persuaded how to vote by those assurances, what means are available to Members to ensure that those assurances are not cast aside with the same impunity as the assurances in the Sewel convention or, indeed, the assurances that we were given by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the early stages of the debate?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that, if I may say so, scrutiny is a process, rather than a fact. It is not a matter of an isolated incident or a single statement, gesture or occasion. It is a process of—if you will—remorseless inquisition. It is perfectly open to the hon. Gentleman, who has fast become familiar with the mechanisms of House scrutiny, to scrutinise the Government through written and oral questions, pursuit of Adjournment debates and the like on the matter of the Executive’s adherence to the Sewel convention, or, as he sees it, their non-compliance with it. I do not want to get into a great attempted exegesis of the Sewel convention but, from memory, the convention stipulates that the Government will “not normally” proceed on matters without a legislative consent motion. But, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the presence of the words “not normally” does admit of exceptions. That is the reality of the matter. It is a political matter, rather than one that lends itself to a ruling from the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Peter Grant: a sentence.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Zimbabwean Government understand the importance of proper reparations for UK citizens who have been the victims of serious crimes committed allegedly by associates of the present and previous Governments of Zimbabwe?

Business of the House

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, and never forgotten, Mr Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am eternally grateful to you, Mr Speaker. May we have a statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary on the operation of the cold weather payments system? Constituents in most of my constituency were astonished to discover that it was not cold enough to trigger the payments during a week in which they were under 2 feet to 3 feet of snow, travel of any kind was impossible and they were subject to Scotland’s first ever red alert due to the danger from snow and ice. The problem is that the DWP does not measure the temperature in Glenrothes; it measures it 20 miles away in a coastal location almost 600 feet in altitude lower than parts of Collydean in my constituency. May we have a review, so that at least the residents of Glenrothes and Levenmouth will know that, while they have to deal with the same weather as everyone else, they will be entitled to the same financial support as everyone else?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A considerable number of Members are seeking to catch my eye, and colleagues will be conscious that these proceedings must conclude at 4.30 and that it is reasonable to allow the Minister some considerable time to respond to the points made. Therefore, a certain self-denying ordinance is required if I am to enable everybody to contribute. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) speaks for his party from the Front Bench and, of course, must be afforded a decent opportunity, but I know that he will want to tailor his contribution to take account of the interests of others.

[Peter Grant]

With the consent of the House, I rise to speak to amendment 59 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other right hon. and hon. Members, and to amendments 9 and 56 and new schedule 1.

Before I speak in more detail about amendment 59, may I commend the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for the amendments that he submitted? What he has done is to remind us of what a complete sham this entire process has been. Almost 90% to 95% of the way through these eight hours of debate, the Government who had promised, day after day after day, to listen to the debate and to take appropriate effective action still have not corrected some of the glaring deficiencies in their own Bill, the most serious of which, perhaps, is the fact that we still do not have any statutory guarantee that the Northern Ireland peace process, the Belfast agreement and all that that implies, will be protected in law. If the Government cannot be trusted to bring forward amendments to correct such a desperate deficiency in their own legislation, how can they expect this House to trust them with the draconian and unprecedented powers to use ministerial directive to correct deficiencies in domestic legislation after we have left?

Amendment 59 seeks to ensure that the withdrawal agreement can only be implemented when we also have an agreement to remain in the EU single market and customs union. Let us be honest: everybody knows that, on a free vote of this House, there would be a substantial majority in favour of remaining in the single market and the customs union. My plea this evening will be for all of those who know that that is in the best interests of their constituents to set aside the demands of the party Whips and to go through the Lobby in support of this amendment. We can win this vote this evening if all those who know that it deserves to win are able to set aside the demands of the Whips and vote for it. We can take a decision tonight that will keep us away from the cliff edge, not just for two years but for very much longer.

I am very grateful to colleagues from the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green party who have signed this amendment. Although there have been no signatures from Labour Members, either from the Front Bench or the Back Benches, I appeal to all of them to support this amendment today.

Let me first deal with the question of the constitutional or democratic legitimacy of the amendment. One of the very disturbing aspects of the referendum debate, which has continued all the way through the process since then, has been the degree of hostility and open hatred that has been created against anyone who speaks, or even thinks, against the wisdom of the Government, the newspaper editor, the blogger or whoever. I have a good bad example: just a day or two ago, a group of MPs who had the temerity to go over to Europe to meet Michel Barnier were denounced as traitors—treachery with a smiling face—by one well known bloggist. Apart from the fact that such inflammatory and violent language has no place in any supposedly respectful debate, I want to remind the House of some facts of our membership of the single market—facts that I appreciate will be very uncomfortable to some Members, but that are still utterly incontrovertible.

It is a matter of fact that the people of the United Kingdom have never voted in a referendum about membership of the single market or the customs union. This House had the opportunity when the European Union Referendum Bill was on its way through Parliament. We could have decided to ask questions about the customs union and the single market, but the House and the Government chose not to. Having chosen not to ask the question, none of us—including me—has any right to decide that we know what the answer would have been.

It is a matter of fact that it is possible to be in the single market and the customs union without being a member of the European Union. Hon. Members will have different views as to whether it would be wise, appropriate or in our best interests to do so, and they have every right to debate the benefits of membership of the single market and the customs union. But anyone who insists that it cannot happen is not engaging in debate; they are engaging in fiction. We have had far too much fiction in this debate already—from both sides, it has to be said—as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) mentioned earlier. The decision to leave the single market was a unilateral political decision taken by the Prime Minister without any prior consultation with the people or with Parliament. It cannot, under any circumstances, be described as an inevitable consequence of the vote to leave the European Union.

Finally, it is a matter of fact that when the Conservative party fought on a manifesto that said it wanted to stay in the single market, it won an overall majority of seats in this place—the only time in the last 25 years that it has managed such an achievement. It is also a fact that the Conservatives lost that overall majority two years later, when they stood on a manifesto saying that they wanted to take us out of the single market. Nobody can claim that that is clear evidence of a popular democratic mandate to stay in the single market, but it certainly blows to smithereens any nonsense that there is any mandate for us to leave.

I am conscious of the need for brevity from me as well as from others, so I will not go into the full and detailed argument for staying in the single market, as that would take us from now to Brexit day, if not beyond. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred to the latest analysis produced by the Scottish Government, entitled “Scotland’s Place in Europe: People, Jobs and Investment”. I certainly accept his caveats that we cannot be sure that the forecasts and projections in it are accurate. They are certainly not intended to be precise or definitive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Two very brief inquiries. I call Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Yesterday, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) querying the Government’s failure to conduct these impact assessments, the Prime Minister said:

“No, it is not the case that no work has been done in looking at that”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 397.]

How does the Minister reconcile that statement with others previously made by the Secretary of State, as it directly contradicts them?

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On reflection, I think I prefer the phrase “the rubber has hit the road” to the one that I was going to use to describe yesterday’s fiasco.

It is no surprise that leadership contenders are now circling the Prime Minister. I can reveal that there is a vacancy coming up, because the Prime Minister is today being interviewed for the job of Scotland football manager, where her fantastic ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory could be put to very good use.

A Government who said they would bring sovereignty back to Parliament are now being controlled by someone who is not even a Member of this Parliament. A Government who refuse to give Parliament any say in the development of our negotiating position are now allowing that negotiating position to be dictated by the leader of a minority Parliament in the smallest of the four nations of this Union. I could not put it better than the shadow Minister: what a shambles; what a complete mess.

Will the Secretary of State now go back to “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the document published by the Scottish Government that his Government rejected out of hand a year ago, and use that as a basis to produce a solution to an otherwise intractable problem? The fact is that the Government’s red lines are not compatible with each other, as the Brexit Committee concluded only last week. We were therefore unable to see how it is possible to reconcile leaving the customs union with avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Will the Secretary of State go back to that paper and use it as a basis for reopening negotiations?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has concluded his remarks. [Interruption.] The problem is that he has taken one and half minutes plus, and there is huge pressure on time, so I think we must now proceed.

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No; it is possible. We shall see what happens. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) should not chunter from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of the thrust of the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). If the hon. Member for Glenrothes wishes to raise a point of order, I am very happy to entertain it.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to the urgent question, the Minister referred to the binding decision of the House on 1 November. He also referred to a non-binding decision that the House had taken on an earlier day. He appeared to seek to interpret the second decision in terms of the first. Could you advise the House? Where a binding subsequent resolution appears to be incompatible with an earlier non-binding resolution, which should take precedence?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can always discuss these matters, if he wishes, over a cup of tea with the Minister, if the Minister can spare the time to do so. I do not want to get into a detailed examination of all past motions. Suffice it to say—this is important—that there is a very recent motion passed by this House. If I may very politely say so to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, I did not say that it was my advice that the motion was binding or effective; as Speaker, I ruled that it was binding or effective. That, I can say to the hon. Member for Glenrothes, irrespective of other motions, remains the fact.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

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

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

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

Prisons Policy/HMP Long Lartin

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I fear the Minister might have misunderstood the situation described earlier by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), because the main difference in Scottish Government policy has not been to suddenly release prisoners early; it has been to give the courts a way of sentencing and punishing low-level offenders without sending them to prison in the first place. Every Member in this House representing a Scottish constituency has seen significant community benefit work carried out in the local area by people who would otherwise have been in prison. I hope the Minister accepts the invitation to meet Scottish Ministers to talk about the investment programme, and I urge him to also speak to others involved in the justice and prison system in Scotland and find out that—although I appreciate this would be a difficult decision for a Conservative Government to take—moving to a presumption against short sentences reduces offending.

[Mr Speaker]

No one could accuse the hon. Gentleman of excluding any consideration that might in any way at any time to any degree be judged material in his question.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Points of Order

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ministers are responsible for their own statements and subsequent adherence to those statements —or not, as the case may be. I do not seek to adjudicate on such matters. The short answer is that it is not for me to say that a Minister must come here today. We have scheduled business that is heavily subscribed. The hon. Lady, with her usual persistence and indefatigability, has put her concern on the record and it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. Knowing her as I have come to do over the last 21 months, I rather doubt that she will let the matter rest. She may think about it during the recess and if she is dissatisfied with what is said, or not said, by the Government, she will doubtless return to it when we come back.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During International Trade questions earlier, the Minister repeatedly referred to a deferred Division that took place yesterday and stated on several occasions that it gave Members an opportunity to vote for or against the CETA deal. The wording of the motion on which the House divided in that deferred Division makes no reference to support for or opposition to that trade deal. I accept that the Minister was acting in good faith, but can you advise me of some way in which we can set the record straight, so that the terms on which the House divided yesterday are correctly described?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way, and it is on the record for all—including his constituents—to see. Moreover, I understand that at the end of European Committee B a vote took place on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). The result was seven to five against the amendment, and the record shows that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) was in the minority of five. Thereafter, the motion was passed unopposed in Committee and subject to a deferred Division in the House yesterday. I am not sure that I can add anything further. I am not seeking to be obtuse: if I have missed the hon. Gentleman’s point and he insists on having another go, I will indulge him—

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I probably should not have given the hon. Gentleman such an opportunity.

[Peter Grant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The motion that was divided on was not actually the same motion that we were asked to consider on Monday evening. The terms of the motion as described by the Minister were different from the terms of the motion on which the House actually divided. The motion subject to the deferred Division made no reference to support for or opposition to CETA, as the Minister suggested it did on several occasions.

[Mr Speaker]

It is fair to say that the Chair is not responsible for what might be called textual exegesis. I have not looked at the text of the amendment or compared and contrasted that text with the words uttered from the Treasury Bench by the Minister this morning. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has made such a close study and may well have profited by it. I do not think there is anything further that I can do today. The hon. Gentleman is, in a sense, engaging in a debating point—perhaps a legitimate one—with the Minister and it would seem that, at least today, the hon. Gentleman has had the last word—[Interruption.] “Hopefully”, says someone from a sedentary position.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I correct the Leader of the House? In my speech I explicitly said that if the Bill was deliberately talked out by the Government, what should have been one of the brightest days in this Parliament’s history would become one of its darkest. May I therefore invite him to withdraw the suggestion that no complaints were made during the debate? Will the Leader of the House also confirm that several of the interventions that the Minister took were specifically from Back Benchers pleading with him to sit down, stop filibustering and give the democratic, elected Chamber the chance to make a decision?

Given that the Leader of the House is convinced that if a Member cannot get 100 Members in here to support a Bill, it does not deserve to go through, will he tell us how many Members were in this Chamber last night when the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill was given its Second Reading?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That last point has absolutely nothing to do with the Procedure Committee report. I am sure that the coming off of the topic was entirely inadvertent on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and it therefore requires no reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

There are any number of instances that we can all point to where the publication of information that the authorities would rather have kept hidden has led to significant public benefits. The expenses affair in this place was one example. I do not know of a single case where the release of information through the Freedom of Information Act has caused any significant public damage. Does the Minister agree that any change to the Act should be designed to make it easier, rather than harder, for citizens to find out what the Government are doing?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a softly spoken fellow but I want to hear him very fully—louder in future.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, we have heard him now, but subsequently louder is better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

16. The Secretary of State insists that the Government are not changing the definition of child poverty, so will they accept the findings of several respected organisations, including, most recently, the Resolution Foundation, which has indicated that, as a direct result of the summer Budget alone, between 300,000 and 600,000 children and 3.7 million and 3.9 million people on these islands will move into poverty by 2020? What discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the likely impact of the changes on poor children on these islands?

[Mr Speaker]

I gently point out to the House that there is a difference between asking a question and leading an Adjournment debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State may be aware of a report on the front page of today’s Herald about a recently retired employee who took advantage of the Government’s changes to pension regulations and as a direct result was scammed out of his entire pension provision of £360,000. What steps are his Department taking to make sure that the changes it has introduced do not simply allow gangs of criminals to declare open season on our pensioners?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

24. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time in this Chamber.As part of the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment of public support for holding a referendum, what discussions has he had with all parties in Scotland about the massive public support that there is for extending the franchise for the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds, who will, after all, be the people who have to live longest with the result, whatever that might be?