European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

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

[Sir William Cash]

That is a very good question, because it may well be after exit day—on my proposals. That is the point. I am proposing amendments intended to provide that democratic element, which is needed by the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so clear about what is in Scotland’s best interest. Will he remind us as to whether he supported the need for a legislative consent motion or for the consent of the Scottish Parliament before the European Union Referendum Bill was passed, before the article 50 Act was passed or before last year’s great repeal Bill, all of which he supported? It seems to me that he supported an awful lot of EU-related legislation that has been extremely damaging to Scotland, not caring a jot as to what the Scottish Parliament or the other devolved institutions thought about it. Why is it that he now suddenly wants to invoke the right of the Scottish Parliament to be consulted, given that he and his party have trampled over that right ever since the Brexit referendum was thought of?

[Sir William Cash]

I want to make some trouble. The people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland might well have strong interest in the extent to which they are involved in this process. My amendment is a means to provide them with that opportunity. I will not contradict what the hon. Gentleman says. Under our constitutional settlement, there is a Scottish Parliament, a Northern Ireland Assembly and a National Assembly for Wales, so I would have thought that they will be extremely interested to know whether they were being cut out of the process prescribed in the Bill. It is not my fault that the Government made proposals and had all the joint committees that the various leaders of the devolved Assemblies complained that they had not been properly involved in. I am giving them a chance to be involved. He may be right about the legislative consent point, but I am right to think that in relation to this crazy Bill it would at least be useful for the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to be able to make their contributions in their devolved legislatures. I think that point is worth making, and I therefore intend to press amendment 6 to a vote. Of all the amendments I tabled, that is the one that I want to move most.

Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

That is completely true. I am very concerned about the suggestion that the Chequers proposals somehow or other end up creating more certainty—it is just not the case.

[Peter Grant]

When I was in the Netherlands with the Exiting the European Union Committee a few months ago, we had the opportunity to meet members of the Dutch Parliament’s equivalent committee. Halfway through that meeting, we had to stop because the Dutch Members were called to a vote. The Dutch Parliament had an absolute, binding vote on how its fisheries Minister would conduct himself or herself at an EU Fisheries Council vote later that week. The equivalent process in the United Kingdom is that the European Scrutiny Committee expresses a view, and then the Minister ignores it and does what he or she likes, and nobody can touch a Minister as a result. Is not it the case that the reason why so much EU legislation appears to be done over the heads of the people in the United Kingdom is because it is done over the heads of those in this Parliament? Other EU countries have much better parliamentary oversight of what their Ministers are up to than the United Kingdom.

[Sir William Cash]

I am bound to say that the system in this House involved much more transparency. For example, we do not have decisions taken by Parliaments that are determined by proportional representation. We do not have a system under which there are no transcripts of the proceedings. In this House, the Bills that go through Parliament set out all the provisions, and all legislation is subject to amendment by both Houses. Everything is printed. Hansard is available. Proceedings are filmed and shown on the parliamentary channel. People know where and how decisions are taken. The proposed joint committee will be no more than a consultative operation, and that does not mean that anything will come out of it.

A letter from the Secretary of State was put before my Committee on 5 September—more or less as we sat down that morning—regarding the discussions that we were going to have with Mr Olly Robbins and the Secretary of State. The letter says that there will be a

“working assumption that we would continue with the current model for providing written evidence to the committees through Explanatory Memoranda”.

My Committee is quite clear that that will not be anything like early enough. We want to know that we are going to get an explanatory memorandum at a very early stage. With regard to the scrutiny of the EU’s legislative proposals during the proposed joint committee procedure, the Secretary of State goes on to say:

“we will work closely with Parliament to agree upon a scrutiny system which, in the first instance, facilitates Parliament’s role in scrutinising EU proposals that may affect the UK during the implementation period.”

There is nothing, of course, about the fact that the process will go on afterwards. This is a pig in poke. We do not know what the scrutiny system will be, but we are being asked to approve it. Today’s debate is just a foretaste of what is to come. Working closely with Parliament to agree a scrutiny system but not actually telling us how the joint committee will work in practice is absolutely fundamental in this debate.

In the letter, the Secretary of State goes on to say:

“Given the way the EU’s legislative process works, most Council directives and regulations which will come into force during the implementation period have already been agreed or are being negotiated now, while the UK is still a Member State.”

Now, I know that the Minister referred to that point in her opening statement but, unfortunately, this does not deal with changes to the rulebook.

Let us suppose that it is the case that the 27 member states—with us not even at the table—will be able to make changes themselves and then effectively impose them on us, and that we are going to have a committee system. That system has not yet been agreed with us, and the details of it are extremely obscure but involve no more than consultation. If that is the case, when the negotiation of treaty obligations has been completed and we have entered into international obligations, which is what this will amount to, how on earth are we supposed to accept it when we—or the Committee or Committees scrutinising those questions—are then told, “Oh, this has all been agreed by international obligation behind closed doors”? We will have accepted the fact that that something will happen, but we will not actually be in a position to do anything about it at all. We are not merely buying a pig in a poke; we are also being bound and shackled by European law, and I have not even touched on the question of the arbitration arrangement.

Although I am in favour of arbitration in principle, the real question is whether it will be subject to European Court of Justice interpretation. I do not have time to go into all that today, but I simply put it on the table that that is a really serious problem. I know that the matter is currently under discussion, but it looks very much as if we will be buying into a reshackling of our Parliament and our businesses. The certainty that is being offered would be absolutely catastrophic if, in fact, the process went wrong and rules were imposed on us. That is what I am most concerned about in this context.

As for the parliamentary lock, the Prime Minister herself, in a pamphlet published by Politeia in 2007, was very explicit about the failures of the European system of oversight in the UK Parliament. Anyone can read it for themselves. All I am saying is that it is absolutely catastrophic. I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 33 years, and not once in all that time—and certainly not at any time before that—has Parliament ever overturned an EU decision that has been taken in the Council of Ministers. What confidence could we possibly have that that would ever happen, particularly as the Prime Minister said herself in her pamphlet that parliamentary sovereignty in this context was a fiction?

It is all very well to fall back on the concept that under our constitution we have the power to overturn legislative arrangements by Act of Parliament—that no Parliament can bind its successors and the rest of it. However, if, in practice, as with the European Communities Act in the first place, we voluntarily agree that we are going to accept what is being done, that situation is made worse by the context—a referendum in which the British people agreed by common consent that we will leave the European Union, with the Government accepting that; and the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed by Members of the House of Commons by six to one and the withdrawal Act was passed by 499 to 120, or whatever it was. It is crystal clear that we should be in control of making of our own legislation on our own terms, not supplicants to the European Union.

What this is all about is that we are supplicants to the European Union, and I put that to the Secretary of State and Mr Olly Robbins. We are going to the European Union and saying, “What is it that you are prepared to give us?” And that is just not good enough. I say that because, apart from anything else, under this White Paper, the scrutiny process—during the implementation period and even afterwards—leaves us extremely exposed. That is the problem. It leaves us in a position whereby we are effectively engaging in a form of legal re-entry into the European Communities Act 1972. I do not believe—I have to say this in all candour—that the Government did not know that. I believe that they did know it, unequivocally, before the repeal of the ’72 Act was passed via the withdrawal Act’s Royal Assent. No one is going to kid me that the White Paper, which was produced 14 days later, did not get written in anticipation that we were going to repeal the ’72 Act through section 1 of the withdrawal Act at the end of June but then end up undermining that repeal within a matter of 14 days. I find that absolutely extraordinary. It was Chequers that did it. Up until Chequers, I was 100% behind the Government. Chequers ended up undermining the basis of the collective responsibility, as I understand it, of members of the Cabinet, because they did not know about that either.

I come back to the simple point: this is an unacceptable arrangement. We do not know how the joint committee will operate. We have no confidence whatever that it is going to be more than a mere consultation, and what is COREPER going to be doing about all this in the meantime?

There is much more that I could say, but others want to speak. I regard this as a very, very serious breach of trust. I am afraid that that is the basis on which I approach this debate. I think that a lot of people outside—the punters; the real people of this country—know and understand this. We decided on 23 June 2016 that we would leave the European Union. We did not agree that we were going to come back with some form of legal re-entry to satisfy the whims of the European Union, and particularly the country that dominates it most—namely, Germany.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Of course, there is a simple reason for that. First, Germany calls all the shots in the European Union; and secondly, it hides behind the euro currency and therefore has an enormous trade advantage, as Mr Trump has identified. That is demonstrated by Office for National Statistics figures that show that we run a deficit with the EU27 member states of about £80 billion, and Germany has a surplus of £104 billion a year.

[Peter Grant]

An alternative explanation might be that Germany has had a succession of Governments who actually believe in investing in the long-term stability and sustainability of its economy, whereas the United Kingdom, for decades, has not had Governments with the ambition, the imagination or the long-term vision to do so.

In answer to a question from an Opposition Member about the 65 trade deals that we are currently party to, thanks to our membership of the European Union, the Minister suggested that the European Union has already agreed that all those 65 deals will be extended to a non-EU member after we have left. Well, the European Union might have agreed to do that. However, it does not have the right to do it unilaterally, because every one of those 65 deals has got somebody on the other side of the table, so the second signatories to all those 65 deals will have to be asked if they agree as well. Some of them will agree, but if any one of the 65 says no, we are immediately in a worse bidding position than we are as part of the European Union. Anyone who suggests that we can replicate all those 65 trade deals by March 2019 or December 2020, or at any time when most of us are still active in politics, is being wildly optimistic. It is almost as ridiculous as suggesting that these negotiations will be the easiest trade deals in history and it will be all done and dusted within six months.

We hear all the platitudes from the Government. The latest buzzword is “broadly”. It used to be that EU nationals living in the UK would have “approximately” the same rights as they currently have; now they are to have “broadly” the same rights as they currently have. I do not want them to have broadly the same rights; I want them to have exactly the same rights. In fact, I want them to have at least the same rights, because in some areas they should have more rights than they have just now. The Minister did not give way when I wanted to ask a question earlier, so I hope that her colleague will tell us explicitly, without any prevarication, what the Government mean when they continue to say “broadly” the same rights. Will he give us the specific areas in which EU citizens currently living in the UK will have fewer rights after we leave the EU than they have just now? These people are entitled to know which of their rights they will lose that are being hidden behind the word “broadly”, which the Government have started using all the time.

There has been mention of the question of the Irish border. Like other speakers, I find it astonishing that the only way that some people, including a growing number on the Government’s hard Brexit side, can reconcile what is happening is just to pretend that the problem does not exist. We are told that people are using false concerns about the Irish border to play out some kind of clandestine political agenda.

I remind Members about a couple of things that this Government willingly signed up to in December last year, as part of the joint report with the European Union—namely, that the United Kingdom will accept in all regards that the Republic of Ireland will continue to be a full and integral member of the European Union for as long as the Republic of Ireland wants to and that the United Kingdom will accept that the Republic of Ireland will and must comply with all aspects of European Union law. The United Kingdom has already committed itself to accepting that the Republic of Ireland is bound by European law as it applies to the enforcement or the observance of the European Union’s external borders.

The Republic of Ireland would love to get an agreement endorsed by the rest of the European Union that allows the border to be kept as it is now. The Republic of Ireland does not have the option of doing what so many Government Members blithely suggest, which is to sweep aside EU border legislation unilaterally, by keeping an open and uncontrolled border, contrary to European law and contrary to the commitments that this Government have already made. Let us have no more of this nonsense of trying to blame the Republic of Ireland for a mess that has been wholly created by the UK Government. Let us have no more of this nonsense of saying that somehow the European Union is usurping British sovereignty over Northern Ireland by trying to force a backstop agreement that the Government do not want.

As I said in an earlier intervention, the UK Government undertook in December last year to bring forward specific proposals for a solution to the question of the Irish border that would comply with all the requirements of Ireland’s continued membership of the European Union and with all the requirements of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. In the intervening period since December 2017, the UK Government have utterly failed to live up to that promise. That was why the European Union brought forward a solution that I do not think it thinks is particularly good, but it was a desperate attempt to get the UK Government to put their money where their mouth is and bring forward one of the specific sets of proposals that they had willingly promised to produce as a basis for discussion.

Again, let us have no more of this nonsense of claiming that somehow there is a conspiracy between the Irish Government and the EU to take Northern Ireland away from Britain against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. The European Union will support the Republic of Ireland because the Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Union, in exactly the same way as the European Union would support the UK in a trade dispute, border dispute or customs dispute with any non-EU member if we asked it to.

I am asking the Minister who sums up to confirm in terms that the UK Government still respect absolutely and unreservedly the sovereignty of the Republic of Ireland and its position as a full and integral member of the European Union, because too much of what we have heard being supported by Conservative Members appears to undermine that position.

Let us not forget that the people of Northern Ireland have spoken twice on this issue. When they spoke in 2016, they said, “We want to stay in the European Union.” When they spoke in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement—which did not bring peace to Northern Ireland, let us not forget, but it certainly brought peace a lot closer than it was before—the agreement reached at that point was that nobody could take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and that nobody could force Northern Ireland to stay in the United Kingdom against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. How on earth is it within the spirit of that agreement for anyone to take Northern Ireland out of the European Union against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, especially when it is becoming increasingly clear that it is difficult, if not impossible, to deliver the kind of Brexit the Prime Minister is obsessed with without having to go back on some of the promises that have saved so many lives on both sides of the Irish border over the past number of years?

The Irish border question cannot be easily solved if Northern Ireland is out of the EU and the Republic is in. It can be very substantially solved within the terms of the question that was on the referendum ballot paper if the Prime Minister is prepared to see sense, listen to sense and listen to the businesses and so on that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was accused of not supporting. Those businesses are saying to us, “Why in the name of goodness are we coming out of the customs union and the single market?” Customs union membership makes the solution to the Irish border question so much easier and so much more achievable. If that was the only benefit of being in the customs union, I would say to the Government that they should at least think about it.

People did not vote to leave the single market or the customs union. They voted to leave the European Union. [Interruption.] I still have a photograph of the ballot paper at home, if Members want to see it; it does not say anything about the single market or the customs union. We do not really know how many of the 17 million people who voted to leave wanted us to leave the customs union and how many wanted us to stay in it. How does the Minister think Members should vote on the deal, assuming a deal is brought back, if they want to respect the wish of the majority—the majority being the 16 million who wanted to stay in the whole package and the unknown but undoubtedly significant number who wanted us to leave the European Union but not the customs union and the single market? Which option is the Minister saying we should support? Should we vote for a proposal from the Government that will involve us leaving the customs union and the single market on a rotten deal, or should we vote for a proposal that says we will leave the single market and the customs union on no deal at all? That is not a choice that respects the sovereignty of the people or, indeed, the alleged sovereignty of Parliament.

If the Minister is as confident as she appeared that the deal brought before the House will be one that we can all enthusiastically get behind, why do the Government not commit to make that vote a proper, meaningful vote, with alternatives for those who do not want the Prime Minister’s deal because it is too destructive and who do not want no deal? If the Government are so confident that we will accept the deal anyway, why not offer to put a third option to Parliament, which is to let the people decide? If we cannot agree what the people really meant about leaving the customs union, borders in Ireland, passport queues at Brussels and all the rest of it, why not ask them again what they really meant?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

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

[Peter Grant]

As I said, I have been disappointed in the performance of the official Opposition up until now. I think we are seeing some signs of cohesion, and quite a number of speakers have been very firm in favouring the single market, as indeed we have heard across the House.

I do not want to point out mistakes that have been made in the past or score political points. There is a time and a place for that. The situation that we will face within the next couple of hours is so important and could have such devastating consequences for all our constituents that how about, just for a couple of hours, we forget the mistakes that each other has made and look at the catastrophic mistake that we may be about to make if we allow the Bill to go through without amendment 59 or something similar being passed? This may be the last chance we have to keep ourselves away from the cliff edge. I say to all those in this House, regardless of their party allegiance, who know that the single market and the customs union is where we have to be, please come through the Lobby with us tonight to vote to make sure that that happens.

[Sir William Cash]

The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, has been holding inquiries into the fundamental constitutional implications of the Bill, including clause 5. As is now shown on its website, I have had correspondence with the Prime Minister on its behalf since December. The provisions I refer to would empower the courts, for the first time in our Westminster-based legislative history, to disapply Acts of Parliament. This is no theoretical matter. Indeed, we are advised that such disapplication is likely to apply to a whole range of enactments, including those relating to equality, terrorism, data protection and many other matters.

I raised this massive constitutional issue, as I regard it, in Committee on 14 and 21 November, including by reference to the authoritative statements made by the late Lord Chief Justice Bingham in chapter 12 of his book on the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. Let us bear in mind that he is one of the most authoritative judges in recent generations. He says:

“We live in a society dedicated to the rule of law; in which Parliament has power, subject to limited, self-imposed restraints, to legislate as it wishes; in which Parliament may therefore legislate in a way which infringes the rule of law;”—

I repeat, “infringes the rule of law”—

“and in which the judges, consistently with their constitutional duty to administer justice according to the laws and usages of the realm, cannot fail”—

I repeat, “cannot fail”—

“to give effect to such legislation if it is clearly and unambiguously expressed.”

In that book, he publicly criticised the attitude of Baroness Hale, who is now President of the Supreme Court, and Lord Hope of Craighead for suggesting that the courts have constitutional authority as against an Act of Parliament.

Lord Bingham also specifically approved the analysis of what he described as the “magisterial” authority of Professor Goldsworthy, whom he quoted as follows:

“the principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been recognised as fundamental in this country not because the judges invented it but because it has for centuries been accepted as such by judges and others officially concerned in the operation of our constitutional system. The judges did not by themselves establish the principle and they cannot, by themselves, change it… What is at stake is the location of ultimate decision-making authority… If the judges were to repudiate the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, by refusing to allow Parliament to infringe on unwritten rights, they would be claiming that ultimate authority for themselves.”

He went on to state that they—the judges—would then be transferring the rights of Parliament to themselves as judges. He says:

“It would be a transfer of power initiated by the judges, to protect rights chosen by them, rather than one brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment or popular referendum.”

That is the basic principle.

Members of this House and the House of Lords, including former Law Lords and members of the Supreme Court, are themselves deeply concerned about—

Referendums

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I start by referring Members, particularly the last speaker, to the comments made by the First Minister this morning? She made it perfectly clear that it is not her preferred outcome that Scotland should leave the Union simply to prevent ourselves from being dragged out of the European Union. She said that she wants the United Kingdom to deliver a resounding yes vote to the European Union. I cannot see that happening if the UK-based yes campaign continues to behave in this way.

This afternoon, we have seen the reality behind the Government’s respect rhetoric. Despite the promises that we have been given time and again, and as recently as a few weeks ago in this Chamber, the views of the elected Governments of three of the four equal partners in this Union are being ignored and trampled underfoot by the fourth partner. That comes as no surprise to us in Scotland, because the Government made it perfectly clear that, regardless of what the sovereign people of Scotland say about our membership of the European Union, others can overturn that simply by sheer weight of numbers.

One very interesting confession today is that the Labour party shares the Conservative party’s contempt for the sovereign will of the Scottish people. If the Labour branch office leader in Scotland had not conceded defeat in the Holyrood elections last week, I strongly suspect that she would have done so very quickly had she heard the comments of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) just a few moments ago.

The elected national leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all said that the democratic processes in their three countries are likely to be flawed if this statutory instrument is agreed tonight. In Northern Ireland, we even saw the Sinn Féin Deputy First Minister add his name to a letter from the Democratic Unionist party First Minister. Those are two politicians who, for a number of reasons, do not agree on very many things. How much wider a coalition of opposition to this proposal do the Government need to see before they accept that, in this case, sheer weight of numbers is not enough to crack an argument? They must listen, which is what they promised the devolved Governments that they would do.

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be chair. Does he agree that a democratic question lies at the heart of this matter? If there is information on which the voter is expected to make his decision, as was the case with the Scottish situation a few years ago, the bottom line is that, without genuine and properly sourced information and proper time, the British people will effectively be cheated?

[Peter Grant]

I do not think that a referendum date of 23 June gives adequate time for the complex issues to be considered. This is the time to be discussing not those issues, but the procedural motion before us so that we can decide on the date. I am up for a positive and, if necessary, heated discussion as to why it is in the interests of all of our nations to remain part of the European Union.

In the interests of time, I will not repeat all the arguments that have been marshalled on the Opposition Benches and, sometimes, on the Government Benches against the proposal deliberately to overlap the referendum campaign with elections in which more than 20 million of our citizens will take part on the first Thursday in May. Let us look quickly at some of the consequences. As has been mentioned, 10 weeks before the referendum—in the middle of April—the Government’s response to the EU negotiations has to be published, including a statement, which we now know will say that the Government believe that people should vote to stay in the European Union. The Scottish Government will be in purdah for a full three weeks after that. Are the UK Government seriously suggesting that it is acceptable for the Prime Minister to issue an official document saying that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Union, while not allowing the Scottish Government to say that they agree because they are in purdah? Saying that they agree will inevitably be seen as seeking to influence the votes in the Scottish parliamentary elections away from the parties that will stand on an anti-European Union ticket—make no mistake about it.

There used to be an agreement that the UK and Scottish Governments would fully respect one another’s purdah arrangements. If this statutory instrument is agreed today, that agreement is gone, and it may well be gone forever. Any attempt to pretend that this Government respect the democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Government will go out the window with it.

People will receive the UK Government’s document on the referendum at the same time, and possibly on exactly the same day, as they receive the polling cards or the postal vote applications for a completely different election. The problem is not just that the elections are held close together—in some ways, administratively, it is simpler if two polls are held on the same day, but it becomes more difficult if the nature of the question is different for those polls. In this case, every single part of the election administration process, which is immensely complicated and which our returning officers and our counting officers cannot afford to get wrong, will be happening twice, a few weeks apart. We will have the ridiculous situation of people being encouraged to register to vote in one election before they have to turn up at the polling station to vote in the other.

The newly elected national Governments will find themselves back in purdah fewer than three weeks after the parliamentary elections. As has been pointed out, it is quite possible that, if there is a very keenly contested election in any of the three nations, the First Minister of one or of all three nations might not be elected until the Government are back in purdah. We then have a newly formed Government who are restricted in their ability to launch their legislative programme in case some of it is affected by the result of the referendum. That is not sheer speculation, but fact. For example, how can a new Scottish Government announce a five-year spending plan if they do not know whether European Union procurement rules will continue for over half of that five-year period? How can a Government put forward a legislative programme on such crucial areas as fisheries, agriculture, public procurement, investment and tourism if they do not know, and are not allowed to speculate on, whether they will still be a part of the European Union a couple of years later. If this is what the Government describe as being respectful, I shudder to think what contempt for the Scottish Government would look like. The Minister claimed that the EU referendum purdah is different from a parliamentary election purdah. Technically, it is, but so many subject matters will be covered by both that in fact, in practice, the elected Governments will be in purdah as regards a significant range of their devolved powers.

The Government are trying to suggest that a referendum in September will not work, but if a major test of the success of any electoral process is public engagement and public participation, I have to remind the House that a September vote produced the most successful test of electoral opinion that any of these nations have ever seen, whether we measure it by the number of people who took part, the number of people who registered or the number of people who voted. I would much rather see 98% of people registering to vote and 85% of people voting than the low numbers we might get in a snap election.

I am ready for the debate to begin. I honestly believe that a date of 23 June makes it more likely that the United Kingdom will vote to stay in. Despite that, I do not want to see the UK voting on a flawed referendum and in a flawed process. I would much rather see a referendum in which everybody participates and for that reason, it cannot be held as soon as 23 June.

Question put.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on introducing this debate so well.

I have to say that this has been a very long journey—30 years, I suppose, in all. I do not want to speak about the technicalities of negotiation; we will deal with that when the Foreign Secretary appears in front of the European Scrutiny Committee on 10 February. I had the opportunity to say a few words yesterday in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, but today I simply want to indicate what I really feel about this question and explain why I am so utterly and completely determined to maintain the sovereignty of this United Kingdom Parliament.

It is really very simple. We are elected by the voters in our constituencies. We come here, and have done for many centuries, to represent their grievances and their interests, to fight for their prosperity and to support them in adversity. The reason why this House has to remain sovereign is that it simply cannot be subordinated to decisions taken by other people. This is about this country and it is about our electors. This is what people fought and died for.

As I mentioned yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in his Bloomberg speech to our “national Parliament” as the “root of our democracy”, but I would also mention that in our history, this Parliament has been steeped in the blood of, and nourished by, civil war. When your great predecessor, Mr Speaker—

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Certainly not at this moment.

I was about to say that Speaker Lenthall, in defiance of prospective tyranny, refused to accept armed aggression by the monarchy. Pym, Hampden, ship money—this was all about sovereignty and defending the rights of the people from unnecessary and oppressive taxation, which was being imposed on them without parliamentary authority. Through subsequent centuries, we saw the repeal of the Corn laws, and parliamentary reform through the 1867 Act to ensure that the working man was entitled to take part in this democracy; and after that, through to the 1930s when we had to take account of the mood of appeasement.

With respect to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe, I take the view that in completely different circumstances what has happened in these negotiations in terms of parliamentary sovereignty can be seen when the die is clearly cast and we now have an opportunity for the first time since 1975 to make a decision on behalf of the British people. That is why we need to have regard to the massive failures of the European Union and to its dysfunctionality—whether it be in respect of economics, immigration, defence or a range of matters that are absolutely essential to our sovereignty.

All those issues have, within the framework of the European Union, been made subject to criticism. We are told that we would be more secure if we stayed in the European Union and that we would preserve the sovereignty of our electors who put us in place to make the decisions and make the laws that should govern them. Would we really be more secure in a completely dysfunctional, insecure, unstable Europe? No, of course not.

The issues now before us in Europe are actually to do with sovereignty. If we lose this sovereignty, we betray the people. That is the point I am making. Yes, there are certain advantages to co-operation and trade, for example, and I agree 100% with that. I have always argued for that, but what I will not argue for is for the people who vote us to this Chamber of this Parliament to be subordinated so that we are put in the second tier of a two-tier Europe, which will be largely governed, as I have said previously, by the dominant country in the eurozone—Germany.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I have had to remind myself what motion we are debating today because it strikes me that if it had been phrased to say what most of its sponsors want it to say—namely, that this House could not care less what the Prime Minister achieves because we are voting to get out anyway—I am not convinced that anyone, with the possible exception of the last speaker, the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), would have said anything different.

I would never have thought that, almost exactly nine months after becoming a new Member of Parliament, I would be giving a lesson in English parliamentary history to one of the most esteemed and experienced parliamentarians to grace this Chamber, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). However, this Parliament did not witness the English civil war, because it did not exist at that time. One of its predecessors, the Parliament of England, most certainly did, but at best this Parliament has existed since 1707. Some would argue that the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is less than 100 years old. I say that not to knock the pride of those who justifiably believe that the previous Parliament of England delivered a lot and was a trend setter for democracy in many parts of the world, but if you have a strong hand to play, you damage it by overplaying it. I fear that some of those on the Conservative Benches are overplaying the significance of the history of previous Parliaments that have met not in this exact building but close by.

[Sir William Cash]

I would simply say that when Scotland joined us in the Union, it was in order to combine our fight for freedom. Indeed, the Scots fought with us in all the great battles including Waterloo and the Somme and right the way through the second world war. It is that freedom that we fought for together.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Poles, the French, the Hungarians and many others also fought alongside us.

What actually happened in 1706-07 was that the two Parliaments were combined; it was not a takeover of one Parliament by another. I entirely respect the clear pride and positive English nationalism that we have heard from some Conservative Members today. That is a positive thing; as long as nationalism is based on pride in and love for one’s country it is always to be welcomed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone on his pride in declaring that “we are the people of England”, but we are not the people of England; we are the people of Scotland. We are the sovereign people of Scotland, in whom sovereignty over our nation is and always will be vested. For Scotland, sovereignty does not reside in this place, and it does not reside in those of us who have been sent to serve in this place. It resides for ever in those who have sent us to serve here.

I am genuinely interested in the concept that the institution of Parliament is ultimately sovereign, even over the people. Perhaps someone who speaks later can tell me who decided that that should be the case, and who gave them the right to decide that. I suspect the answer will be that it was the people who agreed that Parliament should be sovereign, in which case it is the people who retain the right to change that decision.

Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision)

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

There is the case of Germany, to come straight to the point.

At the meeting it was discussed whether the 28 member states represented there, excluding us and Ireland because we are not part of Schengen, would welcome the proposals that were set out in the motion. In a nutshell, the countries concerned—the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania—were being told that they should go along with these mandatory arrangements irrespective of their resentment about that, their parliamentary votes against it, and their application to the European Court of Justice. As the Minister said, Hungary and Slovakia had brought proceedings in the Court of Justice to challenge the validity of this. These countries were, in effect, being told that they were wrong, and that in saying that the motion should merely “take note” of the relocation proposals, which was almost over-generous of them in the circumstances, they were refusing to accept the notion that they should welcome it. That is what led to the explosion. The debate went on for nearly four hours. This must not be underestimated. It is not just something to be floated over as, with respect, the Minister did; I understand why he probably did so. It is fissile material. It is a perfect example of the total want of democracy in the European Union in imposing, by mandatory arrangements, a settlement on countries that simply do not want it. It is a perfect example of what I have described as the compression chamber blowing up in such circumstances.

That is the background against which we should consider this. It is not just a question of whether we like it or not, but of how the European Union operates in practice. One need only look at how the Greeks were treated by the Germans with regard to the whole austerity programme or how the Portuguese president, a few weeks ago, disregarded, ignored and refused to accept the decision of the voters by not acknowledging the new party of government. The list is considerable, and, as far as I am concerned, that is the basis against which this issue ought to be judged.

I am, of course, delighted, but not surprised, that the Government have decided not to opt into the arrangements. I say with enthusiasm that our policy of trying to deal with the problem of refugees at source, which I have applauded from the very beginning, is the best way to go about it, not to allow these people in. At Friday’s meeting, the issue was raised of why Germany took the line it did. The answer, as I have said on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions over the past couple of months, is that it was very much to do with its desire to have more people working in the country, not just for altruistic reasons but for economic reasons. It wants to compensate for the fact that it will soon have a much lower working-age population. It made the decision because that is what Germany wants, irrespective of the impact it will have on the European Union. Angela Merkel’s popularity happens to have plummeted over the past few weeks because, in my opinion and that of many other commentators, she has misjudged the situation.

The real point is that, to bring in 1 million people to Germany—that is basically what is happening—is not the end but the beginning of the story. Those 1 million people will themselves have their own children and probably bring their families over as well, because the charter of fundamental rights will be made available to them. This is, in fact, an opening of what I described the other day as a tsunami.

On top of that—I have referred to this on a number of occasions on the Floor of the House—nobody can doubt for a moment that there are a number, albeit perhaps small, of jihadists among those people who have come over. The reality is that only a few are needed in order to wreak the kind of carnage and havoc that we witnessed in Paris. To those who would criticise people like me for mentioning that, I say that it is a fact that that is what is happening, and on a scale unprecedented since the second world war.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Does he actually have hard evidence that jihadists are arriving in the United Kingdom under the disguise of migrants? Given that some people pose as police officers and social workers in order to commit heinous crimes, does he think we should abolish the police and social workers as well?

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

It is perfectly in order for the UK Government to take an impartial, neutral stance once we get closer to the referendum. We do not know what stance they will take. There is a question as to whether it was appropriate for somebody else’s Government to interfere in our referendum, but I know that that is not an argument we will win just now. However, that degree of interference probably contributed to the fact that on most days these Benches are significantly more crowded than they were before. If the Government do not produce information, as opposed to campaigning opinion, about how the EU works now, who will produce it? If we are happy for the two opposing camps to produce the information, then they can go ahead and do it, but we know before we start that all that will happen is that people will be drawn to believing statements of fact because of their opinion of the politician or TV personality who has associated their name with them, rather than being presented with a factual, well-researched document that sets out how things are just now.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I will give way to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee with pleasure.

[Sir William Cash]

I rise to intervene on a member of my Committee simply to say that we know that the broadcasts and the information that will be delivered and published by the designated organisations on either side will provide that information. We saw it in Ireland, and there are many other examples in other referendums in the EU. But the idea that the Government are not going to try and organise the view that they want, which is to stay in a so-called reformed union, is, I think, for the birds.

[Peter Grant]

I wish I could share the hon. Gentleman’s absolute faith in the impartiality of broadcasters during important referendums, but that might be one of the very small number of issues on which we disagree.

The point about broadcasters is that if they are found to be in breach of the requirement of impartiality, a sanction is available and there are ways in which they can be held to account—and certainly the BBC feels as if it is being very severely held to account by any number of Committees in this place just now.

[Sir William Cash]

I was not referring to the impartiality of broadcasters in this context; I was referring to the fact that under the designated arrangements each side will have the right to issue broadcasts and provide information by way of literature. That is what I was concentrating on.

[Peter Grant]

I apologise for misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

My essential point is that I do not think it is enough to leave it to campaign groups to provide information. The purpose of campaign groups is to persuade people to vote for the cause that they are promoting. They will provide information that supports their cause. They will choose not to provide or emphasise information that does not support it. That is what we all did in order to get elected, and as long as it does not involve deliberately making untrue statements or trying to mislead people, that is part of the democratic process; it is part of politics. It is up to the electorate to judge whose arguments they believe, but if the electorate are starting from a position of significant ignorance, or in some cases significant misperception and misunderstanding of what the EU is all about, there is a danger that they will not be in a position to exercise that judgment at a critical time.

Iran: Nuclear Issues

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I do not intend to go into the complexities of the foreign policy implications, because that would warrant a much longer debate and involve not only the Minister for Europe but the Foreign Secretary —with respect to this Minister’s pay grade. This is vital to our security. One needed only to witness the discussions as they unfolded in Switzerland, at which the Foreign Secretary was present, the to-ing and fro-ing and the analysis that was brought to bear to realise the importance of this issue. That was the point I wanted to make about the timing. It is important, when we say a European document is of legal or political importance, that the matter is debated on the Floor of the House in the appropriate manner and at the right time. The UN Security Council voted to adopt resolution 2231 on 20 July, and these documents have been pouring out ever since. There is a more recent document, dated 18 October, which is getting nearer to now, but we are at the end of November. But I have made my point clearly enough.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, agrees that all major European matters, even those which we might eventually agree or give a cautious welcome to, deserve the full scrutiny of the House. As he points out, these documents were considered on 9 September, and the Committee recommended that they be brought to the Floor of the House as soon as possible after the October recess. It is seven weeks later. Has he had an explanation from the Government about why it took so long, and has he been given cause to believe that the remaining 21 scrutiny documents will be brought forward for debate, either here or in Committee, within a reasonable timeframe?

[Sir William Cash]

This is the first opportunity we have had to put the point about the timing to the Minister. It is because we recommended it for debate that we can raise the question in this context. On the logjam of documents, to which the hon. Gentleman, who sits on my Committee, rightly refers, it is the constant and persistent determination of the Committee to get issues debated as early as possible, as he knows. I will not go down that route now—it is for another occasion—but I take very seriously what he says.

Because this is such a controversial matter, others have made observations on it, and I would like to quote what Roger Boyes, the diplomatic editor of The Times, said on 15 July. The Minister might think that circumstances have improved since then in terms of bringing Iran and Russia nearer to the negotiations and getting a better result in respect of ISIS/Daesh, but I will quote what he said anyway, because it is of some interest. He says:

“There is nothing game-changing about teaming up with a wobbly Iran. The accord with Tehran can then only be judged narrowly as to whether it is a success as a piece of arms control statecraft—and whether the release of sanctioned funds makes Iran more or less menacing. Consider what would happen without a nuclear deal, President Obama said yesterday: no limits on the nuclear programme, on centrifuges, on the plutonium reactor. But the president has to consider this too: how does one maintain leverage on Iran once the sanctions have been lifted? Denied access to a suspicious nuclear site, inspectors will be able to appeal to a joint commission that includes delegates from Iran, Russia and China. Delays are thus built into the verification system and the idea that sanctions can come crashing quickly down again is over-optimistic. Parts of the deal read like a cheater’s charter; there is too much wriggle room.”

I put that forward not in my own name, but because I think it important for the House to hear the views of an experienced diplomatic editor such as Roger Boyes. He continues:

“What happens in ten to 15 years when the deal has run its course, restraints are lifted and a wealthy Iran which has retained its nuclear expertise, which has grown in zealous confidence, decides to remind a small Gulf state who is boss? The deal is an open invitation to Sunni princelings to invest in their own nuclear deterrent. In the meantime Tehran will have the money to throw into the subversion of its neighbours and expand its arms exporting business.”

On the other hand, to illustrate the controversy and importance of all this, Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran who obviously knows a lot about it, argued that there were good reasons to believe that it will stick, including

“the ‘snap-back’ provisions to restore sanctions in the event of violations”

and the fact that

“Iran will not want to risk a military attack, which would grow more likely if the deal fell through; no viable better agreement available and no international support for more sanctions if the US were seen to have vetoed the deal”.

Then there would be an Iran, he says, that

“is tired of being punished for something that it has not intended to do since the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s ban on nuclear weapons, which dates from 2003, the year Saddam Hussein was toppled.”

He goes on to say that Iran

“has recognised that it cannot develop sustainably as a nation without allaying international concerns.”

It also “values its reputation”, and

“reneging on its commitment not to build nuclear weapons, or withdrawing its agreement to the utmost transparency, either during or after the agreed 15-year limits on its enrichment activities”

would

“demolish that reputation, with no appreciable gain to its security because of the retaliation and regional arms race that would follow.”

That just gives an indication and a flavour of the complexity and controversy that lies behind all this.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I appreciate the point the right hon. Member makes. I am not saying that I am against the Barnett formula. I think there is an issue with Barnett consequentials, but the bottom line is this: we are now dealing with a constitutional question. It is constantly claimed that this is about two classes of MPs, but I am simply dismissing that because it is complete rubbish. There are not two classes of MPs. The right of people to vote in the Scottish Parliament or the UK Parliament derives from the functions conferred upon them by agreement of the whole House of Commons when the Scotland Bill was put through in 1997.

[Peter Grant]

Given that we agree that this is a constitutional problem, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it needs a constitutional solution? That constitutional solution is along the corridor; there is an English Parliament chamber just waiting to be occupied by politicians democratically elected to represent the people of England. What is it that is so defective about the people of England that they cannot have a Parliament in the same way as the people of the other nations represented in this Chamber?

[Sir William Cash]

I understand that, and there are very powerful forces for a move towards an English Parliament, because those on the Opposition Benches believe that is the way they will get their independence, but this is not about independence.

I say to the Leader of the House—or his deputy as he is not here at the moment—that these proposals are too complicated and far too long. I am extremely grateful to the Procedure Committee for its valuable work and for the manner in which it has managed these matters. I am also grateful to the Leader of the House, who has been amenable to its proposal for a pilot study. These proposals are a compromise, however; they are not perfect. They are far too complicated. You know only too well, Mr Speaker, that they involve 30 pages of unbelievably obscure changes, which will be a nightmare to interpret and to apply.

The Speaker’s certificate is an answer. I put forward a proposal, which was agreed to by a former Clerk of the House and others of similar distinction, to deal with this problem in—believe it or not—seven lines of changes to Standing Orders. I am completely committed to the idea of these changes being done through Standing Orders. A lot of constitutional nonsense is being talked about doing this through an Act of Parliament. That would invite a judicial review, whereas this method would avoid one, which is absolutely essential. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights will prevail, whatever some Scottish ex-Law Lord might have said. The bottom line is that the courts will not want to interfere in these matters, and I do not believe that they will. If they did, it would raise a whole raft of matters relating to the Human Rights Act, which we are going to deal with anyway.

This is a manifesto commitment and I therefore completely understand why we have been presented with these proposals. A number of measures were put through during the previous Administration, but they were too complicated and the amendments that have been made to them are very minor. I also believe that 30 pages of Standing Orders are beyond the wit of man, and they will do nothing but create complications. I will vote for the proposals today simply because this is a manifesto commitment, but if they could be simplified, that would be the right way to go. Seven lines of changes to Standing Orders would be one way of dealing with that. I put that proposal to the Prime Minister at the Chequers meeting, but a decision was made subsequently to go down this route. I am not against the principle but we need to find a much simpler way of dealing with these matters.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and William Cash

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

It is a question of the manner in which the funds or support are provided. As far as I am concerned, the framework of amendment 10 is to do with campaign funding and donations. The interstices and tentacles of the European Union are so extensive that we will keep bumping into these problems. The scale of the moneys in question is so huge that we have to be sure about this. The determination of the European Union bodies to keep Britain in the European Union is such that they will stop at nothing to use every means that they legally can to ensure that the money goes where they want it for the yes campaign.

I will confer with my colleagues on what we do about amendments 9 and 10.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I associate myself entirely with the comments made earlier in welcoming him to this debate. I will often disagree with what he says, but I am delighted to see someone who goes to such efforts to express in this Chamber views that are very clearly and sincerely held. I always think that a sincere political opponent is the kind of opponent one likes to have a debate with.

I want to focus on amendments 53 and 32. I have some sympathy with the intention behind amendment 53, but from my experience of the referendum in Scotland last year, I suggest that the last thing anybody should want to do is to artificially restrict or control the number of individuals in organisations who can play their own small but important part in what should be a celebration of grassroots democracy if we get it right; it could be something very different if we get it wrong.

The Scottish independence referendum was the biggest celebration of grassroots democracy that I have ever seen or expect to see. That was partly because neither the political parties nor anyone else tried to artificially control who was and was not allowed to take part. I am sure that on a number of occasions the SNP’s lawyers were quite pleased that they were not in control of some of the things that were happening. That is what made it so much fun, that is what gave us a record-breaking turnout, and that is why public engagement in politics in Scotland is still at a much higher level than it was just a few years ago.

I caution the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) to be careful about artificially restricting this debate to the great and the good and suchlike. A lot of wee people out there have something important to say, and a lot of smaller organisations will have an important part to play, on both sides of the question. We should encourage them to have their say rather than artificially restrict them.

It is interesting to hear so many Conservative MPs complaining that they might get outspent in an election campaign; in almost 30 years of party politics, I do not often remember Conservatives complaining that an election was not fair if one party was being massively funded by big business and was able to outspend all the other parties combined by a factor of five or 10.