Britain in the World

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke). I think we have already seen and heard enough to know that she will be a credit to her constituents and to her party. I am also pleased that she paid such a kind tribute to her predecessor. However, I say to her as someone who does regular surgeries in four or five of my larger villages that if she does a surgery in every one of the villages she read out, and the ones she did not, she will be extremely busy indeed.

Before I turn to the debate proper, I want to make an observation about the speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). It was a good speech, but I have two observations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we would work with the European Union and the 27 countries, but have we not noticed that over the past two or three years the European Union has operated as an extremely disciplined single bloc? I think that trying to pair one or two countries off would be a fool’s errand. My second observation is that in the past week or so we have heard comments from Michel Barnier that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to complete a comprehensive trade deal in 11 months. We also heard Ursula von der Leyen saying last week that the UK would have to compromise and prioritise, so I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees that we should suggest to the Government that putting the setting of objectives first and silly timetables second might be a really good way to proceed.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I will not address his second point—he has addressed it thoroughly enough—but on his first point, there are many areas in which we co-operate bilaterally with France. The Lancaster House and Sandhurst agreements are among many examples.

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed, but I think the hon. Gentleman understands the point I was making, which was that we do not want to find ourselves tied to ridiculous red lines and timetables when the objectives are the key thing.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Gracious Speech. As with every Queen’s Speech or programme for government, there are certain measures that one would welcome—not least, in the case of this Queen’s Speech, the announcement of increased tax credits for research and development. I say that because innovative economies are more productive economies, and when we come to combat the inevitable decline caused by Brexit, the more innovative and productive we can be, the better. A word of caution, however: research and development tax credits are a function of corporation tax, and not every innovative or innovating company, particularly the small ones, pays corporation tax. So if we can have a little imagination from the Treasury Bench about how we support innovation in smaller companies, that would be very welcome. I also welcome the announcement that measures will be developed to tackle hostile activity by foreign states, and I hope that that builds upon some of the excellent work already done in the private and public sectors, and essentially by the National Cyber Security Centre.

Although some of the measures to tackle climate change are very welcome, particularly coming from this Government, they are described as being “world leading” when they are nothing of the kind. The sad truth is that is a thin and poor programme for government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said when opposing the programme on the opening day of this debate, our party stands against this Government’s

“cruel, punishing policies and narrow, backward-gazing politics.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2019; Vol. 669, c. 51.]

I would go further than that. Some of the measures in the programme—such as an immigration Bill that will end in law the free movement of people—will further diminish the UK’s ability to attract the best and brightest, as well as much-needed labour in other sectors, and very much risks turning the UK into an insular, reduced and backward-looking place.

Before addressing the impact that ending free movement will have on the agriculture, hospitality and care sectors, the brain drain that the UK Government’s hostile environment is already causing, and the brutish logic of the Tory party—whose plans will reduce the ability of young Scots and, indeed, youngsters from throughout these islands, to live, love, work and study freely throughout Europe—we might want to consider the practical implications of trade and how those matters are related.

When Commission President von der Leyen said last week:

“Without the freedom of movement of people, you cannot have the free movement of capital, goods and services”,

the Government should have listened. At a time when we need to boost trade, we should be paying attention to the damage that will be done to capital markets, the City of London and the ability to export services, all of which depend on people being able to travel freely. Given the damage that Brexit will cause to UK global trade, the UK Government should be doing everything possible to remove every conceivable obstacle to protecting and enhancing the opportunities to maintain and grow trade of all sorts—free, fair trade, with a level playing field. Instead, in spite of the clearest of warnings, yet more obstacles are being erected, this time by ending in law the free movement of people, which will further weaken and diminish the UK’s ability to strike good trade deals to compensate for the losses and minimise the additional costs that Brexit will cause.

We should put a couple of numbers on this. Everybody knows that there are dozens of economic assessments of Brexit. With one exception, they are universally negative. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research provides an average assessment. We could lose perhaps 20% of total global UK trade with a bad Brexit, and that is where we are heading. If we cut a deal with all the main English-speaking economies and with all the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—we might claw back 5% or 6%. It does not take a genius to work out that we will soon run out of large countries with which to cut deals to compensate for the losses, so adding additional obstacles strikes me as making no sense.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Forecasts do not say that we will lose trade. They simply say that the rate of growth of our trade will be slower. They do not say that there will be a reduction in trade.

[Stewart Hosie]

Many assessments—I am not going to go through them—say that there will be a reduction in trade. Indeed, some assessments, as I have just said, suggest a 20% loss of total global trade. That is extraordinary.

At least this programme for government suggests that there will be a trade Bill—which, of course, we should already have had—with which comes the opportunity to table amendments. Those amendments will seek to ensure full parliamentary oversight over trade deals and that our devolved nations’ Parliaments are consulted, and their consent sought, on trade deals where there is a direct impact on those countries. The amendments will also seek to ensure that, as the UK rushes headlong into any deal offered, vital public services such as the NHS are off the table, important geographical indicators are protected, and vital regional industries—national industries, in some cases—such as fishing are also protected. Many of us are old enough to remember the last time the Tories treated Scottish fishing as expendable and sold it out. We have no confidence that they will not repeat that mistake.

Those things—parliamentary scrutiny, collective working to seek real agreement with the devolved nations, and protecting the NHS and regionally important sectors—should be at the forefront of UK Ministers’ minds. I fear, however, that, at best, they will be dragged kicking and screaming to make modest concessions or, worse, that the legitimate concerns of people and industries across these islands will be ignored in a headlong dash for what may be a hideous Tory-Trump deal. When I was last in the USA last year, I was repeatedly warned that the UK will be expected to put everything on the table, while the US will be expected to put nothing on the table. When the Foreign Secretary said that a US-UK deal would be win-win, I was struck by his breathtaking naivety in saying something that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman attribute to somebody the advice he was given? I would be very interested to know who thinks that the negotiation will be quite so asymmetric.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) responds, may I remind colleagues that if we are not going to have a time limit, they need to stick to approximately 10 minutes?

[Stewart Hosie]

I will not attribute that advice—that would be completely unfair—but I assure the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that that warning was given to me on more than one occasion.

I will take your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and miss out from my speech a chunk on the trade Bill, which I will be able to use when it is finally published. I will say one thing, however. The UK Government have said the main elements of the trade Bill will be to

“create powers so that the UK can transition trade agreements we are party to through our membership of the EU, ensuring continuity for businesses.”

So far, so good. The problem is that this Government could not even roll over, in full, the agreements we had with Norway and Switzerland. The Tory Government were unable or incapable of replicating the agreements we had with two close, relatively small, western-friendly neighbours, yet they expect that a simple piece of domestic legislation will pave the way, quickly and easily, to replicating some of the UK’s larger, more complicated deals. If that is what they truly believe, we are no longer dealing with reality; we are dealing with the politics of delusion.

I will end with what the Foreign Secretary said at the beginning of the debate. I think he was wrong to say that, post Brexit, the UK would have expanded global horizons. The truth is that this programme for government—including a trade Bill that may give too much power to the Executive, and an immigration Bill that will end freedom of movement—will lead to a weakened, diminished, reduced UK, with shrinking, not expanded, global horizons. We will oppose this programme for government, and the sooner we are out of this United Kingdom and this backward-looking politics, the better for us all.