Standing Orders (Public Business)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

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

[Peter Grant]

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

[Sir William Cash]

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I suppose the only explanation for this is that, having been flushed down the pan politically, the Liberal Democrats have decided to do the same to the public conveniences of Cornwall. I am sure they will continue to pay the political price for doing so.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On 16 July, the Leader of the House gave me some helpful advice on how I might track down the elusive Secretary of State for Scotland so as to get a direct answer to the question of whether he was on the circulation list for the infamous “Frenchgate” memo. Since then, like a good obedient Back Bencher, I have followed the Leader of the House’s advice and pursued the matter. I asked an oral question in the Chamber, but it was not answered. I put a written question to the Prime Minister but that was not answered either. In a Westminster Hall debate on a Scotland Office answering day, not only did the Secretary of State not answer my question; he did not turn up. A Cabinet Office Minister turned up instead, but he did not answer it, either. Will the Leader of the House now find 30 seconds of parliamentary time in which to get the Secretary of State for Scotland in here to give a simply yes/no answer to the question of whether he was on the circulation list for that memo?

[Chris Grayling]

I think the hon. Gentleman might not be distinguishing between getting an answer he does not like and not getting an answer at all. I am sure he is going to continue to ask the question.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

What the Government’s policies have done is create more employment in Wales, as they have in every other part of the country. What our policies in the benefits arena are doing through the introduction of universal credit is to simplify a complex system and create proper incentives for people to move back into work. People with disabilities should do small amounts of work in order to enable them to start making a move back into the workplace. That is the kind of strategy this country needs—to help those who genuinely cannot work, but to make sure that the support is there for those who have the potential to get back into the workplace and that the jobs are there when they need them.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On 18 June the Leader of the House answered questions that I had raised on behalf of a number of people who were unable to get information from the Scotland Office through the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Clearly, I, a Member of Parliament, should not have to rely on that Act. Is the Leader of the House aware that I subsequently attempted to use a number of parliamentary procedures, but have as yet been unable to get the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us who wrote and who received the infamous “Frenchgate” memo? I cannot even get him to admit whether he saw a copy of it before it was leaked. I cannot get him to tell us which Ministers or whether any Ministers saw that memo before it was leaked. No doubt the Leader of the House would agree that it would be enormously embarrassing for this place if I as an MP were forced to raise this matter under FOI. Does he agree that a Government who have nothing to hide should stop hiding? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be brought before the House to explain himself as soon as possible?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, one of the benefits of how this place works is that Members have a number of ways to bring Ministers before the House to answer questions—whether it be through Adjournment debates, oral questions, debates called by the Backbench Business Committee or whatever. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will use one of those different approaches to bring the Secretary of State for Scotland here so that he can put those questions directly to him.

English Votes for English Laws

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I will make progress, if I may.

In the aftermath of the Scottish referendum result last autumn—which SNP Members find so hard to accept—and as the consequent further transfer of powers takes place, a solution must be found. The Prime Minister was right that day when he said that he would take action. There is no widespread desire for an English Parliament. I have gone around my constituency and talked to my constituents, and I find no such desire. The people of England do not want yet another Chamber, with more legislation, more politicians, more costs, and more confusion. This Parliament has stood at the apex of our democracy for 800 years.

The Government’s proposal is right to focus on delivering fairness in the House of Commons by ensuring that English issues will require the consent of English MPs. The ability of all MPs to amend and vote on legislation is maintained. One would be hard put to know that if one had listened to either the hon. Member for Wallasey or the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, but it is true. However, there will now be mechanisms to ensure that England’s specific consent is needed to pass clauses and Bills that affect only England.

I welcome the Government’s proposals wholeheartedly. They are a big step forward. In saying that, I should acknowledge that the process of determining whether or not a clause did indeed affect only England, or England and Wales, might occasionally be tested. However, I hope the convention would be that in the event of doubt, or likely controversy, the tendency would always be for the Chair to err on the side of ensuring that everyone had the vote—that it was open to all. I think such controversy would be likely to arise on very few occasions, and I would hope SNP Members would join us in seeking to cut through that Gordian knot and make sure that, as much as possible, there was that clarity and separation.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman has twice said “I would hope”. Does he not cherish this precious UK constitution more than to hope that it would work after this Bill goes through? The constituents of England might be looking for something stronger than hope.

[Graham Stuart]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the vow was made, it has been brought forward here, and it is being passed through—[Interruption.] It is being fulfilled. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, rather than coming forward with a hard—[Interruption.] He can try to shout me down if he wishes, but I would simply say that this proposal is to change Standing Orders; it is a rather fragile way of making this change, and we will have a review in a year or so, and the Leader of the House has explicitly said that if legislation is required, he will look at that. The truth is that if this did not work, given the fragility of the Government majority it would take only a handful of colleagues on the Government Benches in conjunction with those on the Opposition Benches to reverse it. If it was in place today, it could be reversed tomorrow as easily as that. So, again, suggesting this is some form of sustained constitutional vandalism is entirely at odds with the truth, and I say to SNP Members, who, as I have said, have but a single thought, that if they want to pursue that cause, they will find it most effective with their own constituents, or indeed in this place, if they say what they know to be true and do not try to make out something is something when it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. It is a particular pleasure to do so at a rather later stage, because that obliges one to sit on the Benches and listen to the speeches, which I have found very illuminating.

What we have heard in the debate is an extraordinary celebration of the Union of the United Kingdom. We did not just hear it in the contributions of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) or my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), whose maiden speech I was delighted to hear, or, for that matter, in those of Labour MPs from Welsh constituencies. The most compelling argument for the Union of the United Kingdom came from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). His argument against these proposals was that it is, in effect, impossible to dissociate decisions of any kind taken in this House from knock-on consequences north of the border. He is right. Ultimately, every decision that is taken by an Assembly or Parliament in the United Kingdom has a knock-on effect elsewhere, outside the area of its jurisdiction.

During my years as Attorney General, it was apparent to me how relevant that point is. For example, crime is an entirely cross-border issue. Criminals move freely between Liverpool and Glasgow, and indeed every other part of our United Kingdom. One of the tasks I had as Attorney General was to work closely with the Lord Advocate—an association, I might add, entirely dependent on goodwill and almost nothing else—in order to make sure that in tackling crime, the interests of the United Kingdom, not just those of England, England and Wales or Scotland, were properly addressed.

I have to say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that while I understood the thrust of his arguments, they came as a little bit of a surprise, considering that for the past 18 years this House, with his enthusiastic participation, has been progressively deconstructing the United Kingdom and making such co-operation harder and harder to achieve.

The whole reason why we are having this debate is, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) so rightly said, that our constituents in England are increasingly irked by what they see as a lack of comity, which is the direct consequence of the way in which we have decided to operate devolution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is absolutely right. A lot of these issues were trotted out in the 1998 devolution debates. I spent hours on the Benches in this House teasing out these points with Donald Dewar. We pointed out to the then Labour Government that they were not taking—to use a word that has buzzed around today, but which I have never liked—the holistic approach. They kept on talking about holistics, but no one was prepared to think through the overall consequences of the massive constitutional changes we were initiating.

In particular, this country has an unwritten constitution that is ultimately entirely dependent on sovereignty residing in this place. It is extremely simple and extremely subtle, but it breaks down extremely quickly once power starts to be diffused elsewhere.

[Peter Grant]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that he has put his finger on one of the most fundamental differences between our nations? In my nation, the sovereignty of Parliament and the sovereignty of the monarch do not exist; the people are and always will be sovereign in Scotland.

[Mr Grieve]

No. I am afraid that distinction exists only in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. If I may say so, that is entirely illustrative of the sort of myth that illuminates the lives of Scottish nationalists, but has no relation to reality whatsoever. The Queen is the servant, through her coronation oath, of the citizens of this country, and we in this Parliament—and, indeed, Ministers—do our best to serve the Queen in the fulfilment of her oath. That serves the people just as adequately as any of the other rationalisations that the hon. Gentleman may have, so I will not hear any more of that, thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I simply do not understand the hon. Lady’s argument. I used to represent an area in Wales and would like to take this opportunity to put the record straight. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) suggested that I had lost numerous first-past-the-post elections to the Assembly, but in fact I lost only one—by 500 votes—and was then elected in 2011, in the second election after that. I know that the hon. Gentleman himself lost the election in North Shropshire before he was elected in Wrexham.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), my constituents in Wales had a number of elected representatives to whom they could go, namely Assembly Members and MPs, and they would often go to MPs to raise matters that were devolved to the Assembly. My constituents in England, however, have made it clear that they want a single person to represent them, namely their MP. The electorate have voted on it and have made their democratic will clear through the Members of Parliament they have elected to this House.

There is an inherent injustice in MPs from Wales, who cannot vote on education, health, certain transport matters, housing and the Welsh language in the constituencies that they represent, being able to have an influence over and a vote on those matters here. That will not change under the proposals. When this House deals with legislation that has a devolved element, the Welsh Assembly will be able to give consent to this place under a legislative consent motion. When the majority of 150 Labour MPs trooped through the Lobbies, the hon. Lady’s party knew very well that it was setting up a system that the hon. Member for Wrexham described in a Westminster Hall debate as unequal and unfair.

This small step is a modest one, as has been said by many other Members, and it will be reviewed in 12 months’ time. It is right, after 20 years of inaction following the devolution Acts and numerous amendments, that at this time, in this House, there is an opportunity for those of us who represent English seats to fight to ensure that the small matter of consent, which applies in all other devolved Administrations, applies here.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Lady agree, on behalf of the people she used to represent in Wales, that it would be utterly unacceptable for the people of Wales to vote to remain in the European Union and then be dragged out simply because a majority in the bigger neighbour voted that way?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, foreign affairs is not a devolved issue. That is a United Kingdom decision. It will be decided on, I am glad to say, by all the citizens of the United Kingdom. It is the Conservative party that is making sure that every single citizen in the United Kingdom will get a vote on that issue.

On the Barnett consequentials, I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for listening to the debate under Standing Order No. 24. It is clear that consideration has been given to the potential for Barnett consequentials. That is reflected in the changes to the proposed Standing Orders. Scottish citizens voted for a devolution settlement that reflected their wishes: they wanted a Scottish Parliament. English citizens have voted for a different settlement and do not want to have a separate English Parliament. They want matters to be dealt with in this House in a way that is fair and gives them some equality.

English Votes on English Laws

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. I think this is covered in the Standing Order, but it may need further revision. The Standing Order makes provision for the Speaker to certify that where a matter is about to be devolved, it has already been devolved and therefore in the legislation should require an English vote. It therefore follows logically that if a matter is about to be undevolved, because the relevant devolved Assembly cannot come to a decision, the Speaker ought to certify differently. It may be that the Standing Order needs an amendment to clarify that, but it is certainly within the spirit of the Standing Order as currently written. It is ensuring an equality of all Members of Parliament because no legislation can pass without a majority in this House.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who was nearly the Member for Central Fife many years ago. Just to make sure that I have understood this proposal, does it also apply to Member of the other place? Or are we creating a situation in which Scottish MPs who successfully retain the trust of their constituents and get re-elected to this place become disqualified from legislating, whereas former Scottish MPs who get kicked out of here but then get appointed to another place are rewarded for their failure by being allowed to legislate on matters from which the democratically elected MPs are excluded?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down the path of the elected Scottish peers, which there used to be in the other place, but that is not relevant to this debate, which is on the process within the House of Commons and its Standing Orders. He does, however, bring me neatly on to why I think it is so crucial that this is done through Standing Orders, not through legislation.

Business of the House

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This subject is debated regularly in this House and will continue to be so. I know that health service managers and Ministers in the Department of Health are focused on the unnecessarily high level of cost. Personally, I am strongly in favour of creating banks within the NHS rather than externally generated ones, and some trusts are now doing that—certainly, that is beginning to happen in my area. It is right and proper that we try to bring down costs in the health service where we can, and this is an important way of doing so.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that a few days ago the UK Government rejected a freedom of information request on the grounds that compliance would involve the release of information that could damage our relationship with France. Given that the request was about the circumstances in which a then Minister of the Crown authorised the deliberate leaking of a confidential, but probably inaccurate, record of a private conversation between another Minister of the Crown and a senior representative of the French Government, may we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland to reassure the House that the Government’s attitude to secrecy and open government is based on what is in the interests of the public and not on what is politically expedient for individual politicians?

[Chris Grayling]

Given the recent changes, the Government have no particular reason to have a vested interest in this matter, but I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. It is important that Government can operate in a way that is in the interests of the country, and I know that those who look at ways to respond to such inquiries will always seek to do that; but if he and others are concerned, the point of having an Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal is to enable decisions to be challenged, to establish whether they were right or wrong.