Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

There can be no other issue in this country’s modern history that demands more serious scrutiny, well drafted legislation or forensic budgetary oversight than the proposal for the UK to leave the EU, so I welcome today’s motion. However, despite the apparent climbdown on the issue overnight, the Prime Minister still appeared reluctant earlier today to confirm that Parliament is at the centre of the process.

In the Prime Minister’s speech to the Scottish Conservative conference prior to the independence referendum in 2014, she outlined a

“future in which Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England continue to flourish side-by-side as equal partners.”

We need to see that in action. Several members of the Cabinet have now stated that there should not be a running commentary on their plans—plans that Her Majesty’s Treasury have said will potentially cost the Exchequer £66 billion per annum, almost 10% of the UK’s tax revenues. They have implored us to trust them while they negotiate on our behalf.

Should we trust the Foreign Secretary to get us the best deal, when the Prime Minister herself does not have faith in him? On June 26, he wrote of a points-based immigration system

“to suit the needs of business and industry.”

Not so, says the Prime Minister. On 5 September, a spokeswoman for the PM put him back in his place, stating:

“A points-based system will not work and is not an option”.

Should we, then, trust the judgment of the Secretary of State for International Trade, when the Prime Minster clearly does not? On his very first trip to the USA following his reappointment, he said that the Government would likely seek a free trade agreement with the EU rather than a closer customs union. By the end of the day, Downing Street was again forced to clarify the comments, stating that no decision had been made on whether Britain would seek to be part of the EU customs union.

What about the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union? Can we take his statements at face value? He came to this House and told us last month that

“this Government are looking at every option, but the simple truth is that if a requirement of membership is giving up control of our borders, then I think that makes that very improbable.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 55.]

Twenty-four hours later, Downing Street responds. Not so fast, says the PM’s spokeswoman. Asked whether the Secretary of State was expressing a Government policy, she said:

“He is setting out his opinion. A policy tends to be a direction of travel: saying something is probable or improbable is not policy.”

If we cannot take the public statements of Cabinet Ministers at face value, if we know that we have to double check the views of senior Ministers against official Government policy, and if the record shows that even the Prime Minster, who personally appointed these people to their posts, does not agree with them on key areas of policy that will underpin these vital negotiations, how can we trust the Government to get a good deal from this process? They do not even trust each other. It is because of this fundamental point that Parliament—indeed, all Parliaments across these islands—must play a central role in scrutinising and providing democratic oversight of the process.

Let us hear from the Secretary of State today that Scotland will be firmly embedded in the UK’s process of developing its negotiating strategy. “Brexit means Brexit” does not cut it—it does not cut it at home; it does not cut it abroad—and internationally, people will be looking on and wondering how the Government of a country that claims to have the mother of all Parliaments could be so woefully unprepared for the results they have in their hands.