Subsidiarity and Proportionality
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We now have until 5.35 pm for questions to the Minister on his statement. I remind Members that questions should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions, but there is also an opportunity for these in the subsequent debate.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions about his statement. He referred to the letter that the Prime Minister sent, on 10 November, to the President of the European Council. It was a long letter, in which he said:
“I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required will be a matter for the negotiation.”
Will the Minister say a little more about what the Government are pressing for on that question of national Parliaments? The Government talk about the development of a red card—I apologise, Mrs Main, for the multi-coloured cards we always refer to in these discussions. What exactly would the powers of that card be and how many Parliaments would have to come together to wield it? I ask the same question with regard to the green card, which is designed to be a proactive rather than a reactive measure: how many Parliaments would have to come together to wield it? Furthermore, is the development of the green card as much a priority for our renegotiation as that of the red one?
Finally, to complete the colours, I will ask about the use of the yellow card, which the hon. Member for North East Somerset said had been wielded very little. When it was wielded over the European public prosecutor’s office, the proposal was not substantially amended or withdrawn. What proposals do the Government have to strengthen the use of yellow cards, given that this is an unwieldy process and that when Parliaments come together in this way they ought not to be ignored?
Mr Lidington
I will try to respond as fully as I can within the constraints of time to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East.
As the Prime Minister said in his letter, the level of a threshold to trigger a red card that would amount to a block on legislation would be a matter for the negotiation itself. I cannot pre-empt those detailed discussions, but we envisage that at a certain point what is currently a power for national Parliaments to require the Commission to review a particular initiative should become an outright bar to further progress.
As for the yellow card, to my mind a change that would be particularly welcome would be an extension of the timeframe allowed beyond the eight weeks permitted under current law. That would enable national Parliaments to consider proposals more closely and to co-ordinate with one another. I would also like to see such a change to the yellow card take into account the very creative proposal from the Dutch Parliament for what it termed a “late card”, so that in the event of a legislative measure changing significantly during its progress through the various institutions it would be possible for national Parliaments to come back and have another look at it, because at the moment that opportunity is forbidden to them regardless of how far-reaching any amendments might be.
Finally, the Government support the green card, but it is also an initiative that is actively being taken forward by national Parliaments at the moment. Yes, we support it, but if it can be achieved through Parliaments working together in COSAC, persuading the institutions to take that change on board, then we are happy simply to support the work that the Parliaments themselves have initiated.
Mr McFadden
I will make a couple of brief points. It is true that the issue of subsidiarity, proportionality and the power of national Parliaments is important, and that view is shared throughout the Chamber. I have already read out what the Prime Minister said in his letter to the President of the Council two weeks ago, so I do not need to repeat it. In our manifesto, Labour stated:
“We will work to strengthen the influence of national parliaments over European legislation, by arguing for a ‘red-card mechanism’ for member states, providing greater parliamentary scrutiny.”
Today, in response to the Prime Minister’s letter, President Donald Tusk said:
“There is also a largely shared view on the importance of the role of national parliaments within the Union as well as strong emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity.”
There will be different views in the House as to whether that constant re-emphasis of the commitment to subsidiarity shows up in the actions of the Commission and the EU institutions, but the question is whether a new spirit has emerged.
The Commission certainly says that there is a new spirit. Some months ago we debated on the Floor of the House the Commission’s work programme, to which many Members referred. Earlier this year in London I attended a speech made by Frans Timmermans, the Vice-President of the Commission—the Minister mentioned him—and he posed the question, why does the ratchet always have to turn in one direction? Why can the Commission and the institutions not look at the existing corpus of legislation and ask whether it is still fit for purpose and necessary, or whether it has had unintended consequences after being in effect for some time? Those seem to be perfectly legitimate questions for the EU institutions, just as they would be for any national Parliament.
Looking around Europe, I wonder whether we are discussing the right exam question overall. At the moment, the EU is coping with huge crises of refugees and of security, but if we constantly view it as an organisation that is determined to interfere in our very way of life, we might not be asking the right question. Perhaps the question is how Europe works more closely together to deal with common challenges instead of always seeing working together as some kind of threat, as we tend to do in this country. The issue of national Parliaments is a legitimate one, but looking at the problems Europe is coping with today, I am not sure that it is the most urgent one facing the EU.
I will not go through again all the different powers of the different card mechanisms that have been outlined. Suffice to say, we will watch with interest how matters are developed in the negotiation that the Prime Minister has set out. The Minister has given us some useful pointers to the Government’s position on the various green, yellow and red card proposals, but it looks as if matters will not be concluded at the December Council. We will hope for more concrete results from the February Council early next year.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very sympathetic with the point that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East makes that this might be the wrong issue to discuss, and that the real issue is how the nations of Europe can co-operate together. My answer is that they should do so through the nation state, because the nation state has validity and the European Commission does not. What we discover in today’s debate is that it is actually all about the validity of the European Commission, and that national Parliaments will be given a bauble here and a bauble there. They will be given a red card, a yellow card and a green card—they will have a three-card trick. They will have a whole deck of cards, but they will not be able to do anything with it because everything goes off to the European Commission, which may—if it is feeling benign—condescend to listen to the national Parliaments.
The Commission may take the Parliaments into account, and it may make proposals. How enormously generous. How thoughtful of somebody unelected, who was appointed against the will of the British Government, who has no mandate and who represents one of the smallest countries in the European Union. It is going to be up to Mr Juncker whether he listens to the German Parliament, the British Parliament or the French Parliament, all of which were elected by millions of people across Europe. One grand panjandrum in Brussels will decide whether he will take any notice of those cards at all.
The Government are great in their way—they push back a bit and say, “Oh, well, we’ve got a backbone, so therefore we’ll be tough and stand up to this. We’re going to put Britain first, the United Kingdom first, and make sure that we have our way.”
Mr McFadden
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s strength of view, but he is in danger of forgetting the existence of the Council of Ministers, on which sit the elected representatives of all of us—the Prime Ministers and Presidents.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The Council of Ministers used to operate by unanimity, so our interests could be protected. At the heart of this is the question of who has the right to initiate legislation, because that is where the real democratic deficit is located; it is not the Council of Ministers but the unelected Commission that does that. That is a most extraordinary power. When one considers the power of this House, one sees that our right to initiate money Bills dates to 1407, and the power of this House grew because of that right of initiation and that right to control finances, which leads to control of the legislative programme.
The Commission’s right of initiation is central to its authority, and how sensitive was the Minister on its behalf when I said that this green card might interfere with that noble right of the Commission to initiate legislation—“No, that could not happen at all. It would upset the Commission too greatly, and the European Parliament might be a bit jealous.” The European Parliament is a body that has modest democratic legitimacy. A few people occasionally vote, but no one feels that it is their Parliament. People occasionally turn out to vote when they have to vote for something else. Even a police commissioner is more exciting to vote for than the European Parliament—well, not by very much, although it is a little more exciting. The democratic deficit is addressed not by the European Parliament, but by national Parliaments that represent individual citizens.
To return to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent point about how Europe addresses such problems, it addresses such problems if it has validity, and it has validity if it is based on democracy. The European Union is facing problems at the moment because it has become so remote from that democracy. The President of Portugal is saying that a new Government cannot come in because that might upset the European Union, even when, in a coalition, the Portuguese Government have more support than any other nation. [Interruption.] We are saved by the bell.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I can assure my hon. Friend that there is going to be ample time for those arguments to be aired both in this House and outside.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
May I press the Minister a little further on the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds? The other place passed its amendment on this by a big majority on 18 November. There are rumours of disagreements within the Government and within the Cabinet on how to respond. The Prime Minister has so far left the door open to change in the questions he has been asked previously about this. We know that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of understanding the issues and we know they are interested and want to take part, so why will the Minister not agree to the amendment and give 16 and 17-year-olds a proper say in the future of our country?
Mr Lidington
There are hon. Members in various parts of the House who champion the cause of reducing the voting age to 16, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the right time to debate that issue is during discussions on proposed legislation where such a change would apply to the franchise for all elections and referendums and not as a one-off tacked on to a Bill for a particular referendum.
Iran: Nuclear Issues
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The nuclear deal that was agreed in July between the E3+3 and Iran was the culmination of many years of intense diplomatic efforts. At its heart is a simple concept, but it nevertheless took a huge amount of work to reach a robust and verifiable agreement. The simple concept is that Iran will desist from its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon in exchange for the lifting of sanctions that have had a major impact on its economy over many years.
I pay tribute to the efforts of all those involved in those intense diplomatic efforts, and particularly Baroness Ashton of Upholland who played such an important role during her five years as the EU’s High Representative for foreign affairs, and Jack Straw who was important in getting the process started and who remained an unstinting supporter of it during the last Parliament. Such diplomacy is not easy. Trust was in short supply, for understandable reasons, and there were—and remain—many who said that the deal could not work. Agreement is one thing, but its implementation matters even more.
The European Union played an important co-ordinating role in the talks, and all parties have testified to the value and importance of that role. The agreement is a good example of what can be achieved when the UK works with others and uses the EU to increase its leverage when patient but determined diplomacy is used. There must have been many times when it all seemed too difficult, but the thing that concentrated the minds of negotiators—this should also give pause for thought to critics of the deal—was the consequence of having no deal or of allowing negotiations to fail. What would that have meant for nuclear proliferation? What would it have meant for the middle east or for other situations—such as those now at the forefront of our minds—in which Iran is involved, if we did not have the increase in trust that has come about as a result of this agreement? That does not mean that all our issues with Iran are over, but the agreement has helped to build trust. If it is implemented properly, that trust will increase.
This debate focuses on how the sanctions regime is to be lifted, and on the snapback mechanism incorporated into the deal should it be judged that Iran is not implementing its commitments properly. The lifting of sanctions is linked to the implementation of the agreement, and that must be verified by the IAEA. A positive report by that agency will trigger the lifting of sanctions. The Deputy for Legal and International Affairs at Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Abbas Araghchi, told reporters in Vienna in the last couple of days that he expects the deal to be implemented in January next year. That follows approval of the deal by the Iranian Parliament last month. We welcome that aim. It shows momentum behind the agreement, although it will, of course, be important that the claim of implementation is properly tested and verified by the IAEA.
The European Union has already begun preparing for the lifting of sanctions. Last month the EU High Representative, Ms Mogherini, said that the EU had
“adopted the legislative framework for the lifting of all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions”.
That decision will, of course, only take effect when the agreement is implemented. The Government, in keeping to this timetable, exercised an override of the normal scrutiny procedures on some of the measures. That is never ideal, but in the circumstances, given the combined international efforts to get the deal implemented, I believe it is understandable. For our part—the Minister put the question to me—we remain supporters of the agreement as long as it is fully and properly implemented, and as long as the IAEA is given full and proper access to all the facilities it needs to inspect to satisfy the international community that both the spirit and the letter of the agreement are being adhered to.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The European Scrutiny Committee did not object to the scrutiny override in these circumstances. Its objection has been to the delay in scheduling this debate, which was asked for in September. Here we are in November and we have finally got it. It is the slowness that is the source of complaint.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know the point he raises is something of a recurring theme in examining these issues. It is good that he clarifies that it is not the override that was objected to. I am glad he agrees with me that, while it is never ideal when dealing with something like this, it is sometimes understandable.
In conclusion, at a time when there are many grave international issues before us, this diplomatic achievement should give us cause for some cautious hope and optimism. I appreciate that some have doubts and some still lack trust in this, but the best way to answer those doubts is to have a full, proper and strictly verified implementation of the deal. If we have that, we can move forward both to progress on non-proliferation and to the building of trust that can be of wider benefit in the region.
Famagusta
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and his co-signatories on tabling the motion for debate. The division of Cyprus for more than 40 years is often referred to as a frozen conflict. The motion gives some sense of how long the situation has gone on for. It mentions the UN resolutions, the high-level agreements reached, and the efforts made, and as it says, all that effort was aimed at a “comprehensive settlement”—that is the phrase that is continually used—of the problem of the island’s division. The aim, as the motion says, is
“a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality”
guaranteed for the whole population of the island.
Bob Stewart
I would like to put on record that one reason why the conflict was frozen for a very long time was that the actions of so many United Nations troops on the green line stopped the conflict from breaking out again. It may have been sterile and boring for the troops, but by goodness, they have prevented people from dying.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I suppose he is gently reminding us that a frozen conflict is better than an unfrozen one, without a settlement. The frozen nature of the conflict is perhaps at its most graphic in the city of Famagusta, and specifically in Varosha, where homes, hotels and other buildings have lain dormant for 40 years, trapped in a specific moment in time. Those buildings are still standing, but year after year, they have been devoid of the people and the changes that give a city life; they are overgrown with vegetation, and are gradually rotting away. It is no accident that the term “ghost town” has been used to describe it, both in tonight’s debate and before it.
It is of course right that the city and its properties be returned to their rightful owners. When people left, they thought they would be able to return within days, or perhaps weeks. They have had no access to their homes, businesses and other places of real importance to them for more than 40 years. People lost their houses, land, money, and access to places of worship. It is no wonder that this enforced absence is a source of such heartbreak and sorrow to all those affected. They are right to not only hope but expect that they will be able to return. The broader question is how that happens, and the relationship to a wider settlement of Cyprus’s division and issues.
As has been mentioned several times in the debate, the omens are better than they have been for some time. Both Mr Anastasiades and Mr Akinci seem genuinely committed to a settlement, and optimism is higher than it has been for many years. The prospect for progress on this agenda seems stronger than in the past. I am sure that the whole House hopes that that applies to the wider issues, including that of Famagusta, on which we have focused tonight. The Foreign Secretary is due in Cyprus later this week. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, asked the Minister a few questions; I wonder whether I might add to the list. Will the Minister tell us the Government’s agenda for that visit, and what more the UK Government can do, as a friend of Cyprus, to encourage momentum, and ultimately agreement, in the talks?
Given that the political atmosphere is more positive than it was, how does the Minister see the Government using their position as a guarantor to press for a settlement that leads to the reunification of the island, as set out in the various UN resolutions that have been adopted? Does he believe that Mr Akinci, who represents Northern Cyprus, and in whom a great deal of hope has been invested, is free to make an agreement if he wishes to? Can the Minister say more about Turkey’s role in the process? That is particularly important with regard to Famagusta. It is important to mention that the frozen area of Varosha is in the hands of not the Turkish Cypriots, but the Turkish military. It is important that we consider not only the people on the island, but the Turkish military’s role.
Could the Minister also say what the relationship is between this process and the issues raised tonight that are being discussed by Turkey and the European Union? Specifically, I am thinking of the huge refugee problem affecting both Turkey and the European Union, and the question of future accession to the EU. How possible is it to make progress on these other issues while the situation in Cyprus remains as it is? What is their effect on the process taking place in Cyprus?
Much has happened in recent months and days that is a cause for grief and heartbreak on the human level, and huge concern on the political level. In the statement earlier today, the House set out its views on the terrible events in Paris a few days ago. We have talked, understandably, of a generational struggle against Islamist extremism. The world has failed to find a solution to the terrible war in Syria, which has been unfolding for years, and which is driving much of the refugee problem facing Europe. Yet on the Cyprus issue, there are grounds for hope and optimism. Inevitably, that will be tempered with caution, given how many setbacks there have been over the years—the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) referred to having been involved in this issue for decades—but as we know from our experience, making peace is hugely dependent on leadership. Among both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, there is a leadership in place that seems committed to finding a way forward. We Labour Members will support their efforts, and we hope that the UK Government play as positive a role as possible, so that this conflict, which I have referred to as being frozen, can be resolved, and the island of Cyprus can be unified on the basis of mutual respect among all parts of its population.
Europe: Renegotiation
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for updating the House, and for giving me advance sight of his statement.
The decision on whether or not the United Kingdom will remain a member of the European Union is the biggest decision that the country will make for a generation. Labour Members are clear about the fact that Britain is a more powerful, prosperous and secure country as a result of its membership of the EU, and we want to see it play a full role in shaping a reformed and better Europe that deepens its single market in areas such as digital and services, offers more hope and jobs to its young people, uses its collective strength in trade with the rest of the world, and stands together to combat the urgent security problems that we face. We do not stand for the nationalism that says that we would be better off out, or for a Brexit that would see Britain weaker in power and influence, and diminished in the eyes of the world.
In his speech this morning and in the letter to the President of the European Council, the Prime Minister set out his negotiating agenda. As we have already heard in comments from his own Back Benchers, the problem that the Prime Minister faces—and, in fact, the reason he has been so reluctant to put his position down on paper until now—is that there is nothing he can renegotiate that will satisfy the large number of right hon. and hon. Members sitting behind him who want to take Britain out of the European Union at all costs. They are desperate to be disappointed, and they are here in the House today. Their only role in this debate is to push for demands that they know will not be met.
The agenda that was published today raises important issues including some that were in our own election manifesto, such as protection for the rights of non-eurozone countries and those of national Parliaments. It also includes other ideas which are already in train. May I now ask the Minister to respond to some specific questions?
It is right that we press for guarantees for non-eurozone members in the future. Our manifesto argued for that, and it is in our economic interests. Does the Minister agree, however, that it would be a mistake for Britain, in so doing, to volunteer or embrace some kind of second-class or associate membership of the EU, while still paying the full costs of membership? Would not such an outcome weaken Britain rather than strengthening our position?
Why is there so little in the agenda about jobs and growth for the future, given that the problem with which Europe has been struggling for some time has been low growth and high unemployment? The Minister has talked of reducing the burden on business. Can he guarantee that nothing in this agenda will reduce the hard-won employment rights that have been agreed at European level over the years, including rights to paid leave, rights for part-time workers, and fair pay for temporary and agency workers? Does he accept that it would be a huge mistake to try to build support for a reformed European Union on the back of a bonfire of workers’ rights?
We note the retreat from earlier statements and hints from the Prime Minister that he would seek an emergency brake or an end to the principle of free movement. Is the Prime Minister set on the four-year timescale for access to in-work benefits, or is that subject to negotiation at the European Council? Will the Minister also tell us specifically whether it would mean a change in EU legislation, or a change in the way in which the system works here in the UK?
Does the Minister agree that it is for those who wish to reject the agenda as too little—many of whom are sitting behind him, and who are determined to take Britain out of the EU—to state clearly to the British people what being out would mean for our jobs, for our trade, for our investment, for our employment rights, and for our national security?
Of course the European Union faces big challenges in recovering from the eurozone crisis, offering more hope for the future, and dealing with the urgent and immediate refugee crisis that it faces, but we believe that those challenges will be best met if Britain plays a leading role in the future of the European Union, and if we use our power and influence with others to overcome them.
There is a broader case that goes far beyond those four points about Britain’s place in the world and the EU, and that case has to be made. Our history is not the same as that of many other member states, and perhaps we will never look at these issues through precisely the same eyes, but that is not the same as wanting to leave. Reform is essential. It should be an ongoing process, not a single event, and Labour Members will keep arguing for a Britain that is engaged with the world, using its power and influence to the maximum and not walking away from a partnership that we have been members of for 40 years and which has brought many benefits to the people and the economy of this country.
Mr Lidington
The right hon. Gentleman asked four specific questions and I will deal with them in turn.
On relations between EU and non-EU members, we do need to have, as part of this negotiation, safeguards against any risk of caucusing by eurozone countries, who if they chose to act as a caucus could command an automatic qualified majority within Council of Ministers meetings. There are clearly going to be some issues that derive directly from a currency union where eurozone countries quite legitimately will want to talk among themselves, and it is going to be important that we have a deal that allows the eurozone to do the work of integration it is going to need to do, but which properly safeguards the integrity of the single market of 28 members and decision making across the board in terms of the EU responsibilities in respect of the 28.
The right hon. Gentleman teased me a little about the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have to say that when I have appeared before some of the Committees of this House, I have encountered Opposition Members who are equally committed to British withdrawal from the EU. The truth is that this is a matter—[Interruption.] Indeed, I am reminded that the Labour party leader, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has not been renowned for his enthusiasm for British membership of the EU. This issue has legitimately cut across party divisions for as long as EU membership has been a concern in the UK. People within both parties hold honourable, principled views both for and against British membership, and I think that that is likely always to be the case.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the challenge of low growth. I think that not only what the Government are saying in this renegotiation, but what they have led and helped to shape within the EU ever since 2010, demonstrates the seriousness with which we take this issue. I know the Prime Minister was personally involved in the negotiation that clinched the deal on an EU-Korea free trade agreement, something that is now proving of immense value to British industry. It is the British Government who have helped to energise the debate towards a digital single market across Europe, something that will give small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as large companies, increased opportunities.
No Conservative Member wants to make, in the right hon. Gentleman’s words, a bonfire of workers’ rights, but we also need to have in mind the reality that other countries that have chosen to go for a much more regulated approach to the employment market have often, tragically, suffered much higher levels of unemployment than we have in the UK. Keeping the UK’s opt-out from the working time directive, for example, is something we will fight very hard to make sure is entrenched by this renegotiation.
On freedom of movement, the Prime Minister made his view very clear: our objective is to better control migration from within the EU. There are obviously different ways in which we could achieve that. We think we can do that by reducing the incentives offered by our welfare system, which is why my right hon. Friend set out proposals in November and repeated them today. Others in the EU have concerns about this, and that is why we say to them, “If that’s what you think, put forward alternative proposals that deliver the same result.” It is the outcome of the measures—controlled, fair and properly managed migration—that is the end that we seek.
Finally, on the question of what is meant by “out”, the Prime Minister said again this morning that he did not think either the Swiss or Norwegian models would be right for the UK. The question of what “out” might mean will be a key element in the forthcoming referendum debate.
Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Indeed. Thank you, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am reminded of the words of the great Yogi Berra, who said:
“It’s déjà vu all over again.”
The Minister has certainly earned his ministerial stipend today. He took questions for an hour and a half to two hours earlier in the House and is now about to reply to this debate. I do not know if the Prime Minister is a generous man in personal terms but he certainly owes the Minister a drink for what he has been put through today. The only consolation for him is that his colleagues are not here for this debate as they were for the statement earlier. He is at least spared their unstinting support in the endeavours that the Government have set out today.
I do not know whether the debate is well timed or—possibly, more accurately—a few hours late. The horse has somewhat bolted on this. The Prime Minister has made his speech. The Minister has made his statement. The letter to the President of the European Council has been written. I do not propose to go over the exchange that we had earlier or the questions that we exchanged, except to add a point about the negotiation that was perhaps not covered so much in statement. We are seeing this through British eyes and the four demands have been put together by the Prime Minister and the Minister in that sense. The rest of Europe is coping with an unprecedented refugee crisis. An official from another member state said to me last week, “The trouble is that we are in two different movies.” That is one of the issues for the process.
The issue before us is the consultation and involvement of the devolved Administrations, which, of course, should be appropriately consulted and involved. Quite rightly, people have said that different issues are viewed in different ways in different parts of the UK. Not every issue has the same impact everywhere. I want to speak specifically about Northern Ireland because I attended the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), which was organised by Newry, Mourne and Down District Council a couple of weeks ago.
We had an excellent debate about cross-border movement of people, movement of goods, business, trade and farm subsidies—the whole thing. The team for staying in the EU were me and former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. I am pleased to say that a vote was taken by 300 or 400 people—mostly small businesspeople—at the end of the debate. The proposal to stay in was carried by 92% to 8%. I make no predictions or claims that that was necessarily a representative audience of everywhere in the UK, but the debate should go to every part of the UK. Every part should have the widest possible involvement. Ultimately, the question—all the things that have been raised about representation and so on—revolves around whether we view the situation through nationalist eyes. If we do, we will effectively see the UK as four member states. Those who are not nationalists will see it as one member state. We joined as one member state, we will have this referendum as one member state, and we will make the decision as one member state. The issue about appropriate consultation and involvement should be seen in that light.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
There has been a lot of focus on ISIL, but it is important to remember that it is Assad’s persistent indiscriminate attacks on his own civilian population with chlorine gas and barrel bombs that have been the principal driver of this mass migration.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in his conference speech that the problem with the EU was that it was “too big” and “too bossy”. Looking at the refugee crisis, however, we can see that his rhetoric was simply wrong. Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that the problem for the refugee crisis has not been a European Union that is too strong and overbearing, but rather one that has been too weak, too unco-ordinated and too ready to fall back into the old habit of nationalism? Do not the desperate scenes that we have witnessed all summer demand more co-operation between states rather than a retreat into the use of barbed wire and nationalism and a failure of collective, co-ordinated leadership precisely when it is needed most?
Gibraltar and Spain
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing the debate. As he said, he is the chair of the all-party group on Gibraltar. I stand here as the Opposition spokesman on these issues but it is worth mentioning that my constituency predecessor, the late Dennis Turner, was a great supporter of Gibraltar so my constituency has a long tradition of involvement with the issue.
It is, I think, about nine months since the House last discussed the topic, when we debated the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Many of the issues highlighted in that report continue to be relevant and are important to today’s debate. I will go through a few of those, beginning with the constitutional position of Gibraltar, which is very clear. Its people overwhelmingly want to stay British. It is a British overseas territory. The Government’s response, which the Minister will outline, is also clear. They will not enter into talks about the constitutional status of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar, or change that status. That position is shared by the Opposition.
From the United Kingdom’s point of view, the position is very clear and, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, is shared across the parties. It is just a pity that that position is not clearly understood by Spain because outwith the issue Spain is a European partner, a NATO ally and home to many British people. Many British people have businesses in Spain and it is a destination for a huge number of British holidaymakers every year. Spain is held in high and warm regard by most people in the United Kingdom. It is true that relations between Britain and Spain over this issue have blown hot and cold over the years. About a decade ago, there was a period when things looked brighter. There was a bit more interaction and co-operation, but the situation has got worse since then and things have become more difficult.
I will touch on a couple of issues that have become sore points in the relationship between Britain and Spain. The first is the lengthy delays at the border, to which many hon. Members have referred. People can wait more than four, five or six hours to cross to and from Gibraltar. Daily, it is a great inconvenience to people in terms of business and getting to and from work. We believe that it is an interference in the principle of free movement. I do not want to get sidetracked down a whole other discussion about this but, as things stand, Britain is a member of the European Union and Gibraltar is part of the EU on that basis. Spain is a member of the EU. One of the founding principles of such membership is the free movement of people.
Now, we are not part of the Schengen zone. We operate passport checks, as any of us who go to and fro on the Eurostar know, but they do not delay people for five and six hours. The checks are carried out properly by our authorities without undue delays. Could the Minister comment on what representations we have made to Spain and the European Commission about these unnecessary interferences to the principles of free movement? I will not go further into the EU negotiations on this and so on, except to say that I hope that all hon. Members here who are so passionate about Gibraltar will maintain their support for the principle of free movement throughout the negotiations. I am sure they all will.
The second issue is the countless transgressions—several hundred a year—by Spanish vessels into Gibraltar’s territorial waters, which are constant running sore. Part of the problem is that Spain does not recognise the concept of Gibraltarian territorial waters, even though it is clearly set out in the UN convention on the law of the sea. Britain or Gibraltar have not taken a maximalist interpretation of that convention but we believe that there is a three-mile zone of Gibraltarian territorial waters. The Royal Navy and Gibraltarian forces have a right to enforce that jurisdiction, which they have to do on a daily and weekly basis. I will not mention all the different instances but the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke mentioned one in his opening speech. In August, the crew of a Spanish customs boat fired what is believed to have been four shots at a civilian vessel. Such an instance is clearly serious and the Foreign Office responded with a protest at the time. There have been many other incursions. What can be done to make the calling of the ambassador and the lodging of such protests less routine? Hundreds of incursions are not a norm that should be accepted. It should not be regarded as routine that allies regularly have to lodge such protests or to call the ambassador to the Foreign Office. It would be welcome if the Minister could say a bit more about that.
I could talk further, but I want to give the Minister a chance to respond. In conclusion, the truth is that there is a clear pattern: Spain is trying to put the squeeze on Gibraltar through these measures. One of the values of such debates is that we can send out a signal not only from the Government but from Parliament that there is no point in putting a squeeze on Gibraltar because its status will not change unless the people of Gibraltar decide that it should change. This pattern of behaviour serves only to create unnecessary economic damage and unnecessary interference with people’s freedom to move, employment rights and the capacity of businesses in Gibraltar to function. It serves no positive purpose.
The third thing I would like the Minister to address is the military presence in Gibraltar. We have heard references to the age and condition of the naval vessels. Are there any plans to improve that presence or to make representations about the inconvenient and ridiculous situation in which RAF aeroplanes cannot overfly Spanish airspace on the way to Gibraltar? That situation should not exist between allies. What representations is he making to change the situation?
I am glad that the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke has secured this timely debate, which gives us another opportunity to make it clear that Parliament’s position is shared on both sides of the House. If one message should go out from this debate, it is that there is no point in continuing to put the squeeze on Gibraltar. Let us get on to a different agenda in which Gibraltar’s constitutional status is accepted. Many issues could then be discussed, including civilian flights and economic co-operation, which would benefit both Gibraltar and the neighbouring region of Spain.
European Union Referendum Bill
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s approach—at some length.
Since the Bill’s publication, there has been a great deal of debate about the purdah provisions, and specifically about the proposal in paragraph 26 of schedule 1 to strike out the purdah regime set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. There has been a great deal of comment about the Government’s motivations. The accusation has been made that they want to load the dice, and to set up a regime for the conduct of the referendum that would stack the odds in favour of one side, or would allow Ministers to abuse the power of their positions.
Having watched the debate unfold, not just this evening but since the Bill’s publication, I suspect that, from the Government’s point of view, this may be something of an accidental fight. This has the feel of a Bill that was drawn up quickly on the back of the election result, with some advice adopted about what purdah might or might not mean, but without that advice being explored and tested as intensely as it might have been in other circumstances. It looks as though the self-imposed imperative of moving immediately after the Queen’s Speech may have taken over from the task of bottoming the Bill out.
I am not sure whether, when Ministers drew up the Bill, they expected the purdah provision to generate this amount of heat. I rather suspect that they did not, but having included the provision in the Bill, they have had to justify it. As we have heard from the Minister this evening, their justification has been twofold. The first justification is that section 125 of the 2000 Act is so widely drawn that it would paralyse much of the Government’s work on the EU referendum, in a way that would not be the case with a referendum on another subject. The second is that the Government want to take a view, express that view, and, in some way, use Government resources—such as civil servants, special advisers or Government websites—to do so.
We listened carefully to the arguments advanced on Second Reading and in Committee. Our proposals are set out in new clauses 5 and 6, and in amendment 4. Taken collectively, those proposals would leave the purdah regime in place, but there would also be a mechanism for seeking exceptions to it through regulations that would have to be approved by Parliament. That would have several effects. It would put Parliament in the driving seat when it came to deciding whether the Government had a case for exceptions to purdah and testing some of the arguments that the Minister has just set out; it would act as a safeguard against the suggestion that the referendum was being run in an unfair way, if Parliament were tasked with approving the regulations; and, as I have said, it would provide a mechanism for testing the proposition that “business as usual” Government announcements—for example, responses to urgent situations or important decisions made at the European Council— would inadvertently be caught by the purdah regime. We believe that this approach—reinstating purdah, but allowing a mechanism via regulations for exceptions to it—is a sensible way to proceed.
Alex Salmond
The Minister suggested that the Opposition had forgotten the devolved Administrations in their amendments and new clauses. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that point?
Mr McFadden
Our intention in all these amendments was to reinstate purdah as set out in section 125, but to set out the mechanism in regulations. If those regulations need to cover the devolved Administrations, they can of course do that.
The Government’s response to the issues raised is set out in new clause 10 and amendment 53, and I would like to spend a few minutes on those. Government new clause 10 accepts our argument about having an exceptions-to-purdah mechanism through regulations approved by Parliament. Indeed, as the Minister set out, there is a great deal of overlap between Government new clause 10 and our new clause 6, but Government new clause 10 has the added dimension of the requirement to consult the Electoral Commission, something asked for by the Public Administration Committee in the correspondence from July. We believe this is a sensible addition and therefore have no objection to new clause 10; nor do we object to the amendment, which the Government have accepted, tabled by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) about the timescale for this.
However, as with much of this debate, amendments and new clauses need to be seen in conjunction with other amendments, in this case Government amendment 53, which makes alterations to the definition of purdah. We do not believe the Government have made a convincing case for those alterations. It is unclear whether the amendment is intended to deal with the business-as-usual issues that the Government have spoken of as being a particular problem, or whether it goes much further in the alteration of the purdah regime. Perhaps more importantly, given the wide redrawing of the purdah rules in this amendment, if it is passed it is not clear whether there will be any need at all for the kind of exceptions regime set out in new clauses 10 and 6. We feel that would give the Government too much scope to act without further parliamentary debate and approval, and we will therefore not support Government amendment 53. To complete the picture of our attitude on these amendments, I should say that we intend to press our amendment 4 to a vote. We will support Government new clause 10, we will oppose amendment 53, and we will support our amendment 4.
Mr Lidington
I went into quite some detail about how amendment 53 was intended to carve out business as usual and added a safeguard to make sure that the exemption could not be abused. What does the right hon. Gentleman fear in this regard?
Mr McFadden
Our concern is that, instead of reinstating purdah and then having an exceptions regime, the Government propose to both have an exceptions regime and change the definition of purdah in such a way that there might not even be a need for an exceptions regime.
In the end, the various amendments and new clauses tabled set out three possible ways to deal with this issue. The first is simply to reinstate the purdah regime with no exceptions or modifications—the route perhaps favoured by some in this House. The second way is to reinstate the purdah regime but have a mechanism for exceptions that are subject to the approval of the House through regulations. That is the approach we have set out, and that the Government have, we acknowledge, moved a considerable way towards with the tabling of new clause 10. The third option, which is the one the Government seem to want to pursue, is both to water down the definition of purdah and have an exceptions regime; that is the combined effect of new clause 10 and amendment 53. We believe that the second approach—to have purdah, with exceptions where there is the approval of this House—is the right one.
Sir William Cash
If the vote on amendment 53 is successful and it is knocked out, there will be a vote on amendment 4. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the consequence of that would be to go back to the full purdah arrangements without any let or hindrance?
Mr McFadden
That would be the case if we did not have new clause 10; yes, amendment 4 would reinstate the full purdah regime, but new clause 10 allows the Government to come forward with regulations dealing with the points the Minister has made about the need for exceptions to this. In that regard, new clause 10 has a lot in common with Opposition new clause 6.
Lady Hermon
I am confused by the right hon. Gentleman’s response to the former leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—for whom I have enormous regard on these parliamentary occasions—in relation to the devolved Administrations. Opposition new clause 6 states:
“For the purposes of the referendum the Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify materials that he or she intends or expects to publish in the relevant period”.
It clearly does not apply to the Northern Ireland Executive or the Scottish Parliament, and that could not be extended by regulations; it would have to be extended in this Bill, but that is not in this amendment, and I could not possibly vote for it.
Mr McFadden
As I have said, there is a great deal of overlap between new clause 6 and new clause 10. As I indicated, our voting position is that we will support using new clause 10 to deal with these issues because there is so much overlap between it and our new clause 6. We will oppose Government amendment 53, and we will support our amendment 4.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made a very sensible point on the differences between my amendment 78 and amendment 4, because mine takes account of this issue, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded by saying it could be dealt with subsequently with regulations in relation to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. I cannot understand why the Opposition cannot take that on board.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak to these issues later in the debate, if he decides to move his amendment 78.
Many other Members will also want to speak in this debate. However, for all the heat generated by this issue of purdah, we should not mistake it as being more important than the issues of substance that this referendum is about. The Bill before us by definition focuses on the rules of the referendum, and there has been a great deal of heat about that, but the arguments about our future place in the EU and the world are a lot more important, and when our debates here are done we should focus on those, rather than the process and the rules and regulations surrounding the poll.
It is important that the referendum be conducted fairly. The objections to the Government position have been made because people want to ensure that it is conducted fairly. While we want change in the purdah regime, we should not be drawn into one process argument after another, which always sets this up as being an unfair referendum process. As I said at the beginning, the Government have probably got themselves into a fight that they did not entirely intend to get into. Some of the suggestions as to what is caught by section 125 make it look too widely drawn. The approach that we have set out is to reinstate the purdah regime, but allow the Government to bring forward regulations to deal with the problems that the Minister set out. That is a sensible way forward that would neither give too much latitude nor ignore the issues that have been raised in today’s debate.
Mr McFadden
This is a very broad debate, covering a number of issues. I want to set out our views on the amendments that we have tabled.
Amendment 17 and associated amendments 18 and 19 deal with the ability of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. I do not propose to go over all the territory covered in Committee about 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, but I want to make one or two specific points about why it is important for this referendum.
The referendum will be a major constitutional decision that will have a bearing on Britain’s future for decades to come. None of us expects it to be a regular event like local elections, elections to Assemblies, or elections to this House. It has been 40 years since the last such referendum and such a vote on our constitutional future is a once-in-a-generation decision. The result will affect every young person in the UK for decades to come. At the moment, British citizens have the right to live, work and study in any EU member state. One of the main motivations—if not the main motivation—for those seeking to leave the European Union is to end the principle of free movement of people and to impose stricter controls on immigration. In the context of our leaving and restrictions coming into play, it is hard to see how such a move would not be reciprocated towards our own citizens and their ability to live, work and study in the remaining European Union. The rights, opportunities and freedoms of young people for decades to come are very much on the ballot paper in this referendum.
Philip Davies
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that 16 and 17-year-olds should have a vote because the referendum will impact on young people for decades to come. It will presumably also have a massive impact on my 12 and 10-year-old sons. By the same logic, he will be arguing that they should have a vote, too. Why should the vote be extended just to 16 and 17-year-olds? He seems to be arguing for complete nonsense.
Mr McFadden
The argument has the benefit of not only principle, but recent experience. While I do not share the view of every member of the Scottish National party about all the virtues of last year’s referendum, extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds worked well. No one on either side of the debate in that referendum would argue that 16 and 17-year-olds did not understand the issues, engage in the debate and carry out their vote, whether for yes or for no, in a responsible manner. For those reasons, we believe that the vote in this referendum should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there are specific reasons for doing so on such a long-term constitutional decision such as this which go above and beyond the general debate about the voting age.
Stephen Gethins
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me and the leader of his party in Scotland that we also benefited from EU nationals having the vote in the independence referendum? It was a benefit then and could be a great benefit in this referendum as well.
Mr McFadden
I want to deal with that issue and the comments of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). The contribution made to this country by EU citizens is not disputed by me or any Opposition Front Bencher. What my hon. Friend said about that positive contribution and people paying taxes is absolutely true. It is also true of the many British people living and working in other EU member states. I completely agree with him that the argument is not about contribution, value, rewinding the clock or any of the other general points. The issue is about precedents in other referendums concerning such matters in other countries. We looked at the precedents and every referendum we found regarding accession to the European Union, joining the single currency or European treaty change was restricted to citizens of the relevant member state. That does not mean that they think that citizens of other countries living in that state do not make a contribution or pay taxes and are not valuable citizens, but that precedent has been set time after time when countries make significant decisions about their own future.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) failed to enunciate any specific undertakings, responsibilities or rights for voters elsewhere in the European Union who are British citizens. Can the shadow Minister share with the House any specific rights that would be circumscribed or removed as a result of a decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union?
Mr McFadden
I do not think that is clear at all. It is very uncertain what the rights of British people living in other member states would be in the event of the UK leaving the European Union. The hon. Gentleman raises an important question, which is one of many. I do not want to get sidetracked into the arguments for in and out tonight because I want to concentrate on the amendments. I do not think that anyone can say with confidence that there would be no effects on those citizens in the event of Britain leaving the European Union.
Mike Gapes
My right hon. Friend referred to precedents. Is it not the fact that in our elections and presumably in the referendum that took place in 1975, citizens of other countries who are not British citizens have participated, because we allow Commonwealth citizens, such as the citizens of Malta and Cyprus, and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to participate? There are problems with a definition that relates only to citizens of this country. I accept that there is a parliamentary franchise, which is the position that the Government have taken and something that my right hon. Friend will no doubt remind me of, but the position is messy and not straightforward.
Mr McFadden
My good and hon. Friend anticipates my reply. He is right that history comes into play here, and not always in a linear manner. The thing that unites citizens of the Republic of Ireland and the other examples he mentioned is that they are part of the parliamentary franchise. He is right to say that it is not strictly about citizenship, but about who can vote to elect a national Parliament.
It remains the case that throughout the European Union when countries have had referendums of this type they have not extended the vote to citizens of other countries. It is important to state that, because too often the debate becomes about the value of the contribution of those citizens to the UK. That is not in dispute at all. The issue is having consistency in how we take decisions on our nation’s future.
The exchanges that took place on broadcasting impartiality showed the dangers of those proposals. We should allow broadcasters to do their job. The Opposition do not favour the appointment of a broadcasting referee. I do not think that the finest moment in the Scottish referendum was the mass demonstration outside the headquarters of the BBC in Glasgow, calling for the head of the political editor. I hope that we do not see that in this referendum. I am therefore not in favour of proposals that seek to set up some kind of referee to go through BBC news bulletins and second-guess who should and should not be interviewed. We should allow our broadcasters to do their job.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to my new clause. He ought to take into account the fact that that the Secretary of State, in correspondence with the chairman of the BBC Trust and Ofcom—the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have seen it—has quite a lot to say about the necessity of improving the manner and process of adjudication. I will deal with that in a moment.
Mr McFadden
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but it will take more than a letter from the Secretary of State to the BBC to convince us that some kind of broadcasting referee is needed to adjudicate in this process.
Philip Davies
I am slightly confused by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be saying that there should be no adjudicator of the BBC’s impartiality. There already is one: it is called the BBC Trust. Is he saying that the BBC Trust should be abolished and that nobody should oversee the BBC’s output? He said that there should be no referee, but there is a referee. Is he saying that that should no longer be the case and that there should be a free-for-all at the BBC?
Mr McFadden
The fact that there are processes in place proves, rather than negates, my point. We have trusted broadcasters in this country and I do not agree with trying to intimidate them in any of these referendums. They should be allowed to do their job.
John Nicolson
Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of intimidation twice, is he aware that the father of the chapel at BBC Scotland said that far from being intimidated by the protesters, the main intimidation broadcasters felt was in fact from the Better Together campaign? The father of the chapel has no dog in the fight, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr McFadden
I will just say that if the hon. Gentleman takes a sense of pride from the demonstration that took place in Glasgow, he is entitled to his view, but that is certainly not something I would feel. I do not think it was the finest moment in that referendum campaign.
On the date of the referendum, we have said all along that it should not be held when other important elections are taking place. In Committee, the House accepted a Government amendment ruling out the date of the elections due in May 2016. Our amendment 15 would also rule out holding it on the date of the elections due on 4 May 2017. I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary has added his name to amendment 12, which would have the same effect.
Government amendment 23 deals with the new question wording put forward last week by the Electoral Commission. The Opposition respect the work of the Electoral Commission. Its job is to examine referendum questions and to comment on them. We therefore accept the change it suggests, but may I ask the Minister a couple of questions? Has he asked the Electoral Commission why it was appropriate to approve the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” on a yes/no basis without an alternative statement about remaining part of the United Kingdom being deemed necessary? Has he asked why a yes/no question was approved for the referendum on the alternative vote a few years ago, but is not deemed appropriate this time? Does he know if this decision should be considered a one-off for this referendum, or whether we should expect all future referendums to be a choice between two alternative statements, rather than yes/no in answer to a proposition, as has often been the case in the past? As I said, we accept the new wording, but would like to know more about the reasons behind it and the contrast in the approach taken with other recent referendums.
Amendment 16 calls for a White Paper to be published outlining the terms of any renegotiation settlement the Prime Minister has reached and the consequences for the UK of leaving the European Union. We believe this is important because the referendum needs to examine not only our current relationship with the EU but what leaving might mean for the UK. This, too, was touched on in Committee. The Minister for Europe indicated at that point that the Government might produce a White Paper. May I press him on this tonight? Has further thought gone into that, and can he tell the House definitively that that will be the case? This is important, because voters deserve as much information as possible about what the decision on Britain’s future means. This will in the end be a choice between two futures and there should be information about both of them. Our amendment states that such a White Paper should be published at least 10 weeks before the poll, well away from any of the discussions about purdah, which applies to the final 28 days of the referendum period. We are not calling for Government information to be sent to every household, or for this to be a last-minute intervention. We are saying that at least 10 weeks from the poll it will be important to have a proper view on remaining and leaving. What does anyone advocating leaving have to fear from the consequences of doing so being set out in a White Paper?
This section of the amendment paper contains many other amendments, a lot of them dealing with technical points about registration, reporting and other issues, but the amendments on 16 and 17-year-olds, the White Paper and my other comments touch on the issues that we believe we should focus on in the period available to us.
Sir William Cash
I begin by referring particularly to my amendment on the impartiality of broadcasters. It will be observed that I have not confined my remarks exclusively to the BBC. I am aware, having been on the Broadcasting Bill in the 1990s, that the broadcasters have different regimes: the BBC has a royal charter and the other broadcasters are regulated by statute. I introduced an amendment to the second of the two Broadcasting Bills to ensure impartiality that was accepted by the now Baroness Bottomley when she was Secretary of State. Impartiality is a fundamental necessity in relation to the function of broadcasters. Given that £3.7 billion—I think—of the BBC’s total annual income of over £5 billion comes from the taxpayer, I think the taxpayer has an absolute right to be certain that there is no manoeuvring and completely unbiased reporting and comment.
I was deeply disturbed, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, when I set up an inquiry into the BBC’s handling of European issues, against a background that I will explain in a moment, when the right hon. Lord Patten, then BBC Chairman, refused three times to appear before the Committee. I had effectively to require him to do so through the aegis of the Liaison Committee, which unanimously supported my proposal. I had exactly the same experience with Lord Hall, who also refused three times. I again had to use the aegis of the Liaison Committee to ensure he appeared, which eventually he did. On the other hand, Rona Fairhead, who is now the Chairman of the BBC Trust and who did not have the protection of being a Member of the House of Lords, did appear. The correspondence, which is set out in our report, is interesting to read. Whatever the excuses given, both Lord Hall and Lord Patten, as Members of the House of Lords, were in a position to refuse a summons from a Select Committee. This seemed completely extraordinary, and eventually, through the good offices of the then Chairman of the Liaison Committee and others, both of them did eventually acquiesce, although Lord Patten subsequently resigned because of ill health. The bottom line is that it was a very serious situation.
It has been claimed in evidence to us, which I am now slightly paraphrasing, that the BBC is effectively completely independent. This is simply not the case. First, it has to report to Parliament. Secondly, its representatives ought to appear in front of Select Committees. I have to say that they do appear before the Public Accounts Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but I am talking about the European dimension, which is my main concern and which is relevant to the conduct of the Bill, and to how the taxpayer will be affected if there is not complete impartiality
The late Hugo Young, whom I knew extremely well, wrote a book called “This Blessed Plot”. I knew him since we were about 10 years old. We both lived in Sheffield and more or less grew up together in our respective ways. We were not very close friends, but knew one another well enough. He went to Oxford as I did: he went to Balliol, I went to Lincoln. We used to speak to each other. He went on to become one of the most celebrated journalists in our time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
Yes, we are very keen to see the European-wide single market extend to services much more fully than it does at the moment. At the moment, we have a pretty well functioning single market in goods, which works to the great benefit of British industry. It is services that will provide the future growth for us and other European countries. It is a woefully underdeveloped single market when it comes to services.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Minister will have seen the stories in the press over the weekend suggesting that the Prime Minister was seeking to wind back the clock and make the opt-out from the social chapter part of the UK Government’s negotiating strategy over Europe. Can he tell the House, first, whether there is any truth in these stories and, secondly, whether he agrees that a bonfire of important protections for people at work, such as paid leave, maternity leave and rights for part-time workers, is not exactly the best way to build support for a yes vote in the forthcoming referendum?
Mr Lidington
I do not blame my hon. Friend for his question, but I would not think he really expects me to speculate about the outcome of negotiations—certainly not at this stage. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he is aiming to secure reforms in Europe that are good for the prosperity and democracy of Europe as a whole and that help the United Kingdom feel comfortable with its place in Europe—and that if he cannot get those reforms, he rules nothing out.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
On the minimum wage, the Minister’s party is late to the cause, but its conversion to support for our policy is nevertheless welcome.
On Greece, the agreement announced yesterday involves a third bail-out estimated to be worth €86 billion. Can the Minister confirm whether the European financial stability mechanism, which could involve £850 million of UK funds, will be used for that or for any short-term financing before the bail-out is agreed?
Mr Lidington
Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have already made it clear that there can be no question of British taxpayers being on the line for a deal to keep Greece in the euro. We have chosen not to join the eurozone: there has been a clear agreement by every one of the EU member states that we should not be liable for bail-outs of eurozone countries. It is for the eurozone countries to decide how they are going to organise the detail of the deal they struck earlier this week.