Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend those hon. and right hon. Members who secured this debate and thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing it. I also pay tribute to the stamina of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and of other colleagues who ensured that you had ample time last night to consider the response to the original application.

Later today, we begin five days of debate on possibly the most important peacetime decision that this Parliament will ever take. Also today, Ofsted has described the Government’s treatment of thousands of vulnerable schoolchildren in England as a “national scandal”, we have a major investigation into alleged profiteering by funeral companies, and we have had reports from the UN special rapporteur and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighting the appalling poverty that exists here in one of the wealthiest economies on the planet. What does all that have to do with the motion before us now? The only reason why we are allowed to know and discuss those things openly and without fear is because the power of the state to prevent us from knowing about them is tempered by the rights of this democratically elected Parliament—not tempered nearly enough in my humble opinion. Elections to this Parliament are not democratic enough, but we do have an elected Parliament to hold back the excesses of the Government, and that is what today’s motion is all about.

We have a Parliament of 650 people, and each of us is entrusted to exercise sovereignty on behalf of those who have sent us here. A contempt of this Parliament is a contempt for the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the people. A Government who seek to place themselves above the express will of Parliament are a Government in contempt of the people. They are a Government who have already taken a dangerous step down the road from democracy to dictatorship.

Today’s debate is not about the rights and wrongs of the original motion presented to the House on 13 November. Astonishingly enough, the time for debate on those questions was on 13 November. Let us not spend time today on questions of convention and precedence, of the confidentiality of legal advice or of when that confidentiality should be waived. The time for opposition to the terms of that motion was when that Question was put to the House, but the Government instructed their MPs to do nothing. They instructed their Members not to oppose the motion. I welcome the degree of humility that they have shown in admitting that they got that wrong, but that admission is not an excuse for the Government unilaterally to seek to change the wording of or meaning behind a binding decision of this Parliament. They have the audacity to come here yesterday and today and say that they, not Parliament, know what Parliament decided. They are placing themselves above Parliament. That is a contempt of Parliament.

As for the “legal position” document published yesterday that was going to fix it all, it could hardly have been more patronising if they had included pictures to colour in and wee join-the-dots puzzles every so often just to keep us interested. It was not a legal position by any accepted definition. It was possibly an attempted sop to some Conservative MPs, who are in a very difficult position—struggling between their understandable loyalty to their Government, to their party and to individual Ministers and their overriding loyalty to the people and to this Parliament.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said, the Government have made a habit of not turning up if they think they are going to lose. Maybe the problem is that they are so used to being allowed to ignore the views and opinions of Parliament that they forgot that sometimes Parliament takes decisions they are not allowed to ignore. Maybe that is why they are so upset now. Maybe it is because, alongside the issues of what should and should not be made available to Members of Parliament and to the public, this decision has laid bare the incompetence at the heart of a Government who do not even know the basics of parliamentary procedure.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to openness now mean that he will be asking the Scottish Law Officer to publish all her advice to the Scottish Parliament in future?

[Peter Grant]

I have absolutely no doubt that, if the Parliament that represents the sovereign people of Scotland gave a binding direction to the elected Government of Scotland, the elected Government of Scotland would comply with that binding direction. No such binding direction has been given, so let us not try to deflect attention from the clear and blatant contempt that has been committed against this House with completely false accusations of contempt elsewhere.

We have a Government who are behaving like a football team who do not turn up for friendlies if they think they will be beaten and then discover that they have missed a cup final and have forfeited the tie with a notional 3-0 score. Not only are they asking to be allowed to replay the final, but they are complaining that the score is void because the three notional goals would all have been offside if they had been there to defend them.

We are not talking about a game of football with a trophy at stake, and we are not talking about the sanctity or non-sanctity of the confidentiality of legal advice; we are talking about the most fundamental principle that governs our nations, the principle that Parliament can tell the Government what to do, not the other way around. This is not just some temporary individual aberration; it is part of a pattern of Government attempts to keep Parliament out of this altogether. They want to restore sovereignty to Parliament by keeping Parliament out of its own sovereignty.

The Government went to the Supreme Court to stop us having any say on the triggering of article 50, and they lost. They did their damnedest to stop Parliament having any say on the withdrawal agreement, and they lost. They spent thousands of pounds of our money trying to prevent a group of Scottish parliamentarians from finding out whether article 50 can be unilaterally revoked, and they lost. The Court of Justice of the European Union will now almost certainly find that article 50 can be revoked.

I pay tribute to the parliamentarians from five political parties and three national Parliaments who took that case to the Court. What they have won will prove to be a pivotal victory, but it raises a question that is too important to be treated as rhetorical, and a question that is highly pertinent to the substance of today’s debate. What kind of Government go to court to prevent their own citizens from knowing that the Government have legal powers but have chosen not to use them? What legitimate reason can there be for a Government to want their people to believe something is legally impossible when the Government already have legal advice telling them it is perfectly possible?

This morning’s preliminary opinion from the CJEU is simply another example of this Government’s attitude that the path they have chosen unilaterally is the only one worthy of consideration and that nobody is even allowed to know that other paths might be possible. They have their priorities completely wrong. They repeatedly tell us, and the Leader of the House said it often enough in moving the amendment, that their ultimate duty is to act in the public interest, but in fact they are demanding that Parliament and the public act at all times in the Government’s interest—that is not the same thing at all. The Government, and not the Parliament that holds sovereignty on behalf of the public, have taken upon themselves the right to decide what is in the public interest. The Government declare they know better than Parliament what is in the public interest. The Government place themselves above the decisions of Parliament, and they place themselves in contempt of Parliament.

Early next year we will see the 370th anniversary of the day when a crowned king of Scots was executed, just a few hundred yards up the road from here, for defying the will not of this Parliament—this Parliament did not exist then—but of one of its predecessors. I do not think anyone is suggesting a similar fate for those who are found in contempt of this Parliament, but we should be under no illusions about the gravity of what we are discussing, and we should be under no illusions as to how the mockery from the Conservative Benches is being perceived by those who believe this Parliament should be allowed to tell the Government what to do.

The elected Parliaments of our four nations, for all their faults, flaws, imperfections and ridiculously outdated, arcane procedures that the Leader of the House sometimes does not like, represent the rights of our citizens. No one, but no one, has the right to wield power over the people without the consent of the people. In a parliamentary democracy, that consent is expressed through Parliament, not through the office of the Prime Minister or any other office of state.

When Parliament speaks, it speaks on behalf of the people and the Government must listen. When Parliament instructs, it instructs on behalf of the people and the Government must comply. Parliament has spoken, and the Government must listen. Parliament has instructed. It has not asked, opined or suggested; it has instructed. The Government can disagree, moan or complain as much as they like, but they must comply with the instruction of Parliament.

Instead, the Government seek to defy the instruction of Parliament. They seek to defy the sovereignty of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. It is now for Parliament to take the only course of action open to us to compel the Government to back down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I fully respect the hon. Gentleman as well, as he knows, but I put it back to him that the Scottish Government have through their actions shown themselves to be disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament on binding motions, for example on primary 1 testing or the named persons legislation or fracking, when the Scottish Government abstained, or possibly the offensive behaviour at football Act, all of which they decided were advisory motions that the Government did not have to abide by.

[Peter Grant]

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Government decided these were advisory motions. Is it not the fact that they were advisory motions under the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament, exactly like the advisory motions from the Opposition that this Government have ignored for the last three or four years? Can he give a single instance when a binding motion of the Scottish Parliament has not been complied with by the Scottish Government or indeed Scottish Executive prior to 2007? A single example would do.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am not here to debate these issues; I am here to point out the rank hypocrisy of SNP Members in putting their names to a motion demanding that this Government publish legal advice when they themselves have not done so on countless occasions, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) pointed out, recently when the Scottish Government’s Brexit Minister refused to publish their own legal advice for their continuity Bill. So I ask SNP Members what has changed: have they changed their minds on this, and do they believe now that it is in the interests of the country and of all Governments at every level—from here at Westminster to Holyrood to Cardiff to Belfast—to publish legal advice in full? If so, that is quite a change from where they were six years ago, and quite a change from where they were even six weeks ago, and it would lead to some interesting questions on the Floor of the Scottish Parliament.

European Statutory Instruments Committee

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am happy to accept most of what the Leader of the House said and I am inclined to support the amendment. I hope that the House will forgive many of us on the Opposition Benches if we first want to see all these assurances of fair play put into practice, because many such assurances have not been, in the case of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and associated legislation. We will take the Government at their word just now, but we will be watching carefully not only what goes to the Committee, but what does not. We will be holding the Government firmly to account.

With regard to the amendment, I understand the Government’s reluctance to set a precedent. We must recognise that because this Parliament is nowhere near gender-balanced, we will have a problem if we try to make all its Committees gender-balanced, because women MPs would have to do the work of two men MPs. Well, a lot of people might suggest—[Interruption.] You’re getting ahead of me, as Ronnie Corbett used to say. That would create difficulties if it was applied to every Committee at once, but why not introduce such a measure, one Committee at a time, to see how it works?

I am intrigued by the Leader of the House’s concern that there might be times when nobody of the correct gender puts themselves forward for membership of the Committee. That implies that Members volunteer for Committees, rather than simply being told by their party Whips which ones they will be members of—I will need to have words with my own party Whip about that in the future. The proposal does not work for smaller parties, however, because if a smaller party has only one place on a Committee, that Member will, generally speaking, be either 100% male or 100% female. However, the bigger parties will have more members of the Committee, and a much bigger number of MPs to draw from. I would be concerned if no men or no women from either of the two largest parties in the House were willing to put in what looks like a fairly modest time commitment to ensure that secondary legislation for Brexit is scrutinised properly.

There is no issue with the fact that Brexit will involve a lot of secondary legislation, but there is a major issue with some of the things that the Government intend to use that secondary legislation for. I would have thought that anyone who is interested in ensuring that this House tells the Government what to do, rather than the other way around, would also ensure that no party would struggle to find Members to take up places on the Committee.

I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider her opposition to the amendment. We should be looking to introduce the principle of gender balance in fairly minor ways, over time, especially when there are those who say that it is not possible to do it all in one go. With that slight caveat, we will support the motion, but we will be watching carefully what happens to the Government’s assurances in the coming months.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady has raised an important public health issue, as she often does. I encourage her to raise it directly during Health questions next week.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

A major healthcare provider in my constituency recently had to terminate the contracts of two dedicated, skilled professional members of staff because the UK Government had refused to grant them tier 2 visas so they could continue to work here. If they had wanted to work in London, their salaries would have been high enough and they would have been allowed to stay. Their dedication to returning to work in Fife is shown by the fact that they are both continuing to run up significant expenses to keep their homes in my constituency. May we have a debate in Government time so that the Secretary of State for the Home Department can be made fully aware of the direct impact of his Government’s policies on the health of my constituents?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think we would all want to pay tribute to the many people who have come from other countries to work in our health service, and who have done so much to support the health of the population of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman will know, discussions are under way about the issue of visas for immigrant healthcare workers, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will update the House as soon as he is able to do so.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure all hon. Members will be pleased to see that the new Home Secretary is the son of immigrants to this country and has made clear his personal commitment, based on his own experiences, to ensuring fair and sympathetic immigration procedures.

On the hon. Lady’s specific question, we are considering a range of options for the future immigration system, and based on evidence we will set out initial plans and publish a White Paper in the coming months, with a Bill to follow. That new system will be based on evidence, including from the Migration Advisory Committee, and on engagement with a range of stakeholders, including businesses, universities, the devolved Administrations and NHS leaders. It is clear that people in the UK want this Westminster Government to be in charge of our borders, but to have a sympathetic and fair-to-all immigration system, and that is what we intend to have.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

This afternoon’s Order Paper shows a Westminster Hall Back-Bench debate on the impact of social care on NHS provision. Members got barely 24 hours’ notice that this debate was going to be held, which obviously made it difficult for the Whips Offices to arrange speakers—yes, I was one of those who succumbed to the charms of those in the Whips Office and agreed to speak. Ironically, given that it looks as though the main Chamber business will finish well ahead of schedule, had that debate been scheduled in here it could have started as soon as the rest of the business had finished. As things stand, there is a good chance that everything else will have finished and that debate will then be carried on in a complete vacuum, giving very little prominence to an important subject. First, will the Leader of the House explain why Members received so little notice that that important debate was taking place? Secondly, will she look at the procedures of the House to see whether there is a way in which Westminster Hall business can be brought forward, as can business of the Chamber, if time and circumstances should permit?

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

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

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the severe weather payments that are made available and of payments made to people who struggle to meet their own energy bills. Department for Work and Pensions questions are on Monday 26 March, a week on Monday, and his question would be an ideal one to raise then.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. It seems to have energised Conservative Members, so it must have been particularly good.

It is not as if this Government have been over-exercised or energised by business thus far. Perhaps unfairly, this Parliament has already been dubbed the zombie Parliament, but I think that that comparison gives the flesh-eating undead a bad name. This is turbo-charged political zombie-ism, but a curious type of zombie-ism, because the Government are not only tearing flesh from the public but starting to consume themselves. If we look around Whitehall, we see that what passes for normal discourse among Secretaries of State amounts to briefing and counter-briefing. I say to the Leader of the House that this is what happens when Governments do nothing—bad stuff happens. This is a Government at war with itself, where briefing and counter-briefing take precedence as they all jostle and compete to be the next captain of the SS Tory Titanic.

According to one anonymous Minister, the Chancellor is trying to “stymie” Brexit. If only he would get on with it! Apparently he believes that Brexiteers are a “bunch of smarmy pirates”, whatever a smarmy pirate is. I have an image in my head of a cross between Captain Pugwash and Jack Sparrow re-enacting the battle of the Thames between Nigel Farage and Bob Geldof. I do not know what a smarmy pirate is but—shiver me timbers and pieces of eight—I wouldn’t mind being one myself.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) says that the plotters should

“just shut up for goodness’ sake”,

which would deprive this House of so much comedy value. The International Trade Secretary says that members of the Cabinet “should drink less prosecco”. And there was I thinking, “Cheap prosecco? Surely only the finest champagne is good enough for my Conservative friends.” According to the Transport Secretary, there is nothing to see here, concluding:

“We’re not a group of clones.”

Well, thank goodness for that. It is no wonder that the Government do not want scrutiny when they are in such chaos and turmoil.

I agree with the Leader of the House on one thing, namely the question of public enthusiasm for this debate. During my surgeries over the weekend, I did not notice any banners calling for more Opposition days for the Labour party or for sorting out the membership of statutory Committees. The issue is important, however, and I think that our constituents expect us to come down here to ensure that we arrange the optimal conditions for debate and scrutiny and get on with the job of ensuring that this Government are held to account.

This is a very different type of Parliament. Perhaps that will excuse the Government’s behaviour in not getting things back in place. I do not think there has been such uncertainty about a Parliament lasting a full term since the 1970s and the days of Callaghan and Wilson. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has proved to be possibly the biggest waste of parliamentary time in history. It was supposed to give certainty to the scheduling of parliamentary debates, but it was always going to fail when a Government wanted to have an early election, assisted by an Opposition who would not be able to resist.

We therefore have a Parliament and Government on political life support, always requiring emergency treatment and always vulnerable to the infection of events as they try to define some sense of purpose and meaning. The Government’s condition is all their own fault. After hubristically and unnecessarily calling an early election to try to take advantage of the crisis and chaos that they observed in the Labour Opposition, they have returned humbled, embarrassed, diminished, chaotic and in turmoil.

This is most definitely a House of minorities, and the way in which we conduct our business and scrutinise legislation must reflect that. Arrangements must be put in place to ensure that the new political arithmetic across the House is observed. That is why it has been profoundly disappointing that instead of rising properly to the challenge, the Government have done all they can to frustrate, delay and thwart the creation of all the arrangements that are essential for proper scrutiny in these new conditions. The Government’s main strategy has been to try to make their legislative programme as opaque, meaningless and uncontentious as possible. They hope that we will get bored and take little interest in it, so that they will not lose any votes in Parliament.

The only thing that will be contentious—the one big deal of this parliamentary term—will be Brexit. Of course, the Government are unburdened in that regard, too. When it comes to the main themes of the Government’s hard Brexit, the Labour Opposition agree with practically everything that the Government want to achieve, whether the leaving of the single market, the leaving of the customs union or the ending of freedom of movement. The Government will therefore have no difficulty getting their Brexit business through, on top of a legislative programme that is so light it is almost totally opaque.

We also have to look at what was agreed in the early days of this Parliament. One of the most concerning and damaging of all the initiatives that the Government have embarked on is the appalling deal that they struck, right at the outset, with the Democratic Unionist party. That deal was agreed behind closed doors, and the House has not had the opportunity to debate it, scrutinise it properly or consider its consequences—not least how it turns the normal and usual funding allocations for the nations of the United Kingdom on their head. This is a deal designed to buy the Government their majority, and it has unfortunately set the tone for this Parliament and defined the Government’s contemptuous approach to their business.

The other thing that has to go, very early on, is the appalling and divisive English votes for English laws procedure, which is opposed and loathed by every political party in this House apart from the governing Tories. It is clear that it no longer secures a parliamentary majority in this House, and it is ridiculous that in order to get their business through, the Government have to rely on a party that is subject to the constraints of EVEL. EVEL is disruptive to the House, and it divides the membership of this House by geography and nationality. Its days should surely be numbered. Let us get shot of it from our Standing Orders and see whether we can, through debate, secure a solution on which we can achieve consensus. Let us get something that reflects proper scrutiny and attention and serves all the nations of the United Kingdom.

We need to get down to business. It is simply unacceptable that the Select Committees will not be up and running before the recess. We have had a little exchange about where we are in the logjam of creating the Select Committees. I hope that the Leader of the House will take the matter seriously, so that we can get on and do it. We have to have the Standing Committees in place. Because we have no Standing Committees, Bills cannot receive proper consideration at Committee stage, so the Government have had to bring Bills before Committees of the whole House. Three Bills have been subject to that procedure. No Statutory Instrument Committees have been set up, and, as a result, we will be considering another statutory instrument after this debate. The situation is clearly unsatisfactory, and it is unacceptable for it to continue.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

We have all been through a process of election. If a prospective candidate does not get their name in in time, it is tough; the election goes on without them. It is not postponed until the end of the summer to give the candidates time to sort themselves out. Should we look at something similar in the makeup of Select Committees: if the governing party does not bother to put names down for Committees, the Committees just go ahead and meet without them, so that they can get on with the job?

[Pete Wishart]

That is an elegant solution to a very solvable problem, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting it. Perhaps the Government are listening. I hope that some action will be taken in the next few days to resolve the matter.

My understanding—the Leader of the House can correct me if I am wrong—is that we have not got the Standing Committees up and running because there is a dispute about the arithmetic. As I understand it, the Government have nine places, the Labour Opposition have seven places and we have two places. That would properly reflect the political arithmetic of this House, suggesting that it is a House of minorities, and it would mean that the Government had to work just that little bit harder in Committee to get their business through.

What would be clearly unacceptable—this seems to be happening, and I hope it stops soon—would be for the Government to subvert the Committee stage by either bringing legislation to a Committee of the whole House, here in the Chamber, or looking to make all their amendments on Report. That would fly in the face of nearly everything we understand about the normal business of getting legislation through Parliament.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend has the opportunity to raise that issue during the Budget debate, as this was a Budget announcement. We are looking at providing an additional £100 million to the NHS in 2017-18 for capital investment in A&E departments to help manage pressure on A&E services. Those localities that achieve some of the best results in A&E care are often those that have managed to get GPs and minor injuries units operating alongside A&Es, so I wish my hon. Friend’s health authorities in Northamptonshire well in trying to get access to this new fund.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Earlier this week, the Brexit Committee unanimously recommended that there should be an end to the practice whereby the Home Office sometimes writes to EU nationals who have established a legal right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom telling them to prepare to leave and threatening to deport them if they do not leave voluntarily. May we have an urgent statement from the Home Secretary confirming that she will act immediately to end this odious treatment of our residents?

[Mr Lidington]

The law is quite clear on this matter: we are still a full member of the European Union, and that means that all rights deriving from the free movement directive still apply in this country, and will do so until the date of exit. It is also the Government’s oft-repeated objective to ensure at the earliest possible stage of negotiations that we have a reciprocal agreement that guarantees the rights of EU citizens in this country and of British citizens in the other 27 member states.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I would say two things. First, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, HMRC operates independently from ministerial direction when it handles the cases of individual taxpayers. That is for a good reason: we would not want Ministers to have the power to intervene in cases that related to individuals’ tax affairs. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that the case went to the courts and that his constituent was successful. I would normally expect the court to consider the question of costs, but if there has been the injustice that he describes, and if he lets me know the details and why the court apparently did not address it, I will refer the matter to the Minister with overall responsibility for HMRC.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Have the Government any plans to copy the excellent initiative of the Scottish Cabinet to hold regular meetings—not only Cabinet meetings, but public meetings—in places other than the capital? If so, may I recommend the kingdom of Fife as an early destination? That would not only give the Leader of the House and his colleagues the chance to visit a particularly beautiful part of these islands, but allow him to point out to his colleagues in the Department for Transport that the Forth bridge is open.

[Mr Lidington]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question is yes. The Cabinet met in the north-west of England quite recently. I would be very attracted by the idea of a Cabinet visit to the kingdom of Fife, and I will ensure that No. 10 is aware of his wish to welcome us.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

There will be questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland on Wednesday 1 March, at which there will be opportunities for that matter to be raised. I am absolutely certain that there will be ample opportunity for all such questions to be debated when we get to the EU repeal Bill after the Queen’s Speech.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Given that the Exiting the European Union Committee was told as recently as yesterday that the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU negotiations) has not even begun to consider the wording of the article 50 letter, which some reports suggest might be submitted exactly four weeks today, can we have a statement on the Committee’s intended timetable?

[Mr Lidington]

Although Joint Ministerial Committee meetings are important, contact between UK Ministers and their counterparts in the three devolved Administrations, and between UK Government officials in all relevant Departments and officials in the devolved Administrations, continues on a daily and weekly basis. The consultation and understanding of the particular priorities of the devolved Administrations are part of the mainstream work of UK Government Departments.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. This comparison has already been made, but I also find it difficult to understand how we can spend less time on this matter than was spent on the Lisbon treaty or the Maastricht treaty, when all sorts of procedural devices were exploited. This is a matter of generational significance, and whatever we feel, whichever way our constituencies voted—to leave or to remain—and whatever our views about the type and nature of the arrangements we will be moving to, it is important that this is done properly, with transparency, care and consideration because my concern is that the decisions we make will last for decades to come.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I call Neil Gray. [Hon. Members: “Peter Grant.”] I am so sorry. I call Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I accept your apology, Madam Deputy Speaker, as always, but you will remember that next time I try to catch your eye, won’t you?

I would be interested to know why the Government have taken this welcome but unusual step with the Bill. It is almost as though we will have more time to table amendments than we will to discuss them. It might be because they know a huge amount of amendments will be tabled, because there is a massive number of specific issues on which Members will want very clear decisions. We only have to think about all the questions that have been asked of the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary about what will happen to EU nationals in this country, to UK nationals over in the EU, to universities, to farming and fishing, and so on, to see that they might all lead to several different amendments. If, in the haste to get to the cliff edge, only a tiny percentage of those amendments are voted on, we will end up with bad legislation. For possibly the most important decision that Parliament has taken since the Chamber was rebuilt, we cannot afford bad legislation.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, as somebody who campaigned fiercely for us to remain in the European Union, that the most important decision was made when the House decided—whether we were wrong or right, given the result—to have a referendum and to be true to the result, whatever it was?

[Peter Grant]

My recollection of the Act, apart from the fact that it was deeply flawed and that that is why we are now in this mess, is that it did not say that Parliament had to abide by the decision. It did not say that the decision was binding. It did not say anything about it. It just said that there would be a referendum. Perhaps the Government need time to draft an amendment to the Bill to make the European Union Referendum Act retrospectively binding.

If the Government intend this Bill to be binding, will they use the additional time that they have given themselves to correct what appear to me to be mistakes in the drafting? The Bill is being rushed through because there is a political—not a legal—imperative for article 50 to be triggered by 31 March, yet it does not require the Prime Minister to do anything by 31 March. It does not require her to do anything—it permits her to do something. Is one of the amendments being cued up now a Government amendment to correct that mistake?

Five days is not enough, although it is more than many Bills get, but the advice in the Government’s summary, which is 15 times longer than the Bill, is that its impact will be both clear and limited. Limited? It is the most important Bill that this House has ever considered. Given that it is so limited, why do the Government need to allow so much additional time for all the amendments—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about the Bill, which is different from the motion that we are debating. If he gets back to the tabling of amendments, I would be grateful.

[Peter Grant]

I was referring not so much to the content of the Bill, but to its extent and limited impact and wondering why we needed so much additional time to table amendments.

I concur with a lot of what has been said. Generally, the public are not interested in procedure, the timing of amendments, what days of the week Bills are debated and so on. This time, it is important because the procedures of the House are clearly being used to get the result that the Government want.

[Neil Coyle]

Let us not forget that the Government are here today only because the Supreme Court made them follow this procedure. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the two other legal cases that are already under way—one on European economic area membership and one on whether article 50 is retractable—could result in the Government’s requiring new clauses and new schedules?

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful for that point. It is never a good idea to speculate about court cases here, especially if people have as little legal training as me, but those factors may well come back to haunt the Government in a big way.

The Prime Minister has given herself a political imperative to implement article 50 by 31 March.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), will my hon. Friend join me in taking the opportunity to thank the democracy campaigners, particularly Gina Miller? Their actions and the interventions of the courts have meant that a Prime Minister who sought to ignore Parliament and treat the powers entrusted to her as an absolute privilege has been brought back into some sort of line. The campaigners’ contribution will have long-lasting effects on this issue and others.

[Peter Grant]

I concur with my hon. Friend’s comments. It is in extremely bad taste for anyone to bad-mouth the motivation of someone who has just won a court case. Someone who has won a case in the High Court and the Supreme Court was by definition right to bring it. The treatment that Gina Miller got after the High Court case was utterly shameful and I hope that there will be no repetition of it.

To come back to the matter in hand, I would like the Government to explain why they have taken this unusual procedural step today. Why is the Bill, possibly the shortest Bill we will consider during the Session, expected to attract so many amendments that the Clerks need extra time to collect them all?

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I will not take any more interventions because I want to hear what the Minister has to say in the half-hour or so that is left.