EU-Turkey Agreement

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

This country has a long and proud tradition of seeking to help people in dire need, wherever they are in the world, and build political stability in areas within what I might describe as our own neighbourhood. There have been plenty of examples in our history and European history where the failure to grip problems decisively led to worse conflict, human suffering and political problems for European Government than would have been the case had action been taken earlier.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

May I press my right hon. Friend further on the legality of the deal? As I understand it, the UN’s top official on refugees, Filippo Grandi, has expressed real concern about an arrangement that involves a blanket return of anyone from one country to another. I am particularly concerned because it looks as if the EU is trading one set of refugees in Greece for another in Turkey. I cannot see any guarantee in the arrangement that there will be any drop-off in numbers. In fact, I am beginning to find the arrangement very worrying.

[Mr Lidington]

As I said earlier, under this agreement, if it can be finalised next week, we will for the first time break the link between people getting into a boat or being rescued from a boat in the Aegean and their gaining the right to enter a resettlement or relocation process inside the EU. Instead, there will be an agreed legal route for people to go from the camps to European countries. That will provide a serious disincentive for people to place themselves in the ruthless and exploitative hands of the people traffickers.

On the matter of legality, the statement of the Heads of State or Government says in terms that whatever arrangement they might reach next week should be in accordance with both European and international law.

European Union Referendum Bill

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I was going to say that, having studied my hon. Friend’s letter and listened to the views expressed by him and many other hon. Members, we are bringing forward amendments that have three effects. First, we are proposing to reinstate section 125 of the 2000 Act and remove the blanket disapplication that is currently in the Bill. Secondly, we propose a narrow and limited exemption to permit the Government to carry out EU business as usual during the final 28 days of the campaign. Thirdly, we propose a power for exemptions to be made to the general prohibition in section 125, subject to an affirmative resolution being passed by both Houses.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

If I may finish this point, I will then give way.

In addition, those areas of Government activity that are permitted by Parliament will be subject to guidance from the Prime Minister to Ministers and from the Cabinet Secretary to civil servants based on the purdah guidance issued before previous referendum campaigns. The Cabinet Secretary said in evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that civil servants would not under any circumstances be permitted to support Ministers in doing things that Ministers were prohibited by statute from taking part in.

[Mrs Gillan]

Why is it necessary for the Government to make any amendment to section 125? The Electoral Commission has carried out statutory reviews of the referendums since 2004 and has not identified any significant concerns from the Government or any other party about the application of section 125. Why are the Government changing the playing field and insisting on modifications to something that has worked well and that they have used in the past?

[Mr Lidington]

We are bringing forward limited exemptions from section 125 because we believe—we have received firm legal advice on this—that if left completely unamended, it would pose genuine difficulties. I will go on to speak in some detail about this matter to respond to the concerns that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues have expressed. Before doing so, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

Most of my Committee would certainly agree that this is making the best of a bad job. We will, however, make some progress today if we succeed in restoring section 125 under amendment 4, which the Opposition have pledged to put to a vote should amendment 53 be defeated. I therefore advise my colleagues, very reluctantly, to vote against amendment 53, because while I think the Government have conceded the principle that there should be purdah, they have not accepted the fact of how it will apply. If they want to amend the Bill again in the other place, it would be worth while having that discussion, rather than accepting amendment 53.

[Mrs Gillan]

May I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he and the Committee have done? Although I am a member of the Committee, I was not able to participate, but he knows my views on the subject. Given that the Government have conceded that their original plans were not acceptable, does he agree that the elegant solution would be for them to withdraw amendment 53 and allow amendment 4 to go through? Purdah would then be reinstated and the Government would have the flexibility, through the solutions provided by the Committee, to produce the regulations for this House to scrutinise. Would not that restore the general public’s confidence in the referendum process?

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, I think that would reinforce the integrity with which the Government have approached the matter. They still have the option of amending the Bill again in the other place and bringing it back for discussion in this House, and of introducing regulations under new clause 10, so long as that happens at least four months before the date of the referendum. I am bound to say that there are plenty of options available to the Government. They do not need to divide the House on amendment 53.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The referendum was conducted on 3 March 2011. As Secretary of State at the time, I remained neutral, because I wanted the Welsh people to have confidence in the outcome, and that is what happened. There was a good result in favour of the Welsh Assembly Government having primary legislative powers, and there was no problem whatsoever with the period of purdah, either at UK Government level or at Welsh Government level.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I would like the Minister to try to cite a single example of purdah rules infringing the ability of the Minister with responsibilities in the areas affected by those referendums to act effectively.

I do not have much time, but I want to mention one interesting organisation, the European Commission for Democracy through Law, which is better known as the Venice Commission. It is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters. My interpretation of its guidelines on referendums is that they seem to be breached by the current UK Government’s stance on purdah. I would be very interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister’s comments on that. To help his team, the guidelines to which I am referring are the “Guidelines for Constitutional Referendums at National Level”, which state that

“public authorities (national, regional and local) must not influence the outcome of the vote by excessive, one-sided campaigning.”

In 2005 the commission published “Referendums in Europe: An Analysis of the Legal Rules in European States”, which noted approvingly that countries such as Ireland, Portugal and Latvia have strict provisions for electoral neutrality. Even the Russian Federation has neutrality rules. It would be interesting to know where we feature in that regard. Also, have the Government looked at the most recent code of practice on referendums from 2007, which makes it very clear that respect for equality of opportunity is crucial for referendums and elections?

The most recent endorsements of the proposals are in amendment 4 and in amendment 78, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, and which I have signed. It is worth noting that the Electoral Commission has stated:

“We have not identified problems with the workability of section 125 of PPERA applying to governments at previous referendums, and so we think that it should be workable in relation to this referendum.”

I am afraid that everything I see this evening will be a mess. The only really clean solution is to go back to purdah, as outlined in the debates when we reluctantly agreed 28 days, and we can do that with amendment 78. I would like to hear what the Minister’s legal advice is. The Speaker’s Counsel—this has been mentioned twice, but I will mention it a third time—has said clearly that making statements on European Councils and putting them in press releases is allowed because they do not infringe section 125. Let me just put that on the record. Section 125 refers to material that

“(a) provides general information about a referendum…

(b) deals with any of the issues raised by any question on which such a referendum is being held;

(c) puts any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question”.

As a layman, I just do not see how a Minister going to a Council, putting that into a statement and then repeating it in a press release can infringe section 125. I would really like the Minister to put the legal advice he has received in the Library.

I will bring my remarks to a swift conclusion. I do not like new clause 10. We will have to trust the Government to produce a list of exemptions. It is entirely black and white; we either accept or we reject. It would have been much better if the Government had put those exemptions in an amendment, as they have done with amendment 53. Why not consider the other exemptions in a full debate such as this, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it statutory instrument? I am convinced that the only real solution is to go back to the proper purdah that we thrashed out previously, which worked in previous referendums.

European Union Referendum Bill

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek the advice of the Chair on a matter that has come to my attention concerning the business that has been announced for next Tuesday: consideration of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3). As I understand it, that will extend to the Select Committee the power to consider amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in my constituency, particularly in Little Missenden, the Lee and Great Missenden.

Further, there will be consideration of the amendment to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in Great Missenden and Little Missenden. The Select Committee scrutinising the hybrid Bill is visiting my constituency on Monday morning at 9.15 to look at the effects of HS2 on an area of outstanding natural beauty. However, I understand that the Government are not planning to publish the additional provisions that would give this House, the Committee and my constituents the information on what additional provisions HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport will make for the Committee’s consideration.

Perhaps you could advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether that is the correct procedure for this House, because it seems to me that my constituents and this House should know about those additional provisions prior to the Committee’s visit, and prior to the business before the House next Tuesday. As I understand it, those additional provisions might not be available until the second week in July. Could the Speaker’s Office and the Chair assist me in any way on that procedure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Lady raises a matter of some concern. If the procedure under which the House is scrutinising that important Bill has not been properly followed, it is indeed a matter of concern. I am quite certain that Mr Speaker will wish to have the procedural elements of the right hon. Lady’s concerns investigated, so I will ensure that such an investigation is undertaken. She has eloquently made clear to the House her concerns, and I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have taken note of what she has said and that her concerns will be conveyed to the relevant Ministers. If there has been a procedural oversight, one would hope that it will be put right in time.

[Mrs Gillan]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for undertaking to investigate the procedure. Would it also be possible for the Chair to investigate whether those details could be made available to the Committee, to me and to my constituents prior to the visit at 9.15 on Monday morning?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that further point. I am quite sure, in undertaking an investigation, that if matters can be put right, they will be. I am quite sure that if they are not put right, the right hon. Lady will inform the House of it next week. We all look forward to seeing progress on the matter.

European Union Referendum Bill

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am glad to have the endorsement of those key figures from the Opposition Benches.

I want to touch on two points. First, I strongly advocate that the Prime Minister gets the maximum time for his negotiations, and I would like the referendum to be held in late 2017. Secondly, on the question, I favour two positives, rather than having one side as a negative.

The issue that really concerns me, however, is the suspension of purdah. I am afraid that I was dismayed to read the Foreign Secretary’s comments on ConservativeHome this morning, which are nonsense. The rules of purdah have developed steadily over 20 years. We have just fought a general election very satisfactorily, during which the wheels of government continued to turn without attempts to use taxpayers’ money to influence the way people voted.

I want to take the House through the long process that goes right back to 1996, when the Nairn report called for referendums to be brought within election law. The result of the Welsh referendum, when the Conservatives were in total disarray, was extraordinarily narrow: 6,721 was the majority across Wales, or 168 per seat. By any standards, that was a very marginal result. Particularly in north Wales, near where I come from, there was widespread dissatisfaction at the fact that the result was affected by very significant Government interventions.

In October 1998, Lord Neill of Bladen’s Committee came up with some absolutely key recommendations. I want to cite Vernon Bogdanor of Oxford University—he taught the Prime Minister a thing or two about politics, philosophy and economics—who, in a very telling contribution, said:

“I hope also the Committee will make some suggestions about referendums because one purpose of a referendum…is to secure legitimacy for decisions where Parliament alone can not secure that legitimacy. For that legitimacy to be secured, the losers have to feel that the fight was fairly conducted.”

That issue is absolutely fundamental: the British public have a real sense of fairness, and if they have a sense that this referendum is rigged, the result will not be legitimate.

On that basis, the very distinguished figures on the Neill Committee stated:

“We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the government of the day to state its views and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns, just as they do during general election campaigns. But we also believe that, just as in general election campaigns, neither taxpayers’ money nor the permanent government machine—civil servants, official cars, the Government Information Service, and so forth—should be used to promote the interests of the Government side of the argument. In other words, referendum campaigns should be treated for these purposes in every way as though they were general election campaigns.”

They also said:

“We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign, especially when, as will usually be the case, itself it is a party to the campaign. We believe governments should not participate in referendum campaigns in this manner, just as it would be thought to be wholly inappropriate during a general election campaign for the government to print and distribute, at the taxpayers’ expense, literature setting out government policy.”

Their recommendation 89 stated:

“The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly ‘factual’ literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case.”

I stress that very senior, respected figures on both sides of the House have participated in this long debate over the past 20 years. In an Adjournment debate on the Neill report on 9 November 1998, there was a significant contribution by the then Home Secretary Jack Straw, but, on the Conservative side, the now Lords Fowler and MacGregor of Pullham Market were absolutely clear in calling for full implementation of Neill. Sir Norman Fowler, as he then was, said:

“However, we accept the findings in the report and believe that legislation based on it should be introduced with the proviso that it should implement all the major proposals. There should be no cherry picking of one proposal, leaving the others to one side.”—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 59.]

Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was on 10 January 2000, introduced by Jack Straw. Interestingly, Mr Speaker, there was a significant intervention, at column 36, by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Only you could use such a phrase as this:

“I am sure that the House has listened to the right hon. Gentleman’s historical exegesis with great interest.”

Very pertinently, as the first person to raise the issue of time, you went on:

“If he is against the purchase of votes, how does he justify promoting a Bill that will allow the issue by Ministers of official press releases in support, for example, of the abolition of our national currency, while regulating the activities of campaigning organisations in any such referendum for up to six months, thereby preventing the supporters of national self-government from effectively arguing their case?”—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 36.]

That was a most pertinent intervention because the issue of time reappeared in Committee.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has sadly left his seat, argued hard on the amendments, and, Mr Speaker, you and I participated on the issue of special advisers. Respected figures such as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and a number of us who have held this party together through the long winter of opposition, all made the point that 28 days was not sufficient. We were absolutely clear that we did not like Jack Straw’s proposals on 28 days. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said:

“we are worried that the 28-day period on its own will be insufficient. The particular mischief is that there will be a preliminary period, in which the campaign that will be set up in opposition to the view that the Government want to put forward, but which they will subsume into their own campaign organisation, is not up and running because it has not received validation from the commission.”—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1062.]

Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, another distinguished Conservative, said:

“I believe that purdah should apply during the whole referendum period. I consider that to be fair and equitable.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 884.]

A helpful intervention came from the Electoral Commission yesterday:

“We are therefore disappointed and concerned that the Bill includes provision to remove the restrictions on the use of public funds by governments and others to promote an outcome right up until voters cast their vote.”

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Paterson]

No, I want to finish my comments because other Members want to speak.

The question we have to ask is why this power, which has been debated by serious Members on both sides of the House over a 20-year period, resulting in what Conservative Members thought was the very unsatisfactory compromise of 28 days, is being lifted arbitrarily. We have fought a number of general election campaigns during which cars continued to be made, cows continued to be milked and the world did not stop.

It absolutely must be taken on board by the Government that if the British people sense that there is no fairness and that the referendum is being rigged against them, because a deluge of local government, national Government and, above all, European government money and propaganda can be dropped on them—there will not just be election material, as the Foreign Secretary said, but reports, briefs and analyses on the terrifying consequences of the vote going in a certain way—it will be unacceptable and will go down extremely badly with the British people.

What really worries me is that this extraordinary, incredibly important event in our history could be seen as illegitimate, and that whatever system of government for this country emerges after the referendum might not be seen as valid. I appeal to the Foreign Secretary to go back, talk to the Prime Minister and remove this arbitrary suspension of the process of purdah that has been thrashed out over 20 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, who speaks for Vauxhall. I agree with almost every word she said. I have been sitting next to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and, although he is a much-revered Member and a man I have known for a long time, I am afraid I cannot agree with his remarks on this occasion.

I am very pleased to support and welcome the Second Reading of this Bill. For almost my entire adult life, Europe seems to have dominated the debate: whether it has been de Gaulle’s efforts to keep us out—in some ways it is a shame they did not succeed; the referendum, in which I voted yes originally; or indeed the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty. That was an exhausting process and, as a signatory with many colleagues to the “fresh start” early-day motion, one that is seared on my memory of my first term in the House.

I welcome this opportunity to clarify our relationship with the other 27 members of the EU, to recalibrate it and then to put it to the people of this country in a vote. It is quite right that we should re-examine that relationship, not least because, at a time when we are tightening the purse strings to pay off this country’s overdraft, we should look at the money we pay in subscription to that expensive club, which was about £9.8 billion on the most recent examination. To get a perspective on that, I was looking at what we contribute to the UN regular budget and to the UN peacekeeping budget, and they amount to £85 million and £301 million. I welcome the fact that the Government have got the review of the balance of competences, which has given us the necessary audit information to move forward, and I hope that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister can produce the reforms that this country and the institution of Europe need to make that institution and our membership fit for purpose. After all, 200 million more people have joined the EU since we signed up to membership of that club.

I have some concerns not just about the Bill but about what might happen. I am worried that this debate will dominate our political landscape for the next two years. It must not override and interfere with our domestic agenda so ably set out in the winning manifesto that took us to election victory, and neither should it be used to split our party, as it has done in the past; there has always been a range of opinions about the EU in our party. We should have an objective negotiation and a plan of action set out by the Government, and then I hope that the leadership will allow individual MPs to promote their views without fear or favour, no matter their rank within or without government.

The timing will be crucial. I urge the Government to lay out more clearly their thinking about timetabling. My experience with the Welsh referendum was that the Welsh Government were determined not to have the referendum at the same time as the elections for the Welsh Assembly. I hear what SNP Members are saying, and I believe that there are some valid arguments to be deployed. In fact, I believe that the referendum is so important that perhaps it should be a stand-alone referendum. I hope that the Government will listen to the views laid out by others with whom I do not agree with politically in any way, shape or form, but with whom I am willing to make common cause when I think they are being sensible.

I hope that the Government will resist the call for the triple lock, quadruple lock—or whatever we are going to call it now. I asked the House of Commons Library to look at the disaggregation by UK constituent nation of the EU budget contributions and receipts. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that it clearly shows that although the average cost across the UK in the last year for which figures were available was £48 per head, when that is disaggregated, we see that the real burden falls on England. The cost of membership is £72 per capita in England, whereas in Scotland, it is a mere £2; in Wales minus £74; and in Northern Ireland minus £160. So the devolved nations, which are effectively featherbedded against the real cost of membership, should not be allowed to slant the results of any referendum by demanding an individual country lock on any result.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

Basing an outcome purely on a selfish, regional—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot have two people on their feet at the same time. If the right hon. Lady does not want to give way, the right hon. Gentleman will just have to wait a little longer.

[Mrs Gillan]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Alex Salmond]

I will not go into featherbedding and 30 years of oil revenues, but I do wonder where this argument is taking the right hon. Lady. If she believes the referendum should be based on financial contribution, by extension her argument would mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get a vote at all. Is she aware that 3.5% of the population, or 13 states, of the United States of America can block a constitutional amendment there?

[Mrs Gillan]

This is not the United States of America, and the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a vote as members of the UK—and long may they remain so.

We will need clear and straightforward messages, because, as is obvious from the debate so far, there will be myriad voices in the referendum campaign, and the options will not be easy for the man in the street to understand. However, I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) about the purdah. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, I ran a successful referendum on more devolution of powers to Wales, but I remained strictly neutral, because I thought that that was the right way to behave, and indeed it was a successful referendum and nobody felt that I had slanted it from my position as Secretary of State.

It is also important that the necessary intricacies of article 50 of the treaty on European Union be spelt out to people. On both sides of the argument, we need to know what would govern the processes and negotiations of unilateral withdrawal. However, the terms of engagement in and around the referendum period with other European institutions must also be made clear. For example, do the Front-Bench team know what plans any of the devolved Governments within the UK have for spending money on this referendum, or indeed what plans the European Commission or other European institutions have? I think we might find money being spent from other directions that will slant the results of the referendum.

I do not share the views of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) on the franchise for 16-year-olds. I was at a school in my constituency when I expressed that opinion, and I thought I would be out of kilter with what they thought, but—surprisingly—many of those young people told me they would not be confident about making the decisions necessary in a general election or referendum campaign. I would, therefore, like the franchise to remain as it is.

We have been a member of the EU for many years, but for the past couple of decades it has been clear that the British public have fallen out of love with it. It is also clear, however, that we cannot stop being European—and nor do many want to stop. I hear from people that they want to reverse the feeling of impotence that has developed over the increasingly centralised European decision-making process. Specifically, they want a fair deal in Europe without disproportionate and disadvantaging regulatory costs. At a time when we are heralding devolution so widely at home, we need to see this principle applied firmly to our EU relationship.

The Bill is about an internal process and, as such, does not constitute the real substance of this debate, but before we can get on with putting our renegotiated position into a shop window for people to examine, we need to pass the Bill so that people know that the process will be fair and not loaded in favour of our remaining in an institution that has seemed to load so many processes in its own favour over recent years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is through full and frank engagement that we can get our message across. Dialogue with Iran has increased. We must ensure that Iran not only talks the talk, but that its actions speak as loud as its words.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the level of public demand for a renegotiated settlement between the UK and the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I assess that mainstream opinion in the UK is that the EU is not currently delivering for Britain. We need to fix that problem, and only the Conservatives have a clear plan to do so. We will negotiate a new settlement with our EU neighbours, and one that works for Britain. We will then put that new settlement to the British people in an in/out referendum before the end of 2017. Only a Conservative Government will make that commitment. Labour and the Liberal Democrats do not want change, and UKIP cannot deliver it.

[Mrs Gillan]

The Conservative party is the only sane and significant party to guarantee, following a renegotiation, an in/out referendum on our membership of the EU. How many countries has the Foreign Secretary visited to discuss that renegotiation, what levels of engagement has he had, and is there a positive desire for change in other states that matches ours?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s three questions. The Foreign Secretary is a specialist in providing a pithy answer on a postcard.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The House of Commons will deliver a mandate for a referendum that empowers the people of this country to have their say.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that already under this Government we have had a referendum in Wales about further powers, as well as the referendum in Scotland, but when it comes to these international matters that affect the whole of the United Kingdom and British citizens beyond our shores, we have yet to give the people the choice? Is it not absolutely right that we should press on with this? If the House had a sense of fairness it would pass the Bill in short order.

[Mr Hammond]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The future of our relationship with the European Union is surely the most important strategic question facing this country today, and it is a question on which we should trust the instincts of the British people.

We should never forget, nor allow the public to forget, the particular responsibilities of the Labour party in all this. The treaties of Amsterdam and Nice had at least appeared in its manifestos before they were ratified without a referendum, but the Lisbon treaty appeared in no manifesto and was pushed through without the British public ever being allowed to have any say on it at all. Under the Labour Government’s 13 years of misgovernment, as well as letting spending, borrowing and immigration rip, their incompetent mishandling of Britain’s relationship with Europe decisively alienated the British people from the European project that they so cherish. Who, uniquely, among the large countries of Europe, failed to apply any kind of control over migration from the accession countries? Labour. Who signed Britain up for eurozone bail-outs? Labour. Who gave away £7 billion of our rebate with nothing in return? Labour. And who was the Europe Minister responsible at the time? The shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The clarity of choice they will have in 2017 is a clear body of reform on the table. They will know what the future European Union will look like and will decide whether or not they wish to be in it.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Unlike some of the younger Members of the House, I am old enough to have voted in the last European referendum—[Interruption.] Unbelievable, I know. For me, the European Union has changed fundamentally since I voted for us to join that institution. However, my constituents in Chesham and Amersham often ask me whether I am confident that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government will have completed those renegotiations by 2017. Would he like to confirm that now so that we know that when we go into the referendum we will definitely have a full agenda for reform on which to vote?

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right to ask that question. Of course, the fact of the referendum—the fact of this Bill—will drive the timetable of that agenda in Europe. We are lighting a fire under the European Union by this piece of legislation. We are setting off a process that politicians and Governments do not have the power to stop, and that will give us a very powerful weapon in our armoury.

Palestine and Israel

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention but—if he will bear with me—I hope to be able to destroy that argument comprehensively.

I am firmly of the opinion that the day will come when the two-state solution, which I believe is supported by all parties on both sides of the House, will collapse and Israel will face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights. As soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished. Hon. Members might think that that is controversial, but they are not really my words but those of the then Israeli Prime Minister in 2007.

The two-state solution has been Britain’s stated policy aim for decades, but in politics talk often comes cheap. I have participated in numerous debates in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber where I have heard speeches delivered by Back Benchers from both sides of the House and from Ministers at the Dispatch Box stating our commitment to a two-state solution.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

May I say that many people support the two-state solution? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that more than 300 Israeli figures signed a letter on Sunday urging this Parliament to vote in favour of the motion, and they included former Ministers, ex-diplomats and activists in Israel?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. As a friend of Palestine, I earnestly believe that recognition of the state of Palestine is the only way forward, and that it should be the choice of all true friends of Israel. All parties should come together on that basis. Given our commitment to a two-state solution and the fact that an overwhelming majority of 134 nations voted in favour of Palestinian statehood, I was hugely disappointed by our decision to abstain on the issue at the UN General Assembly. We should regret that decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I agree.

[Mrs Gillan]

rose—

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Given the very short time left to me, I will race ahead, if my right hon. Friend will allow me.

We have accepted as a principle in Government that eventually there should be recognition of a Palestinian state, so this is ultimately a matter of timing and circumstance. The House will have been deeply moved by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway). So many of us go on a personal journey on this issue, as I have done over the past 20 years. Recognition of statehood is not a reward for anything; it is a right. The notion that it would put an end to negotiations, or somehow pre-empt or destroy them, is patently absurd; Palestine would still be occupied, and negotiations would need to continue, both to end that occupation and to agree land swaps and borders. Refusing Palestinian recognition is tantamount to giving Israel the right of veto.

When I was a Minister of State at the Department for International Development, we supported the Palestinian Authority; over so many years, it was there, a responsible organisation. It is not their fault that they are occupied, and so often have their revenues withheld by the Israelis; if they were not withheld, Palestine would not need a penny of British aid. Recognising Palestine is not about recognising a Government. It is states that are recognised, not Governments. We are talking about recognition of the right to exist as a state. This is not about endorsing a state that has to be in perfect working order. It is the principle of recognition that the House should agree to today.

[Mrs Gillan]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will run out of time, so no; forgive me.

Some in this House clearly think that to support Israel, they must oppose or delay such recognition, but that is not the case. By opposing Palestinian recognition, they are undermining the interests of both Israel and Palestine. It is only through recognition that we can give Palestinians the dignity and hope that they need to engage in further negotiations and to live in a country that they can properly call their own. Let us remember a fundamental principle, on which I will make a more detailed speech tomorrow morning: settlements are illegal, and the endorsement of the Israelis’ right to reject recognition is tantamount to the endorsement of illegal settlement activity.

A lot of people feel intimidated when it comes to standing up for this issue. It is time we did stand up for it, because almost the majority of Palestinians are not yet in their 20s. They will grow up stateless. If we do not give them hope, dignity and belief in themselves, it will be a recipe for permanent conflict, none of which is in Israel’s interests. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who speaks on every occasion on this subject, only ever catalogues the violence on one side, and this is a tit-for-tat argument. Today, the House should do its historic duty.

Gaza

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks passionately and sincerely. I can imagine him saying what he said to the face of Hamas. He is right that if the cycles of violence go on, the prospect of peace in the middle east will get further away. That is after an immense effort has been made in recent years to bring the sides closer together and to work on a final status agreement. His warnings should be well heeded by all in the middle east, and they show that our work on the peace process has to go on.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

While I condemn the violence on both sides of the border, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that, despite the deteriorating situation, the Israelis are still facilitating the much needed delivery of aid. I understand that a large amount of food and fuel went into Gaza last week. What assurances has he had that the flow of aid will continue and will not be stopped by Israel?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that aid is delivered into Gaza. Our message to Israel is that it is important to go further in easing the restrictions on Gaza, including on the movement of commercial goods and persons to and from the Gaza strip. We have not had any assurances about future aid. She raises a very important point. We encourage Israel to do more, rather than less, to ensure that aid is received and that other normal legitimate movements can take place.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I accept my hon. Friend’s wise words. I agree that we need to learn from experience. We need to learn the lessons of not just the Welsh referendum, but the 1975 referendum on British membership of the European Community. I shall say more about that in the next part of my speech.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

May I correct what was said by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)? There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Welsh referendum campaign. It was executed beautifully, and allowed the people of Wales to make up their own minds and decide.

[Mike Gapes]

I assume that I would not be in order if I began to discuss the Welsh referendum in response to those two interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker.