- Second Reading
- 9:51 am
- I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.May I start by giving thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues who are attending today, and in particular the staff of the House of Commons for their assistance? I think it is fair to acknowledge that today’s debate is slightly unexpected, so I am particularly grateful for all the help that I have received and that your team have provided over the past few days.It might be unexpected, but this is nevertheless a very timely debate on Scotland’s particular needs. It also comes the day after the election of Scotland’s newest councillor. I want to give a shout-out to Lynda Holton, who won the by-election in Glenrothes last night with, I think, the SNP’s second highest share of the vote ever in the area and Labour’s second or lowest share of the vote ever. I think that speaks to the disappointment felt in recent times and to the notion that sometimes politicians in this place do not adequately address the needs of Scotland or other parts of the United Kingdom.Before I get to the substance of my speech, I want to be clear about something. Given the nature of the Bill, I will concede that it is not for everyone. It is a short Bill and, to be fair, it is not for everybody; but, to repeat the point that Members made in the Second Reading debate on the assisted dying Bill, we can get into the details later on. I want to be clear: all of us across the Chamber can disagree on a wide range of areas, but I am up for working with colleagues from across the House, particularly Scottish Labour, to amend the Bill, to find some common ground and to meet the commitments that Scottish Labour has already made, which are pertinent and relate to this Bill.I am glad that we have this valuable time. We do not always get the time to debate areas of particular interest to Scotland. It is ironic that I have been given time to debate something that relates to SNP policy, but also to Labour policy and, to a certain extent, to Liberal Democrat policy—it is unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats have been unable to attend today. This issue has become particularly apparent given the catastrophe visited on our economy and our citizens as a direct consequence of leaving the EU. When I say that, I know that I do not say anything that is particularly controversial.I remember with fondness my time working closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was far sighted enough to see the utter catastrophe that would be visited on Scotland and the rest of the UK if we embraced a hard Brexit. I valued the time working with him on that. I have since been a bit surprised that he has subsequently embraced that hard Tory Brexit. I know that things change in politics—we take the circumstances when they change—but I am not entirely sure what has changed for the positive since we left the EU in 2016: the economy has tanked; rights and opportunities have been taken away from our citizens; and we have lost billions—£40 billion a year—to the Exchequer. Those are not just my numbers. On that point, before I mention another Labour figure, I will give way to the hon. Lady.
- I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He is right to talk about growing the economy. Does he agree that if the Scottish Government had used the powers they actually have to grow the Scottish economy between 2012 and 2023, it would now be £8.5 billion larger and my constituents would be much better off?
- I am a great admirer of the hon. Lady—she joined me on the Russia sanctions list this week and I pay credit to her for her work for the children of Ukraine—but I am somewhat surprised that, given those growth figures, she has now turned out in favour of independence! We all know what happened when Scotland remained part of the UK and the hit that we took. It is disappointing that Labour has embraced that. I will take a second intervention before I make some progress.
- My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the epiphany the Secretary of State for Scotland has had in the intervening decade about the merits and de-merits of Brexit. Is it not the case that no matter what this Minister thinks—or what any other Minister thinks in any British Government, Scottish or otherwise—they are not in thrall to the realities of the economy; they are in thrall to voters in middle England?
- As usual, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.I want to come on to the way in which we discuss and debate migration. Migration is a good thing. It benefits all of us. All of us throughout time have benefited from migration. I have been deeply disappointed by—I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker—the poison that often seeps into our rhetoric whenever we discuss this issue. We need to be honest: nobody is talking about uncontrolled migration and we need a migration policy. I want to talk about some of the industries that have talked to me, in a really sensible way that I think this House should listen to, about how we deal with migration.I said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) that I would mention Labour. Analysis by the Labour Mayor of London reckons that Brexit, which this Government have embraced—I do not know what happened to the Secretary of State for Scotland; I consider him a colleague—loses us £40 billion a year. So when the Government are making cuts to the winter fuel allowance and cuts to the disabled, that is all to go and pay for a Brexit that nobody voted for and nobody wants.While I am talking about people embracing a hard Tory Brexit, I want to refer to a former Member of this place, Michael Gove. Even before the Brexit vote, the architect of Brexit could see the damage that would be caused to Scotland’s economy. What did the architect say?“If, in the course of the negotiations, the Scottish Parliament wants to play a role in deciding how a visa system could work, much as it works in other parts of the European Economic Area, then that is something we’ll look into.”He went on to say that“the numbers who would come in the future would be decided by the Westminster Parliament and the Holyrood Parliament working together.”
- Will the hon. Member give way?
- Oh, here we go! If you can tell me why on earth Labour is putting Michael Gove in the House of Lords, I will gladly give way.
- Order. Can I remind the hon. Gentleman to do less you-ing, please?
- I thank the hon. Gentleman for indulging me a second time. He references Brexit. Can he clarify for the House why his party spent less on campaigning against Brexit than on a local by-election campaign in Scotland? The newfound conversion to opposing Brexit might be welcome, but that clarification would be helpful.
- I am glad to respond to that. I was deputy director of our Remain campaign, and I was delighted when not only did every part of Scotland vote overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, but every local authority area voted to remain in the EU—even those that had voted against joining the EU.
- On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you give guidance on whether re-running the Brexit debate from 10 years ago is in any way linked to a single clause of this Bill from the Scottish National party?
- That is not a point of order. The Bill has a broad scope, so it does allow for some broadness in the debate.
- I am not that surprised that the Labour party wants to close down a debate on Brexit. The hon. Member is seeking to spare his party its blushes—in particular Scottish Labour—and I respect him for that. We know why we need to open up that debate. The Treasury will tell us why: it is because of how much money Brexit is costing our public services. Our young people know why: it is because of the opportunities Brexit is costing them.I listened to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) yesterday in Westminster Hall. He made a good speech in which he tried to talk about opportunities for young people through a youth mobility scheme that he endorsed, but he also spoke of capping the number of young people who could participate, so that fewer young people had the freedom of movement that both he and I enjoyed. What a paucity of ambition from the Labour party for our young people, who have been left with fewer rights. I expected that from the Conservative party, but not in my wildest dreams would I have expected it from the Labour party, which now wants to crow about the situation and the cap on young people.
- The Westminster Hall debate was interesting, and was largely conducted in good spirit, though I think his speech slightly misjudged the tone of Westminster Hall. I and a number of Labour parliamentarians have been looking for practical steps to move forward our relationship with the European Union. We have had 15 years of moving backwards under the Conservatives, and we have now heard a speech that seems to be detached from reality. My job—our job on the Labour Benches—is to get a stronger deal with the European Union. One of the key first steps, we think, is a visa-based youth mobility system, and I am proud of that.
- I am glad the hon. Member is proud of the opportunities he will be denying young people by going ahead with Labour’s plans. I found that debate yesterday slightly frustrating. My hon. Friends will have sat through similar debates in which Labour Member after Labour Member—in fairness, there are a number of them; they won the election, after all—talk about how dreadful Brexit was and the damage it did to our young people, universities, small and medium-sized enterprises, and security, and to Britain’s place in the world. But what are the Government doing about it? Nothing. They are embracing the hardest of hard Brexits. They could rejoin the customs union and reintroduce freedoms, to bring benefits to citizens the length and breadth of the UK.
- I sat on the Opposition Benches, behind SNP Members, during those long, tumultuous days of the Brexit debate, and I remember watching SNP Member after SNP Member game the system to push us towards a no-deal Brexit, in the hope that the Government of the time would abandon the plan. There were Labour Members who argued consistently that we should adopt plans and deals; SNP Members voted against that at every opportunity because their narrow grievance politics was more important than a good deal for this country.