European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I have given way four or five times, so I will keep going because the Deputy Speaker is saying that at some stage we might like to vote this evening. Do we really believe that there will not be much greater access to fish and fishing rights? Do we not believe we will be able to have a better environmental policy than the common fisheries policy?

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have found when speaking to real fisherman, as he and I have, over the past 30-plus years is that all they have said is that they want to withdraw from this terrible policy, whereby in the south-west 8% of the cod comes to the UK and almost 80% goes to France?

[Neil Parish]

If anyone can speak for the fishing industry in this House, it is my hon. Friend, who has huge experience of this, as did her previous husband. I pay a huge tribute to that. We need to leave the CFP. As we set our new policies for fishing, we will get greater fishing rights, because the problem in 1972-73 was that the fisherman were sold away and we had terrible quotas. That needs to be put right and I know that she, like me and many others in this House, is determined to ensure that those wrongs are put right. Not only will we be able to address fishing rights and the amount of fish, but there is also the possibility of having much better environmental management. We will be able to examine the types of nets being used and to make sure that we sort out many of the issues relating to porpoises, dolphins and everything that is caught in bycatch. So there are many positive sides of leaving the CAP, the CFP and the EU.

I wanted to make this speech today because I have listened for three years as the opposition of all sorts of shapes, sizes and colours have thwarted Brexit in this House. They put forward all sorts of reasons, some spurious, some right and some not, in order that we would not leave the EU. Now we will leave it and let us be positive. We can get this trade deal, an agriculture policy that works and a fishing policy that works. We have an Environment Bill coming through whereby we are going to put an office for environmental protection in place to make sure that our rules are not only as good as those of the EU, but better. Let us be positive tonight. Let us actually believe in this great United Kingdom. The best union of all is not the European Union but the United Kingdom, so let us not destroy that. Let us go forward and, together, this Parliament will deliver. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State and Ministers exactly how we are going to do it. I have every faith in not only the Secretary of State and Ministers, but the Prime Minister being able to deliver a good deal for the UK. For goodness’ sake, let us once and for all actually leave the European Union.

Leaving the European Union

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

At the time, she was not wrong. We will have to wait and see whether there is a backstop or an amended backstop, which is the whole point of negotiation. As we speak, Members are meeting to discuss alternative arrangements. The key thing about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) is that it seeks discussion of alternative arrangements to the Irish backstop, which might include the ability to leave unilaterally, a time limit or sunset clause, or what has become known as the Malthouse compromise, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).

All those sorts of thing need to be discussed over the next couple of days, so that we can go to Brussels with a clear ask. However, as I was saying, the amendment stating that we need to investigate alternative arrangements to the Irish backstop, and that the chances are that it would then go through, passed the House and has now given the Prime Minister a strong hand to be able to say to Brussels, “If we can get this right, we can do what I hope both sides want: enable the UK to leave in an orderly fashion as possible.” It would be of benefit to the UK to respect the referendum and the will of the 17.4 million people who voted leave while taking on board as many people from the UK who did not vote leave but who acknowledge the result of the referendum, and to ensure that the EU can continue to trade seamlessly with the UK. We can discuss ad infinitum the importance of UK markets to the EU, just as many EU markets are important to the UK. All these things are important.

The vast majority of us who campaigned to leave simply want to be friendly neighbours with the EU rather than its awkward tenants. This is not just a power struggle. The vast majority of people, including me—my main motivation was to leave the EU’s political institutions—wanted to tell Brussels, “You are going in a direction that we do not want to go as a country. Let’s step aside and allow you to develop in the way you want in terms of an ever-closer political union, but let us go in our own direction. We still need to co-operate and collaborate.”

That is why a deal is so important. We can talk about whether a no-deal scenario is a World Trade Organisation scenario, but I am sure the shadow Minister will make the same point that he made last time. He is correct to say that a no-deal scenario covers just trade, which is the whole point of WTO. It does not cover security, education, medical research and so on, which is why a sensible, collaborative deal would be so much better for this country and would allow us to continue relatively seamlessly in the coming months.

Given that the Prime Minister’s hand has been strengthened, I believe that if we develop a clear ask over the next few days, Brussels will give us a bit of flexibility. We are not saying to Brussels, “We’re going to go toe to toe with you.” I still believe that, with a reasonable amount of flexibility, we can get this deal done within the timeframe and will not need to extend article 50.

It would be a democratic travesty were we to follow the line of some of the amendments proposed recently and extend article 50 for months and months. That would let people down. If there is a deal on the table and we just need to dot a couple of i’s and cross a few t’s, I could see it being extended for a week or two, but some people are saying that it should be extended for nine months.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

It has already been two and a half years since the people instructed us to leave. Does my hon. Friend agree that extending article 50 any further would be treating them with contempt and would be a slap in the face for democracy? People expect us to get on with the job now.

[Paul Scully]

I absolutely agree. All I am saying is that if we had a deal and just needed to dot the i’s and cross the t’s—if there were a technical reason to extend article 50 for just a week or two—it would be churlish not to do that. I and a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents have taken this decision for 40 or 50 years, not for the short term, so let us get it right. I do not mind an extension of a few weeks, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would be a travesty to say, “Let’s extend article 50 so we can start the discussion again. Let’s have a second referendum and extend the uncertainty and division that this country finds itself in.” People expect much more of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Hanson. You will not be surprised to hear that I am going to put forward the opposite view to that of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).

We are seven weeks away from Brexit and we have no agreement. There is no agreement in Parliament or, as I can see from my mailbox, among the people.

Brexit supporters, including the Prime Minister, say that 17.4 million people—a small majority—voted for it. So why do we not have an agreement? Why was the Prime Minister’s deal not voted through? If Brexit means Brexit, if 17.4 million people voted for it, and if the Government and the two main parties are committed to it, why are we still arguing? Why has everybody not voted for the Brexit deal that the Prime Minister brought to Parliament? It is because the fundamental flaw of the referendum was that “Brexit” was not defined. Some who voted for it wanted or had no deal in mind; some wanted something like the Prime Minister’s deal. Some wanted to be a lot closer to the European Union—staying in the customs union, for example.

[Mrs Murray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

In a minute.

Brexit was not defined, so how many of the 17.4 million voted for the deal that is now on the table? How many voted for a no-deal Brexit? Six million? Eight million? Never as many as the 16 million who voted to stay in the European Union, which was a defined proposal.

[Mrs Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for generously giving way. Does she accept that members of her party voted to have a referendum? Indeed, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats was the first person to say that he was going to give the British people a say on whether to remain in or leave the European Union. He did not say anything about there being different choices. Can she explain that, please?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am a new Member of Parliament. Obviously, I followed the discussions about the referendum for many years. Yes, we are a party of democracy—I always believe that we should give people a say. Since the vote was so narrow and we are still arguing about what Brexit should look like and how we should leave the European Union, what is the problem with saying, “Now we have a defined Brexit proposal in the Prime Minister’s deal or we have a no-deal proposal, but we also still have the option of staying in the European Union”? That is the most democratic way of dealing with the issue.

I cannot for the life of me understand why more democracy should mean less democracy. Why can we not honestly put that to the people, now that we have so much more information about what leaving the European Union would actually mean? People can continue to vote for what they voted for in 2016. I do not mind that—I am just looking for some clarification.

[Mrs Murray]

Could the hon. Lady please confirm that, as far as she is concerned, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats had no intention of honouring the result of the referendum that he was the first to promise the British people?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I think I answered that question before. We—myself included—honour the referendum result in saying that Parliament cannot cancel Brexit: we had a referendum and we, as parliamentarians, cannot just stand here in Parliament and say, “Let’s not do Brexit.” That is why I believe that we need to put it back to the people. That is most democratic way of going about this. I cannot see a reason why putting something back to the people and letting them have the final say is less democratic; I believe that to be democracy in its full sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady has made her speech and interventions; if she does not mind, I will leave it there and we will have to agree to differ.

My concern is that we may end up looking weak because we cannot get behind a deal by the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said that he could settle for the withdrawal agreement. When I went to see the Prime Minister before Christmas, I said, “I truly believe you are trying to do your very best on this.” Whatever anyone from any political party thinks, the Prime Minister has a very difficult job. Her tenacity is astonishing. I said, “At the moment, whether people believe in leave or remain, we have the absolute right to walk out the door, shut it behind us and say, ‘We will not put up with any more interference in our legislation from a group of countries.’ We can choose, but we will not be obliged.” We have the absolute right to do that, but I said we were like a load of nervous sheep in a pen.

I cannot hover around the idea of a backstop that 27 other countries may hold the key to. We are trying to get back sovereignty; we must not dilute that sovereignty by giving 27 other countries the whip hand over us. They have their own agendas. Each country would have a veto. It may well be that Gibraltar, or our fishing, comes up on the agenda. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam: I do not think the EU will want to keep us in the backstop, but I fear what they will exact to let us out.

[Mrs Murray]

My hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. Does she agree that the myth that people did not know what they were voting for must be dispelled? Prime Minister David Cameron spent more than two years trying to negotiate a better deal for the UK by going around and speaking to the European Commission and all the other member states. He got a deal and put it in a leaflet that was delivered to every single home in the UK. We know that the majority of people—17.4 million—voted to reject that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and a rare pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall. Before I was appointed Chief Whip for the SNP, I covered a lot of Brexit debates in here; in fact, we called it the Brexit Minister hall, because we discussed the subject so frequently. It is good to see that has not changed. I do not think I will speak for two hours, but as a Whip this is a rare opportunity for me to speak. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, the Chamber is usually so busy.

The petition is quite intriguing. It jumps out at me that article 50 must not “under any circumstances” be extended, whether for technical reasons, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said, or for a general election, a zombie apocalypse, alien invasion or any circumstances. Brexit must go ahead on 29 March. But that date is not some sort of geological fixture or part of the fundamental laws of physics. It is a date that was put in to a piece of legislation, largely as a sop to Back Benchers. The original European Union (Withdrawal) Bill talked simply of “exit day”, which would be defined by statutory instrument. I wonder if we might be in a much calmer place if the original clause had stood. People are becoming fixated on 29 March—at least that is what the people who signed the petition seem to think must happen.

I want to dwell on the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). We hear that the British people must be given the Brexit they voted for and that anything else is not acceptable, but what is the Brexit they voted for? All the ballot paper said was, “to leave the European Union.” That might simply mean leaving the political institutions, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said and I suspect a lot of people thought. The hon. Member for St Albans said people had had 40 years of Europe and they did not like it. I have had slightly less than 40 years of European membership—only slightly less—and I have quite liked it.

Perhaps some of the people who voted to leave did not like the bogeyman that the European institutions had become. Perhaps they did not like the political institutions. Perhaps they did not like the political establishment that argued for remain, of which many of us in effect find ourselves a part. It is more difficult to make the case that they did not like their European health insurance cards, which allow them to access medical treatment wherever they go in Europe, that they did not like being able to travel visa-free across the European continent and take advantage of sunnier climates and cheaper holidays, that they did not like the medicines they get access to through the European Medicines Agency and that they did not like the safe regulation of nuclear materials.

[Mrs Murray]

May I give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of my experience? I voted to stay in the European Union when Labour held the referendum in 1975, but I voted to stay in a trading partnership, which is what it was sold as. Of course, this time I voted leave, and I know that a lot of my constituents, and probably a lot of his, feel the same way. As he said, he did not know anything other than the European Union, I thought he might like the benefit of my experience and age. Life did not end before 1972, when we were not members of the European Union.

[Patrick Grady]

I absolutely take that point. Of course, if we want to keep going back into history, the European Coal and Steel Community was founded in response to the second world war to link European economies, and peace has prevailed on this continent for longer than at any other time in the past several centuries largely as a result of closer European integration. The hon. Lady says the Common Market back then was very different from the European Union today, but rejoining the Common Market—or Common Market 2.0, which some Members are discussing—is not what the House is currently being asked to vote for. If anything, we are being asked to move further away from that.

Let us look again at what people voted for. They were told by the now former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), that there would

“continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.”

The current Environment Secretary said we would be

“redefining the single market, not walking away from it.”

The current International Trade Secretary said in 2016:

“The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.”

All that is collapsing in front of our eyes. Shortly, the business in the main Chamber will move on to a statement about Nissan in Sunderland and the consequences of our plunging off the cliff with a no-deal Brexit on 29 March.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I take that point. Nevertheless, jobs are at risk and there is massive uncertainty, and it is in large part to do with the cliff edge that we face because of Brexit.

From the SNP’s point of view, three things should happen, two of which are related. One of the effects of extending article 50 would be to rule out a no-deal Brexit. As I said, 29 March was just picked and written on a bit of paper. Frankly, that is true of all the Brexit negotiations. All this comes down to people in a room being willing to talk to one another. It is not rocket science. It is not changing the fundamental laws of physics. It is about there being political will among the negotiating parties to speak to each other and reach an agreement.

Of course, we are still in the European Union. We will continue to be members until such time as something called Brexit does or does not take effect. The easiest option—the simplest, safest and best option—is to continue on those terms. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, by definition, the best possible relationship with the European Union is membership; otherwise, nobody would want to be a member. Everybody would want the better deal. Everybody would want those terms and conditions. The point of leaving has to be that somehow we will have more benefits because of our relationships with the rest of the world, but there is absolutely no evidence of that. All the trade treaties we were told we would have simply are not in place.

[Mrs Murray]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I misheard him, but did he not say that we should stay in the European Union no matter what? He is sending the message to all those people in Glasgow North who voted to leave the European Union that he knows better and we should stay in.

[Patrick Grady]

Well, 22% of the people who voted in Glasgow North voted to leave the European Union. Some 78% voted to remain, and recent analysis suggests that figure will be even higher if and when we get a people’s vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on his introduction to the debate. I did not agree with absolutely everything he said, which he will not be surprised to hear, but he set the framework for the discussion in his characteristically thoughtful way, so I thank him.

The hon. Gentleman was right when he talked about the passions around this debate. The number of Members here today reflects the fact that we have had days, weeks and months exercising those passions, and there is an important statement in the Chamber at the moment. There are many issues that we could discuss—many have been touched on—but I will focus on the specific issue of the petition in relation to the extension of article 50.

We need honesty in this discussion. The Prime Minister could have given a lead in her answers over recent days by recognising the complexity of the issue and the different challenges that we face, but on this—as so often before—she has reduced things to a simple binary yes or no: we will or we will not. She has been digging herself into a position, as she has so many times on Brexit over the past couple of years, that will change when she is confronted with a cold dose of reality.

It all started with the phasing of the negotiations. As Members will remember, the Prime Minister insisted that there would be no separation of the discussion on withdrawal from the discussion on our future relationship. Back in 2016, the first Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), promised the “row of the summer” on that issue, until he rolled over without dissent because he recognised that that was the way that things would inevitably go.

Then there was the transition. Recognising the risks of a cliff-edge departure on 29 March, we argued back in August 2017 that there should be a transitional period and that business should not have to adjust to different sets of regulations as we left. “No”, said the Prime Minister: No. 10 said that was

“a weak attempt to kick the can down the road.”

That comes from the can-kicking experts. When she secured the transition in March 2018, she claimed that it—or, as she then described it, “the implementation period”—was one of the great achievements of her negotiations. Then we had the mantra of “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Some of the nonsense around that has fuelled the idea that we might crash out on whatever terms, or in the absence of any terms, on 29 March. It was nonsense, but it was endlessly repeated—“no deal is better than a bad deal”—until the Prime Minister struck a bad deal, which will shrink the UK economy by 4%. Then she slipped into reverse gear, with a new mantra, which said, “Support my deal, because the alternative of no deal would be disaster for the country.”

[Mrs Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the leader of his party would take no deal off the table? Is that not a bit like a trade union going over to Europe and leaving strikes at home as an option, when they were negotiating?

[Paul Blomfield]

We are very clear why we would take no deal off the table. As the Prime Minister now acknowledges, as the Chancellor has spelled out and as the Treasury analysis has demonstrated, it would be a disaster for the economy.

[Mrs Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

If the hon. Lady lets me finish the point, she can intervene again. By the Government’s analysis, no deal would shrink the economy by about 10%. The impact would be particularly negative in manufacturing areas, many of which have been left behind in the period of economic change we have seen over the last generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Murray]

As I understood the Government figures, they said that the economy would not grow as much as it would have done, in the short term—not that it would shrink. Secondly, when someone is entering into a negotiation, surely taking their main negotiating lever off the table means they will roll over and cave in. That seems to be the message we are getting from the Leader of the Opposition, and his party.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady is right, although she is playing with words, on the Treasury analysis. It is not that the economy would shrink 10% from the point where it is now; it would shrink 10% from the point where the Treasury projects it would otherwise be. The net effect is that we would be 10% worse off through a no-deal Brexit.

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Mr Hanson.

[Mrs Murray]

Apologies, Mr Hanson.

[Paul Blomfield]

There would be 10% less money for public services, 10% fewer jobs, and we would be 10% less wealthy than we would otherwise be. The Treasury was right to share that with the British people.

As to a no-deal Brexit as a negotiating lever, it has value only if those on the other side of the negotiations believe that it is meant seriously. No one thinks that a no-deal Brexit is in the British interest, and no one believes it will influence the outcome of the negotiations.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

this House declines to give a Second Reading to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill as the Government has set out no provision for effective consultation with the devolved administrations on implementing Article 50, has yet to publish a White Paper detailing the Government's policy proposals, has refused to give a guarantee on the position of EU nationals in the UK, has left unanswered a range of detailed questions covering many policy areas about the full implications of withdrawal from the single market and has provided no assurance that a future parliamentary vote will be anything other than irrelevant, as withdrawal from the European Union follows two years after the invoking of Article 50 if agreement is not reached in the forthcoming negotiations, unless they are prolonged by unanimity.

The amendment stands in my name and, indeed, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), as well as those of other colleagues, including representatives of the various constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I thank Members in all parts of the House for backing it today.

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who spoke a huge amount of sense—a great deal more sense than we have heard in recent times. He made some exceptional points, for which I thank him. It is also a privilege for us that he will be voting with us tomorrow evening. In particular, he made some good points about the benefits of the European Union, and it is important for us to reflect, even briefly, on those.

The European Union has had an impact on all of us, from the progress that we have made as member states in protecting workers’ and parents’ rights and the environment to our progress in helping to bring about peace, security and prosperity over the past 70 years—something that was never guaranteed. There are endless reasons for voting for our amendment, and I know that a number of my colleagues will touch on them today and tomorrow. One of the main reasons, however, must be connected with scrutiny. What is the purpose of having a Parliament—what is the purpose of us all being here—if it is not to scrutinise the work of the Government? Their unwillingness to subject this decision to any proper scrutiny reflects a lack of confidence in their own position and in the process that will follow once this has been done.

It is good that, despite the Government’s best efforts, we are to have a say on the triggering of article 50, but we did have to drag them here kicking and screaming, and at great expense. I also think it imperative for all Members to reflect on the debt of gratitude that we owe to Gina Miller, who made today’s debate possible. Today, however, I want to reflect on our amendment.

Primarily, what we want is scrutiny. It is interesting that the Government have not published a White Paper in time for the debate, and that they want to publish it after the Bill has been passed. That must surely be unprecedented. Secondly, there is a lack of respect for the devolution settlement. Thirdly, there are the consequences of leaving the EU without certainty, and fourthly, there is the vision of the United Kingdom that is being created.

One enormous step that the Government could have taken—this was touched on by both the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—was to deal with the position of the EU nationals who contribute so much to our country. Given that the Government are surely in need of friends with influence, they should give those people the certainty that they and we need.

Let us reflect for a moment on why there is so much uncertainty. The leave supporters campaigned on a blank piece of paper, an act of gross irresponsibility and negligence which has been perpetuated by the Government over the past nine months and which lies at the heart of why we need a White Paper. I must add, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union returns to the Chamber, that Ministers, both present and previous, who supported the leave campaign bear a particular culpability when it comes to the uncertainty in which we now find ourselves.

Will we have the White Paper before the Bill’s Committee stage? Will we go through the normal process, whereby we see a White Paper before a Bill is passed? That has certainly been the practice in the past when the House has been given a say. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe reflected on European debates gone by. I remind Members that John Major published a White Paper before entering the negotiations on the Amsterdam treaty in 1996. The Foreign Secretary is no longer in the Chamber, but I also remind Members that Gordon Brown, who was Prime Minister at the time, published a White Paper on the Lisbon treaty.

What are the Government afraid of? My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is present, has some experience of referendums and of scrutiny. I have here a copy of the Scottish White Paper. This is what a proper White Paper looks like.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

This White Paper contains 670 pages of details of what the country looked like, and it was published a year before the Scottish referendum. There was no scrabbling around for the odd detail nearly a year after a referendum. It is a disgrace, and the Government should be ashamed.

[Mrs Murray]

rose—

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what that White Paper told the people of Scotland? Did it tell them what currency they would be using if they voted for Scottish independence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. You, of course, have the courage of your convictions every time, although those on the Government Benches may be a different matter altogether—but that is well said, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I am sure you will also agree with me that scrutiny is a good thing; it strengthens governance and has a major role to play.

Let me talk about the devolution settlement and what has been happening. The Secretary of State talked earlier about listening. He says a great deal about listening, but I have not seen anything that has changed so far from all this listening that has been going on; I have not been seeing any changes. They were listening in Cardiff all day yesterday, and we have seen nothing. The Court ruling made the point that this is a political decision; the decision to involve the devolved Administrations should be a political one.

[Mrs Murray]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

The Secretary of State for Scotland has also said that the Bill will put the Sewel convention on to “a statutory footing.” If that was the case and he was true to his word, we would not be in the situation we are in just now.

Only two plans have come forward. One was from the Scottish Government about Scotland’s place in Europe, and I also pay credit to Plaid Cymru and to Labour colleagues who managed to pull together a plan from the Welsh Government as well. Fair play to them for putting aside their political differences and producing more detail.

[Mrs Murray]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

The Scottish Government plans have won praise from stakeholders and European partners across the spectrum. They would maintain our place in the single market, give new powers to the Scottish Parliament—as suggested by the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—and ensure that EU nationals can continue to stay.

On that point I will give way to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Murray]

It has taken a long time for the hon. Gentleman to take my intervention, but I am somewhat confused as to how he expects to get a 600-page White Paper on a two-clause Bill. Can he explain that to me please?

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Lady says she is confused. I will make this point: if the Government come forward with a White Paper that is not quite 670 pages, I think we will be okay with that on these Benches. Indeed, if the Secretary of State comes forward with a White Paper, it would be some progress. But the hon. Lady is a little confused: may I remind her and others on the Conservative Benches on a point of democracy that they got their worst general election result in Scotland since 1865, so they could do with a little bit of listening? They are being pulled by their nose by the UK Independence party who have never even saved their parliamentary deposit in Scotland. Let me say on democracy that the Conservatives govern on 15% of the votes, claim a victory on one in five voters, and want to bring powers back to this place and hand them to the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)]

As this is the formal beginning of a process that will most likely lead to the end of Britain’s leading role in the heart of Europe and the European Union—a cause I have espoused and defended all my political life both in opposition and in government—I have to confess that of course I feel sad that we have come to this point, much as I was surprised and saddened, as many people were, by the outcome of the referendum last summer.

That sadness is increasingly mixed with a growing sense of anger at what I consider to be the Government’s deliberate distortion of the mandate they received from the British people in a way that I think is divisive, damaging and self-serving.

Let us be clear: the British people gave the Government a mandate to pull the United Kingdom out of the European Union. The British people did not give this Government a mandate to threaten to turn our country into some tawdry, low-regulation, low-tax, cowboy economy. The British people did not vote to make themselves poorer by pulling out of the greatest free-trading single market the world has ever seen—incidentally, that is one of the many reasons why the Liberal Democrats believe that the British people should be given a say at the end of the process, much as they were given a say at the beginning. And the British people most certainly did not give a mandate to the Government to indulge in the ludicrous, sycophantic farce that we have seen in recent days in which this Government, having burned every bridge left with our friends in Europe, rushed across the Atlantic to sidle up to a US President without seeming to be aware that his nativism, isolationism and protectionism are diametrically opposed to the long-term strategic interests of the United Kingdom.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why my constituents, the majority of whom voted to leave, reject his party’s call to hold a second referendum? I really believe it is an insult to the integrity of my constituents to promote that.

[Mr Clegg]

The insult was that the Brexit campaigners deliberately withheld from the British people what they meant by Brexit. It was a deliberate, effective but highly cynical tactic. We never received a manifesto with the views of Nigel Farage, the Foreign Secretary or the former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), explaining what Brexit means. Therefore, when we finally know what Brexit really means in substance, rather than in utopian promise, of course the British people should have their say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I chaired the meetings in French, and we translated for the Germans when they could not keep up.

I saw at the time the extraordinary growth of young economies elsewhere in the world, and I saw that we were being held back. It is tragic now to see how Europe is falling behind. Everyone bangs on about our sales to Europe and the single market. Our sales were 61% of our trade in 1999, they have now fallen to 43% and they will fall to 35%.

There are wonderful opportunities out there in the three main areas for which I have had ministerial responsibility. First, on Northern Ireland, I bitterly resent the comments about this damaging the peace process. We have, and will continue to have, the very best relations with the Republic of Ireland, and we will respect the common travel area and all that is good, but we need to revive the economy of Northern Ireland.

Secondly, it is hard to think of two areas of government activity more damaged by European government than the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. We will now return responsibility for those areas to a person at that Dispatch Box whom we can hold responsible. As Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I would come here and lamely say, “I’m a democratically elected Minister, but I cannot change this because we were outvoted.” For now on, responsibility will lie with elected persons accountable to this Parliament.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has heard the fishing industry complaining about the disadvantage it has faced under the CFP over the last 40 years?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She invited me to Cornwall last summer. In a hotly fought contest, the CFP is the most dreadful, the most shatteringly bad act of misgovernment. It is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster, and it cannot be reformed. Once we get power back to a Minister at that Dispatch Box, we can start holding them to account, and we can learn the lessons of the CFP, as I did in an Opposition green paper in 2005, after having travelled across the north Atlantic, to Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and Newfoundland, and then down to the Falklands. We can bring in modern technology and get away from the disgusting relic that is the quota system, which ensures that a quarter of fish are thrown back dead—no one really knows, but it can be 1 million tonnes and worth £1.6 billion annually.

Finally, there are also advantages for the environment. We are proud signatories to the Bern convention and the Ramsar convention, but those should be interpreted not at a European level, but specifically for our own environment. So we will gain in agriculture, in fisheries and on the environment, and I will be voting tomorrow for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I only want to make a short contribution on what in my opinion is quite rightly a very short Bill.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) is about to leave the Chamber, but I remind her that her leader, on 11 May 2016, said that this was a once-in-a-lifetime decision. I would have happily given way to her to allow her to tell us whether she agrees with her leader, but clearly that opportunity has been lost.

I voted with a large majority of this House for the Prime Minister to sign article 50 by the end of March. I would be very disappointed if the House did not now pass the proposed legislation to facilitate that. I get the impression that some in this place are trying to frustrate the clear will of the House and, more importantly, the people, by adding matters that surely should be left for the White Paper and the wider negotiation with the EU.

[Lady Hermon]

I am not—I emphasise I am not—trying to frustrate the will of the people of the United Kingdom. I am a Unionist. I am trying to keep the United Kingdom together. This House needs to be aware and sensitive to the fact that Sinn Féin, the republican party with four absentee Members of this House, is using the Brexit decision to campaign for an increased vote in the Assembly election. That is my reason for voting against the Bill. It has nothing to do with breaking up the Union; I want to maintain the Union.

[Mrs Murray]

I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady has clarified her position. I am sure her words have been taken on board by everybody.

Let us not tie our Prime Minister’s hands. I ask the House to respect the will of the people in my constituency and the wider country who voted to leave. Let us pass the Bill, trigger article 50 and get on with leaving the European Union as our masters, the public, instructed us on 23 June.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am minded to support the Bill on Second Reading because, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), I respect the overall referendum outcome even though I campaigned for a different result. I believe that the Government are entitled to commence the leave negotiations by 31 March, but that we are entitled to some assurances about their intentions and the way they plan to proceed. I do not think the limited time allowed for the Bill is right. It would be possible to allow more time and still meet the Government’s deadline.

The impression that the Prime Minister and her Ministers have given since she assumed power is that they want to silence MPs, sideline Parliament and rely solely on their interpretation of the referendum result. It looks increasingly as if that means ignoring the views of the 48% who voted remain and even of the larger number who voted leave when it comes to issues such as the single market. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said in an intervention that it was only a two-clause Bill and she did not understand the need for a White Paper, but is it sensible to embark on an epic journey without some idea of where we will end up or how we will get there? It is one thing to give approval to start the negotiations but something else to wash our hands of our constituents’ concerns and give the Government a free hand to do just as they please.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the Prime Minister has already promised to issue that White Paper at the earliest opportunity?

[Steve McCabe]

I acknowledge that after a lifetime of denials the Prime Minister said she would issue a White Paper and that we might now get it after the vote on the Bill. That does not seem like much use to me.

The referendum, as has been pointed out, settled the question about our wish to leave the EU, but it did not shape the answer. When the Prime Minister eventually broke her silence in the Lancaster House speech to reveal her intention to disengage entirely from the single market, I do not accept she was reflecting the views of a majority of people in this country. We need to try to ensure continued access to that market on the best terms we can secure and in a way that does not exclude us from regulatory decisions. Without that we risk jobs and businesses and we risk setting in train a period of uncertainty that might do untold damage to our economy.

I accept that the Prime Minister’s position is influenced by her desire to end freedom of movement, but where is the evidence that all those who voted leave actually wanted to prioritise their concerns about freedom of movement over access to the market for our goods and services? Why is it unreasonable to try to reach agreement on controls on freedom of movement? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said, why is it so wrong to seek fair movement arrangements allowing for those we need to come here and work, while placing restrictions on lower skilled labour and those not in demand? It might help if the Government were to indicate, as a positive gesture, that they will not use the rights of EU citizens already living and working here as a bargaining chip. That would not be a massive concession, given that the Home Office has already calculated that 80% of EU migrants living here after 2019 will be entitled to permanent residency.

Article 50

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I will correct the hon. Lady slightly: there will not be a simple trade negotiation. The European Union pretty much always insists that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so justice and home affairs, security matters and a whole series of other issues will be tied into it. But, yes, there will be a vote at the end of it. We have already agreed to that.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

There has been a lot of talk by some Opposition Members of second referendums on article 50. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents, the majority of whom voted to leave, that he will categorically rule out any second referendum?

[Mr Davis]

Yes is the answer. I am afraid I take the view that to suggest that somehow the British people did not know what they were doing the first time so must have a chance to get the answer right is, bluntly, patronising, undemocratic and improper. Rightly, that view is held by one of the smallest parties in this House. The answer is that I will not under any circumstances support a second referendum.

Article 50

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree, despite the arguments of Labour Members and of some Conservative Members, that no successful business deal has ever been done when the hands of the negotiator have been tied, and that the best way to take this forward is to allow the Prime Minister to negotiate without boxing her in?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Tying the hands of the negotiator is exactly what the Opposition are trying to do.