Article 50 Extension
Debate between Wayne David and Peter Grant(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Grant
That is part of the crisis of democracy, but it is certainly not the only part of our democracy that is in crisis.
The Government claim to be working to respect the will of Parliament and the will of the people, although it has been made perfectly clear that the people are not allowed to change their minds. The about-turn from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s speech to the Prime Minister’s actions, both on behalf of the Government, tell us that five days is enough time to allow 100% of the Cabinet to change their minds but almost three years is not enough time to allow 3% of the population of these islands to change their minds, because it only needs 3% of the population to change their minds to get a different result in another referendum. The Government think there has been a significant shift in public opinion; that is why they do not want to allow the public to have another say. If they were confident that leave would win another fair, uncheated referendum they would not be running away from it so quickly.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
There is a rumour that the Prime Minister intends to make a statement in No. 10 this afternoon, or this evening possibly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far more appropriate—in fact, it would be an insult to this House if this was not the case—for her to come here first before making any such statement?
Peter Grant
I am not sure that what is appropriate and what is an insult to this House is a consideration for the Prime Minister and indeed the rest of the Government; they will do what they think will get their way through Parliament regardless of whether it upholds the traditions of this House. I find it astonishing that I am defending the traditions of this place to a Bench full of Conservative Ministers. When I first got elected, I never thought I would be doing that, but we have a Government who have been held formally to be in contempt of Parliament and I believe a lot of their actions—certainly in the past couple of weeks, and what they intend to do next Monday by all accounts—demonstrate that that contempt of Parliament has only deepened since the House had to pass that shameful resolution against them last year.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Debate between Wayne David and Peter Grant(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Grant
I will take no more interventions from people whose position on the European Union has changed so radically over the past couple of years.
Returning to the attempt to grab power back from the devolved Parliaments that so many of us worked so hard to establish, many of those who take the greatest credit for their establishment, such as the great Donald Dewar, are not here to see the success of what they created, and I shudder to think what they would have thought of these attempts completely to emasculate all three devolved Parliaments.
We are seeing a betrayal of the promises—one could almost say the “vow”—that certain people made to the people of Scotland just three years ago: the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, they said; Scotland should lead the Union, they said; parity of esteem and an equal partnership of nations, they said. What definition are they using if the Prime Minister, who takes her authority from this Parliament, decides it is beneath her status even to meet the First Ministers, who take their authority from their respective national Parliaments? What definition of “equality” or “parity of esteem” are the Government using? Where is the parity of esteem if the Joint Ministerial Committee, trumpeted by the Tories less than a year ago as the epitome of good relations between our four national Governments, has not met for seven months? I note, however, that, completely coincidental to an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to have an urgent debate on the matter, the Government have now decided they are going to reconvene the JMC at some time in the autumn. I hope they will not fall back on the claim that autumn finishes on 30 November. I welcome the fact that they have given way to some pressure and are now going to reconvene the JMC, but the fact is they have done nothing, even ignoring a request for a meeting by the national Governments of Wales and Scotland, which they had promised to act on within one month. They broke that promise, as they have broken so many other promises to the peoples, Parliaments and Governments of those devolved nations.
Wayne David
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be simple and straightforward for the Government to accept the reality of devolution and that where there is the repatriation of powers from Brussels in devolved areas they should go directly to the devolved institutions?
Peter Grant
Absolutely—that is what devolution means; if the powers are currently devolved, they should remain devolved.
If we cannot trust the Tories to keep their word on something as simple as arranging a joint meeting of Ministers, nobody in any of the devolved nations can trust their assurances that the draconian new powers in this Bill will not be abused. Our experience of promises from the Tories suggests we cannot take them at their word unless the legislation is nailed down so tightly that they have no wriggle room to go back on their word.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric about some issues needing a “UK-wide approach”. I wonder how the UK-wide approach to agriculture, animal welfare and food standards is going to work in Northern Ireland, because regardless of what the legislative or constitutional position will be, the matter of business survival means that the food industry in Northern Ireland will follow the same standards as are followed in the Republic of Ireland—the same standards as apply in the EU will be followed. So we are talking about different animal welfare standards in Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the UK, and I cannot really see how that is working.
What a UK-wide approach has been shown to mean in practice is that the Prime Minister and a few hand-picked colleagues get the right to dictate to the peoples of these islands and to our elected Governments. For example, the need for a “UK-wide approach” led to Scotland’s fishing industry being sold out by the British Government when we first joined the EU and there is a serious danger that it will lead to those fishermen being sold out yet again as part of the process of leaving.
My second concern is about the all-encompassing powers set out in clause 9, which was superbly torn to shreds by the shadow Secretary of State a few minutes ago. One of the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), described this on Wednesday as an “unprecedented power grab”, and there is no other way it can be described; 649 elected MPs will be expected to stand by and watch while a single Minister, with a single signature, can make new legislation. This includes the right to make legislation that should require an Act of this Parliament. The only requirement there will be on the Minister is that she or he thinks the legislation is a good idea. When we have Ministers who think that welching on the Dubs amendment and introducing the rape clause were good ideas, I am looking for a slightly harder test than a Tory Minister thinking that something is a good idea.
These new powers are often referred to as Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII was a despot with no interest in democracy, who thought Scotland and Wales were just places to be conquered and trampled on, so perhaps this is not such a bad name for something this Government are doing, but using that nickname hides the danger of these proposed powers. Despite his murderous deeds, a lot of people see Henry VIII as a figure of fun and pantomime villain—someone who even got to star in a “Carry On” film. But the fact is that the powers in this Bill are more “Nineteen Eighty-Four” than “Carry On Henry”. The powers that bear his name are anything but funny. They represent a significant erosion of parliamentary democracy; indeed to those Members here who believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, I say that the powers in this Bill are utterly incompatible with that idea. This is not about taking back control to Parliament and resuming parliamentary sovereignty for those nations of the UK where parliamentary sovereignty exists. This Bill threatens to destroy it, once and for all. The powers are designed to allow Ministers to bypass all pretexts of parliamentary scrutiny. It is even possible that we could see an Act of Parliament receive Royal Assent one day and then be repealed by a Minister the next, simply because they thought it was a good idea.
The Government will argue that delegated powers are an essential part of modern government, and I agree. We do not have an issue with the principle of using delegated legislation. We do have an issue with allowing delegated legislation to be abused in order to bypass proper scrutiny. The only way this House can be satisfied that the powers will not be abused is if the Bill is reworded to make it impossible for them to be abused in that way.
The third significant weakness in the Bill has been touched on and it relates to our membership of the biggest trade agreement in the world. We are going to throw that away. We are talking about the loss of 80,000 jobs in Scotland and the loss of £11 billion per year coming into our economy as a result. The figures for the rest of the UK will be proportionate to that. This is being done simply to pacify the extreme right wing of the Conservative party and their allies, whose obsession with the number of immigrants has blinded them to the massive social and economic benefits that these EU nationals have brought to my constituency and, I suspect, to every constituency in the UK. The sheer immorality of the isolationist, xenophobic approach that the Conservatives are trying to drag us down is there for all to see, but it is not just immoral—it is daft. It threatens to destroy our economy. Already we are seeing key sectors in industry and key public sector providers struggling to recruit the staff they need. It was reported a week or two ago that a private recruitment firm is being offered £200 million just to go to persuade workers to come to the UK to work in our health service. I have a hospital in my constituency that we could rebuild for £200 million quite comfortably, yet this money is going to be handed to a private firm to try to undo some of the damage that has been done by the Government’s obsession with the immigration numbers. With the collapsing pound making British wages are worth a lot less to European workers than they were before, with the anti-European rhetoric and hysteria that we still get from Government Members and with the Government still refusing to give European nationals the absolute, unconditional and permanent guarantees that they deserve if they choose to come and live here, those recruitment difficulties are going to become much, much worse before they get any better. The Secretary of State wants our EU partners to be innovative, imaginative and flexible. I urge him to apply these same qualities to his Government’s attitude to membership of the single market.
I have mentioned the plight of EU nationals, and another major concern, which again has been raised, particularly by the shadow Secretary of State, is that this Bill threatens to undermine the rights of not only EU nationals but of everyone, regardless of their nationality or citizenship, who lives on these islands. I hear the promises from the Government, but we have had promises from this Government before. They are not worth the paper they are written on, even if they are not written down on paper at all.
At yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions we had the usual charade of a Tory Back Bencher asking a planted question so that the Prime Minister could confirm how successful the Government have been in bringing down unemployment. She went so far as to say that unemployment in the UK is at its lowest for more than four decades, so let us just think about that. The Prime Minister is telling us that unemployment is lower now than it was when we went into the European Union and the single market. How can the Conservative party boast about having almost done away with unemployment altogether and then say that immigrants are to blame for the huge unemployment problem? The fact is that the free movement of people—free movement of workers—and membership of the single market has not caused unemployment; it has caused employment. It has benefited our economy and helped our businesses to thrive. It keeps schools open in places where they would otherwise have closed. All the evidence suggests that the most successful, wealthiest and happiest countries in the world—those with the highest standard of living, whether material or in the things that really matter, are countries that are open and inclusive. The Government are trying to move us away from that to become one of the most isolationist and isolated economies in the world. Only five countries are not part of a trade agreement, but none of them is a country we would want to see as an example.
The Government’s mantra on Brexit has been about taking back control, but that will not happen—at least not in the way that the people who voted to leave hoped it would happen—because it is not about taking back control to the 650 people who collectively hold a democratic mandate from our constituents to represent them; it is about taking back control from this Parliament and putting it into the hands of a few Ministers. It is about taking back control from the devolved and elected national Parliaments and Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and putting it into the hands of a few chosen Members of a political party that cannot get elected into government in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Bill allows Ministers to usurp the authority of Parliament and gives them absolute power to override the will of Parliament.
A lot has been said about the UK Government’s red lines in the Brexit negotiations, and I will give the Minister one red line from the sovereign people of Scotland: our sovereignty is not for sale today and will not be for sale at any future time—not to anyone and not at any price. The Bill seeks to take sovereignty from us, probably more than any Bill presented to this Parliament since we were dragged into it more than 300 years ago. That is why I urge every MP who claims to act on behalf of the people of Scotland, who believes in the sovereignty of the people and who believes in the sovereignty of democratic institutions to vote with us and against the Bill on Monday night.
Draft European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016
Debate between Wayne David and Peter Grant(8 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about the regulations.
I would not suggest that hon. Members should do anything other than approve the regulations, although it would create an interesting precedent if we had a referendum without any rules on its conduct. However, I wish to raise a few points, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them today or assure me that they will be taken into account as we get closer to the date of the referendum.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked why the declaration would take place in Manchester, but it has to happen somewhere. If it was in London, a lot of us, including many people in Wales, I suspect, would be asking, “Why always London?” The real reason for the decision is that when we see the size of the bill for repairing this place, we will all want to move to Manchester, because it will be the only place where we can afford to build a Parliament, and I suspect that a lot of people in the north of England would support that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked a question about the reasonableness, or otherwise, of a request for a recount, but it is impossible to predict every scenario for a referendum in which every vote in every ballot box is equally likely to be the decisive one that swings the entire result. In a parliamentary election, the returning officer and everyone else can see how close a result will be, and sometimes at an early stage in the process, so if someone who has clearly lost by 8,000 or 10,000 votes asks for a recount, that is unreasonable. However, although it might appear that there is a large majority on one side after the first few areas have declared, there is always the possibility of that position changing as more results come in. An area that declares with a majority of 10,000 might have a miscounted or misclassified bundle of 100 votes, but those 100 votes could be decisive in the event of a close overall result. In such circumstances, we must leave things to the professionalism of the counting officers and expect the chief counting officer to be prepared to say, “Do you know what? This is now so close that we need to look at every contested declaration, just to make sure.” We all agree that we cannot afford to have a result that people think is unfair or somehow fiddled, whether due to error or another aspect of the process.
Let me ask the Minister about various aspects of the regulations. On timetabling, I fully understand why bank holidays are not counted as working days when calculating the period of notice, but I ask the Minister to respect the fact that while we have things in Scotland called “bank holidays”, which are sometimes the same as those in England and sometimes not, no one in Scotland, apart from the banks, pays a blind bit of attention to them. Many places have traditions of local public holidays during which schools, and often public services and businesses, close. The dates of such holidays vary from place to place, are often based on long-standing traditions and are jealously guarded by local people. It would be unreasonable to ask that the Government try to avoid a clash with any local public holiday in Scotland, but I ask them to be aware of those holidays. It might be better for them to avoid the process affecting any time of the year when such public holidays tend to congregate, which is May and June, so perhaps the Minister will heed what I am saying about that.
Regulation 58, which deals with the public inspection of papers, has a link with the Data Protection Act and the question of who is allowed to see marked registers. I know personally of examples of when the availability of such registers to agents or political parties allowed a party to satisfy itself and its supporters that there had not been large-scale personation. On one occasion of an unexpectedly high turnout in an election, it transpired that the marked register for that election showed a significant number of people as having voted, despite the fact that previous registers showed that they had not voted for 10 or 15 years. As an agent was allowed to get the new information—he already had the historical information—he could make his own inquiries, and it turned out that those people had, for whatever reason, decided to vote. It could therefore be demonstrated that what appeared to be a highly suspicious pattern of voting was completely legitimate. Importantly, that allowed the candidate who lost the election to say to his supporters, who were claiming foul, to say, “We lost fair and square—live with it.” Such a statement by a candidate has a lot more power than one from the authorities. I therefore ask the Government to bear in mind that it is sometimes vital for the integrity of the entire process that such information is made as available as possible within the confines of data protection legislation.
As this is not clear from regulation 45(1), will the Minister confirm that the expectation is that, when possible, the count will begin at the close of poll so that results will start to be declared as quickly as possible? I know that there are some places where, because of their remoteness, the count is traditionally done the following day, but if the intention is that the count be carried out overnight on the Thursday, it will be useful for everyone to know that as soon as possible.
Anyone with experience of either working in a polling station or attending a count will have been greatly impressed by the dedication and professionalism of everyone who works in those places. Just look at the hours that the count staff have to put in before and after the count. They are a huge group of people to whom democracy itself owes a great deal of gratitude. The Minister should be aware that it might be more difficult to recruit that army of people to spend all Thursday night carrying out an important part of the democratic process if they are expecting to take the kids who have finished school on their summer holiday on the Friday afternoon—the Minister will understand what I am saying. In my experience, a significant number of those who work at polling stations and at counts have children, and in some parts of these islands towards the end of June, a lot of families with children will be about to go on their summer holidays, so I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.
Although I can understand why we want to go through a process in which the regional draft declarations have to be agreed by the chief counting officer before being announced, that needs to be done in a way that does not lead to the pile-up of results that we have seen in other referendums. At the time of the devolution referendum in Scotland, there was a requirement for each local authority to get authorisation from the chief returning offer before announcing the result. Inevitably, two or three councils declared very quickly, and then about 15 were all ready to go within an hour. I was at the count in Fife—the third biggest count in Scotland.
Wayne David
I remember the devolution referendum in Wales, when the result was on a knife edge, with a mere 6,000 votes in it. It was suggested that the final information, which came through from Carmarthen, was held back deliberately to increase the drama and suspense before the final declaration. It really was on a knife edge: many people thought that there had been a small no vote, but because of Carmarthen, the result was a small yes vote. I was wondering whether this time there is a possibility—I do not say it is good or bad—of a similar control of results coming from different parts of the country, as happened in Wales in 1997.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I remember watching the results coming in from Wales and seeing the face of the Labour leader in Wales when the decisive result came in. I have to say, he did not look delighted, but I am sure that things have moved on since then.
At the Fife count, we waited between an hour and an hour and a half after everybody knew the result there. At that time, Scotland’s vote on the first question—about having a Scottish Parliament—was 75% yes, so everybody knew the result on the straight yes/no decision, but the returning officer had to keep the staff there for more than an hour after they knew they had done their job and there was nothing more for them to do. That was not fair to them or to the returning officer.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the suggestion that results had deliberately been held back. In another, more recent, referendum, in which the vote did not quite go the way that I intended, I would have been quite happy if the result from Fife had been lost and no one had bothered to add it to final tally. However, we waited in the count hall for between an hour and an hour and a half, with nothing visibly happening, and that started a rumour that Gordon Brown was going to be paraded as the man who saved the Union. We were assured that that rumour was completed unfounded and that the sudden appearance of an intense police presence was pure coincidence.
I ask the Minister to ensure that a clear instruction is issued that no declaration is to be delayed unnecessarily, for any reason whatsoever, so that there can be no suggestion that any particular place has been chosen to make the decisive announcement—the one that guarantees victory for one side or the other. I understand why the chief counting officer will want to have oversight of the whole process, but we cannot allow that to delay the public’s knowing the result of an important referendum.
Having stood outside local polling stations in every election since 1987 and been at every count as well, it is interesting to be part of the process of making the rules that those hard-working returning officers and their staff will have to work by. Despite the primary legislation’s limitations, the regulations should give us a referendum after which the public will be as certain as they can be that, whether they like the result or not, it will have been the choice of the people.