Aleppo/Syria: International Action

John Redwood Excerpts

Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which I will come to directly.

The terrified civilians in Aleppo are of course sophisticated, educated people from what was one of the great cities of the world. With 2 million people, it is 6,000 years old and has treasured Islamic civilisation and artefacts within it. A senior Aleppo resident, terrified, said this morning:

“The human corridor needs to happen. If the British Government is serious about fighting terror, they can’t ignore state terror. Doing so creates so many more enemies and if they offer but empty words, nobody will ever believe them in future.”

Ten years ago, this country, along with the entire international community, embraced the responsibility to protect, a doctrine that said that nation states great and small would not allow Srebrenicas, Rwandas and other appalling events such as those in Darfur to take place again. That responsibility was signed up to with great fanfare and embraced by all the international community, great and small. Yet here we are today witnessing—complicit in—what is happening to tens of thousands of Syrians in Aleppo.

That is the situation today. I come to my second point, which is to put specific actions to the Government, which I know they will wish to consider. First, there is an urgent need for humanitarian teams to be deployed and given unfettered access to Aleppo once Government forces there are in control. That is essential if we are to avoid the same circumstances as Srebrenica—the precise point that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has just made. There is a very serious danger, from the position I have described, that such events are already taking place, so it is essential that those teams are deployed.

We need to get food, medicine, fuel and medical services into east Aleppo immediately. We also need to have independent humanitarian eyes and ears on the ground, not only to give confidence to terrified civilians—who, I remind the House, are caught out in the open in temperatures that are predicted to fall below minus 4° tonight—but to avoid possibly false allegations of war crimes and breaches of international humanitarian law by Government forces and their military associates. It is not easy to see why Russia and Syria would wish to resist that, unless they do not wish the world to know or see the actions that they are now taking in Aleppo.

The second action that I hope the Government will evaluate and support is organising the evacuation to comparative safety, in United Nations buses and lorries, under a white flag and in a permissive environment, of the people who are wounded or have been caught up in this terrible catastrophe. It is clear that the United Nations has the capacity, with available vehicles, to move north up to the Castello road and then west to Bab al-Hawa, near Reyhanli, on the border, which Clare Short, the distinguished former International Development Secretary, and I visited earlier this year. There are hospitals in Bab al-Hawa, and there are significant refugee facilities on the Syrian side of the border. They are easily resupplied via the Reyhanli crossing by international humanitarian actors, and that route out of the nightmare of eastern Aleppo should be made available as fast as possible.

Britain is in a pivotal position at the United Nations to try to convene an acceptance that that action should be taken. We are hugely respected on humanitarian matters at the UN. Matthew Rycroft, the permanent representative to the UN5 on the Security Council, is extremely effective in what he does. The current National Security Adviser, Mark Lyall Grant, a key United Nations operative for many years, has great convening power, and there are senior UK officials at the United Nations. The head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien, who worked with me at the Department for International Development, plays a pivotal role. The British foreign service is respected and admired around the world, and, in supporting Staffan de Mistura and Jan Egeland, has an absolutely pivotal role to play in trying to convene the consensus that is now urgently required.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a powerful and important speech. Does he think the Syrian regime would allow those very necessary humanitarian interventions without counter-attack and disaster?

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes, I believe that if the Russians could be persuaded at this point that they have nothing to lose from allowing international humanitarian actors into Aleppo, the Syrians would agree. If they do not, the world must ask why they wish to hide from purely humanitarian action.

Aleppo and Syria

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

That is an extremely good point, and I shall come to it shortly.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is not the tragedy of Syria that none of us can imagine a future Syrian Government who would have both the power to take charge and the wisdom to govern in a peaceful and unifying way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I shall come to that point as well, but let me say now that the whole purpose of the efforts of the International Syria Support Group—and those of other elements, under Staffan de Mistura—is to answer the question that my right hon. Friend has so eloquently posed.

The fifth failure lies in the surrounding countries, particularly Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Although they have acted heroically in dealing with the extraordinary number of people who have fled across the borders, often under gunfire, there has been a lack of support from the international community for countries whose populations have ballooned, given that one in three of the people in Jordan and Lebanon has fled from Syria. Britain has undoubtedly done her stuff. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for International Development is present; she can be extremely proud of the Department that she has inherited for the outstanding work that Britain has done in helping refugees in the surrounding countries—more, I might add, than has been done by the whole of the rest of the European Union.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I always find the hon. Gentleman’s interventions entertaining to say the least, but may I return to the subject of today’s debate?

Many people have seen this debate going on within the Westminster bubble among the Establishment. They do not feel involved, and many suspect that what they are witnessing is an unseemly battle for the succession in the Conservative party rather than a considered debate about the future interests of our country.

Much of the media coverage of the internal Tory strife has drowned out other parties. Polling suggests that many of our own Labour supporters are unclear about Labour’s position. So let people be absolutely clear: as the motion before us today unambiguously states, Labour is for remain. Today’s motion spells it out. It is about jobs, investment, trade with our largest market and the protection of the employment rights of workers so they can secure the benefits of participation in that market, but for many of us it is also about creating another Europe—a Europe that is more democratic, that promotes social justice as well as prosperity, that is more equal and sustainable economically and environmentally. We must do nothing now that jeopardises our European future.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the shadow Chancellor share my concern about all those many cases where a UK manufacturing plant shut down and job losses have been very great, only to see new investment made in another EU country benefiting from specific and general grants and soft loans from the EU?

[John McDonnell]

My fear is that if we vote for Brexit we will cut ourselves off from the opportunity of that financial support as well, and that many other companies will move out. It is only courteous to also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his 65th birthday today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He certainly did not hear me claiming that the EU was uniquely imperfect. It is just another imperfect institution among very many, including our own Government, I am certain.

I know that we are safer because we work with other EU member states to tackle the threats of terrorism and organised crime, and I know that we are better off for being part of a market of more than 500 million consumers, with the combined economic weight of a quarter of the world’s GDP, when negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world. I want to dwell on that point, because it is fundamental. We said back in 2010 that our economic security and our national security are two sides of the same coin, and it remains true today. Without economic security, there is no national security. How could we be safer if we could not afford to invest in our nation’s security and defence? How could we be stronger and more influential if our economy was shrinking?

[John Redwood]

How can the Foreign Secretary say that we are more secure and better off? If we take the fishing industry, for example, the number of fishermen has halved since we joined the EU and the industry has been under a common fisheries policy that has driven us into import dependence on other countries.

[Mr Hammond]

I say that because I take a holistic view. I am looking at the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, taking into account all the pluses and minuses of our EU membership—yes, there are negatives as well as positives—balancing those arguments and reaching a conclusion about the net benefit to this country of being a member of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I do agree. Just as Scotland is a medium-sized European state, so the UK is a medium-sized global state.

[John Redwood]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the trade of a number of countries that are neither a member of the EU nor have any special arrangements with it has grown considerably faster than our trade with the EU from inside it?

[Stephen Gethins]

The right hon. Gentleman oddly suggests that our trade will grow more once we leave this enormous trading bloc, with all the benefits that come with it. Like all his colleagues in the leave campaign, he is failing to face up to facts.

The EU makes us healthier. We gain from healthcare across the European Union whereby citizens from the EU can benefit from our healthcare just as we benefit from theirs. There is research that makes us healthier. Scotland is currently taking the lead role on dementia research, involving 15 organisations in 11 member states. I am proud of the role that we play in that, just as other member states are contributing to our health through their research.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Prosperity, not austerity, is what we want, and that will be so much easier to achieve when we cast off the shackles of the European Union. It is an institution renowned for its gross austerity and the damage it has done throughout great swathes of our continent, driving young people into unemployment, preventing school leavers from getting any job at all, and starving public services of cash. Those policies have done terrible damage in Greece and in parts of Italy, Spain and Portugal. It is good that we have some freedom to distance ourselves from those policies, and we will have even more freedom when we take back control of our money, taxes and budgets.

It was bizarre to wake up this morning to press comments that there would need to be a post-Brexit-vote Budget. I am going to wait to see what the British public really want in a vote that is still to be decided, but the Government seem to have conceded defeat by saying that they would launch an austerity Budget if the British people dare to vote for their freedom and democracy. There is absolutely no need to do that, and I reassure the British people that there would be absolutely no chance of them getting such a Budget through the House of Commons. There is no enthusiasm for it from the SNP or the Labour party, and after Brexit many Conservative MPs will vote for lower taxes and more public spending, because that is what we will be able to afford as a result of the Brexit bonus, or dividend, when we get back the £10 billion a year that we send to the EU and currently do not get back.

[Simon Hoare]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John Redwood]

No, I cannot. I have to be tight on time, because others wish to speak.

Those who want to remain so hate the idea that there is going to be a dividend, because they know that that money is taken away from us and is not used for the priorities of their electors and their local health and education services. Within the European Union, we are not legally allowed to get rid of VAT on fuel—a much hated imposition that hits those on lower incomes far more than others—but we would be free to do so as soon as the British people vote to leave, if that is their wish.

The issue of our membership of the EU needs to be looked at over the longer term. All of the gloomy and bogus forecasts by those who wish to remain are based on the assumption that the single market is a precious and virtuous body to which we can belong, which has fuelled our prosperity and manufacturing growth so far, and which would no longer be available to us if we left. Of course, they are wrong on both counts. Our membership of the single market has not helped our manufacturing. When we leave, we will still have access to the single market, just as 165 other countries around the world have access to it daily without being members, without having to accept the freedom-of-movement provisions and without having to accept the taxes and the laws that are imposed on us on a wide range of issues that have nothing to do with trade whatsoever.

The single market, when it was introduced, did not accelerate our growth rate or our exports in manufacturing in any way. The Government did a very good long-term survey, which covered the period 1951 to 2007. They started in the stable year ’51—it was necessary to leave out the bit immediately after the war, when there was a big demobilisation effect—and went up to 2007. The figures for manufacturing today are identical to those from 2007, because unfortunately we had a deep manufacturing recession in ’08-’09 and we are just about getting back to the ’07 levels. The survey showed that between 1951 and 1972, before we joined the European Union, we had manufacturing output growth of 4.4% per annum; and that since 1972, during the long period of time for which we have been in the thing, there has been absolutely no manufacturing growth at all.

If we look at individual sectors, we can see that prior to joining the European Union, our metals sector grew at 3% per annum, but it has declined at 6% per annum since we have been in the European Union. Our food and drink industry grew at 5.6% per annum before we joined, and it has fallen at 1% per annum ever since. Our textiles sector grew at 2.6% per annum when we were out of the EU, and it has fallen by 6% per annum since we joined. We used to have a 45 million tonne a year steel industry, thanks to massive national investment and the Labour Government of the ’60s, but it now produces only 11 million tonnes. We had a 400,000 tonne aluminium industry when we joined the EU, but we have only a 43,000 tonne industry left. We had a 20 million tonne cement industry when we joined the EU, but we have a 12 million tonne industry left. We had a 1 million tonne a year fishing industry when we joined the EU, and we have only a 600,000 tonne industry now.

Some of those industries, particularly the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend the Minister well knows, have been gravely damaged by our EU membership. EU rules in the common fisheries policy, and the quota allocations to other countries against the interests of our own fisherpeople, have caused the number of fishermen in our country to halve during our membership of the European Union. Our experience of manufacturing as a member of the European Union has been far from benign. High energy prices, rigged subsidies, arrangements that help other countries more than ours and a policy, quite often, of providing subsidy, grant and cheap loans to manufacturers literally to transfer plants from Britain to other continental countries have been part of the background to the dreadful erosion of our manufacturing.

It is fair to look at manufacturing because, as I think remain campaigners always say, there is no full single market in services. The single market was completed in goods by 1992. We have experienced that single market since 1992, and it has not made any beneficial difference whatsoever to our manufacturing. The deep-set decline that has characterised our period of membership of the European Union was not turned around by the introduction of those single market measures. Fortunately, our services have not yet been damaged by the growing regulation within the EU, but the evidence from what happened to manufacturing is not encouraging when we look at what might happen to our services. There have already been many cases in which the City of London, defending its interests as a financial services provider, has found itself at variance with incoming European rules. The matter is settled by qualified majority vote, so being around the table is of no use to us because we get outvoted. If we dare to take it further, we get European Court judgments against us for our alleged infringement of the rules.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Redwood]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you are very keen that I keep these remarks very short. This is an important case that does not get heard in the House, so for once I will not be able to take interventions.

The position is quite simple. Outside the European Union we will continue to trade fully with it, as we do today. We who want to leave the European Union are not proposing a wholesale removal of rules and regulations. One of the genuine benefits of the single market, as has been pointed out, is that there are common rules and regulations for trading with all countries. The great news is that we will get the benefit of that whether we are in or out. The Americans, who have grown their trade with the EU more quickly than we have done from within, get the benefit of that part of the single market because they have to supply only to one specification, just as we do from within. Many of the common rules and standards are informed by global ones, but we have been kicked off the global bodies by the European Union. Outside the European Union we would have the advantage of getting back our seat, vote and voice on the global bodies, so we would have more influence at the top table in return for no longer being part of the EU.

For prosperity not austerity, for control of our own taxes, for spending our own money, for providing growth by spending that extra money, and for trading freely with Europe without all the restrictions, controls and arguments, vote leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clegg]

Being called “off beam” by the hon. Gentleman is quite something. He and I share a passion for Sheffield, however, so I shall put that aside for a minute. In the economy of this country, 78% of GDP is generated by services. Services are barely affected by taxes, tariffs and levies, but British lawyers, British engineers, British architects and British creative industries trying to sell their wares, as they successfully do—we are a services economy superpower in Europe—are affected by precisely the rules that are thrashed out in Brussels, in discussions that we would be excluded from if we left the European Union.

As the right hon. Member for Wokingham acknowledged, the completion of the single market in services is, indeed, a work in progress. We are the chief author and architect of the success in that area. Why on earth would anyone walk away from the construction of a building of which they were the chief architect and the chief beneficiary? A 7% increase in our GDP is the calculated improvement in the economic performance of this country if we complete the single market in services, but the Brexit camp want to walk away from that.

[John Redwood]

Why was there no improvement in manufacturing activity with the single market?

[Mr Clegg]

Dare I say it, but even by the fairly specious standard of the statistics bandied about by both sides in this campaign, the way the right hon. Gentleman used statistics was spectacularly misleading. From listening to the Brexit campaign, people would think that the club we have been a member of for 43 years has been the fount of all misery. How come we are still an independent, free and broadly speaking prosperous nation if we have been a member of it for over four decades? I simply think that that applies to his example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the more than 35 hon. Members from both sides of the House who have made speeches. I cannot mention them all, but I shall highlight a few of the points that were made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) talked about anger at cuts to public services but said that there is no way that leaving the European Union will magically solve that problem. My hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) said that 160,000 jobs in the north-east are reliant on trade with the European Union, with much that comes through European structural funds that create opportunities for jobs, start-ups, and their local economies.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) talked about concerns about the impact on our manufacturing industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) noted the total failure of the leave campaign to set out how any new trade agreement could work.

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Seema Malhotra]

I am afraid I do not have time to give way.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said that our rights are safer if we stand together, and that we should not risk those rights being jeopardised by those who see them as red tape. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said that we need to stay in the single market for our economic prosperity and security, that we should not risk a race to the bottom on working conditions, and that the vote next week is a choice of austerity versus prosperity and influence versus irrelevance.

We are a proud nation—proud of our history, our diversity and our place in the world as a nation that has been at the forefront of progress in science and technology and in politics. I am proud of our place at the heart of the European Union. The vote next week is not just about keeping the world as it is today—it is about how we stand tall with our neighbours in shaping and creating the world of tomorrow, and facing the global challenges of sharing our prosperity and tackling the issues on the environment, tax avoidance and humanitarian crises. Those challenges will not go away if we leave the European Union; instead, we will have fewer allies as we seek to confront them. For our trade, manufacturing and employment, we gain from being members of the European Union. That is why Labour is pro-Europe and the party for reform in Europe. Our message is based on opportunity, hope and fairness—opportunities for future generations and for our economy and society from our membership, now and in the future.

I spoke to a man in my constituency who was conflicted about his vote. His parents were planning to vote leave, but then he asked himself what that would mean for his children. He thought about his children’s opportunities and decided it was vital to get his parents to think again about what their vote would mean for their grandchildren. Why are young people so positive about the European Union? It is because they cherish the freedom to travel, to learn and to experience what Europe and the world have to offer. When young people think about migration, they can see it also in terms of the opportunities it brings for them. Yes, we recognise that immigration needs fair rules and proper controls, but we cannot deny the benefits. Over the past decade, migrants from new EU member countries have contributed £20 billion more in taxes than they have taken in public services and benefits. More than 52,000 EU migrants work in the NHS.

We understand people’s legitimate concerns about the threat to their jobs from the undercutting of wages and the pressure on public services, but that is why we need stronger laws against bad employers and the migration impact fund, which should never have been cut. We need more houses and access to skills and apprenticeships.

I have no truck with those who say that we should choose between the Commonwealth and the European Union. That is absolutely a false choice. When the people and leaders of the Commonwealth nations say that it is in our interest to remain, we should listen to them. Likewise, when young entrepreneurs say that being in the EU has given their businesses the chance to go global overnight, and when scientists such as Stephen Hawking and 150 fellows of the Royal Society say that membership is vital for the future of scientific research, we should listen to them. When the National Union of Students, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the OECD, the National Farmers Union and many others say that we should remain, we should listen to them.

We are part of plans to create a digital single market in Europe, which will be a huge opportunity for Britain’s tech industry, creating the best part of 4 million jobs and worth €400 billion a year. Many of those jobs and opportunities will be available to this country’s entrepreneurs. Why would we walk away from that? This is what the future of the European Union can offer: more jobs, better jobs and better rights at work.

The European Investment Bank, an EU institution in which Britain holds a sixth of the shares, is the world’s largest international public bank and it is directly owned by member states. In the past 10 years, the bank has invested more than £40 billion in UK infrastructure. Last year alone, the UK received £5.6 billion from the EIB to help regenerate communities and invest in infrastructure up and down the country, with projects such as campuses in Swansea and Belfast and the technology and innovation hub at Strathclyde, and £250 million went to Northumbrian Water.

Let me be clear: I do not wish to scaremonger, and no one should vote based on fear, but people must vote with their eyes open to the risks. I have been asking businesses what makes Britain an attractive destination to invest in, and companies tell me time and again that they choose to invest in Britain because of our language, inclusive culture, heritage and world-class education system, but a key compelling factor is because it also provides access to European markets and, through them, to the rest of the world. That pull factor will disappear overnight if we walk away from the European Union.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

It is my privilege to bring this most timely debate to a close. This is, of course, the final word from the Government at the Dispatch Box before the British people go to the polls next week to make one of the most important decisions about the future of the United Kingdom in the modern era. For many people, this is the biggest political decision that they have ever had to make. Indeed, I was only nine years old at the time of the 1975 referendum.

This is not like a general election. It is not just a choice for the next five years. There is no going back from the choice that we make, as a nation, next Thursday. A vote to leave would be irreversible. There is no “try before you buy”, and there are no returns. That makes it all the more important that we make the most of the opportunities, such as this debate, to look again at what is really in the interests of everyone in the UK.

I thank all Members for their contributions. In closing the debate, I want to be very clear about my conviction that the UK is far better off as part of the European Union than outside on our own. There have been 53 speakers today, 46 of whom have supported Britain’s staying in Europe, many of them passionately so. I cannot mention all of them, so I will refer briefly to four—two from each side.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in a moving and important speech, declared for remain here on the Floor of the House. I commend her for making the right choice. In the interest of fairness, let me briefly mention one of the speeches against the motion, of which there were not many; there were seven in all. I did not agree with the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), but she made extensive references to Looe in her constituency, where I spent many happy years as a child growing up, and it was great to hear references to places such as Pengelly’s fish shop.

I will mention two speeches from Labour, by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). Far be it from me to suggest how Members should campaign in their constituencies on the matter, but I thought both of them did well to mention the local businesses, local jobs and local facilities that would be under threat from a vote to leave the European Union. I have to mention that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I were both migrant workers in the 1980s in West Berlin in the Feinschmecker-Etage of the Kaufhaus des Westens.

I want us to remain, and I say that as someone who is not blind to the faults and the flaws of the European Union. Being critical of the EU does not mean wanting to leave the EU; it means wanting to keep enjoying all the benefits it has to offer while continuing to fight for the best interests of the UK in Europe. If we choose to stay, we can have the best of both worlds. We will never be forced to join the euro, and the deal struck by the Prime Minister in February means that our rights as a country outside the eurozone will be protected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said. We will have no membership of Schengen, no ever-closer political union, greater control over welfare and greater control over the pull factors for migration.

Crucially, we will also be at the heart of the single market, which is improving in the areas of services, capital, energy and digital. We will have a seat at the table when the rules affecting us are set. We can trade freely with half a billion people inside the EU. As part of this huge trading bloc, we have gained much better deals with other countries across the globe than we ever would have done had the UK been sitting at the negotiating table alone.

[John Redwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I do not have the time. I am sorry.

Today, we have seen yet further proof that the UK’s economy is on the road to recovery. We have the highest employment level on record. Unemployment is at its lowest since 2005, the year I first entered Parliament. We can be proud of what we have achieved. However, we are putting our hard-won recovery in jeopardy: with one enormous leap into the dark in just eight days’ time, we risk throwing it all away.

I care about facing up to the facts. It is only right to examine what voting to leave might do and, frankly, we should be concerned. In the Treasury, we have done a lot of work to understand what leaving the EU might mean for this country. One study of the short-term impact of leaving suggests that if we vote to leave, we could be pushing ourselves headlong into a recession within a couple of years. In fact, compared with remaining, we might well see a rise in unemployment of between 520,000 and 820,000; a fall of between 12% and 15% in the value of sterling; a decrease in GDP of between 3.6% and 6.0%; and increased borrowing of anything up to £39 billion, which is the equivalent of a third of the NHS budget each year. Some people say, “So what?” Others say, “This is a price worth paying.” For the vast majority of people in this country, however, these things—they are just what will happen in the immediate aftermath—really matter.

We have debated employment rights quite a bit and heard about the benefits of the EU in creating and guaranteeing them, but no one among the leavers has been quite clear about which of these rights would be guaranteed if we leave. So many questions have been left unanswered about what Britain might be like if we left. Of course, there is also the possibility we might still just have to follow any regulations handed down by Brussels, but, crucially, with no choice or influence over what they are. Norway is a clear example: it is required to comply with EU legislation, such as the working time directive or the agency workers directive, in exchange for access to the EU market, but, crucially, with no vote on the decision making.

It is also unclear how leaving the EU could be better for our businesses and for our trade, because the world in which we live and trade is more globally interconnected than ever before. All the alternatives to EU membership would represent a huge step backwards in terms of trading with the EU and, I believe, with the rest of the world as well.

It is the sheer number of uncertainties about leaving the EU that is so concerning. People desperately want to know what leaving would really mean. What would our relationship with the EU be? Would we have access to the single market, and if so, on what terms? What about our trading relationships with other countries. and what happens to all the laws and rules we have that come from the EU? Resolving such questions will be intricately complicated—so much so that it is doubtful whether negotiations would be completed after a decade, let alone in this Parliament. Let us think about that for a moment: where will our lives be in a decade’s time? Let us think in particular about the young people whose futures also lie in the balance on this decision: where will they be after a decade?

Our economy is growing once more. In my view and that of the Government, that is not an accident. It is the result of the sacrifices we have all made, and the parts we have all played in fixing the economy. A vote to leave, with all the uncertainties that surround it, will put all of this country’s hard work at risk. Let us listen to our global allies such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and Germany, and indeed to businesses based in this country—not just our major financial corporations, but the smaller companies that rely on exporting to the EU market. It is clear to me, as it is clear to them, that it is by remaining in a reformed European Union that we can keep growing, not bring about a recession of our own making; keep creating jobs, not jeopardise people’s livelihoods; and keep attracting investment, not lose out to our international competitors.

As I said at the start, this debate represents the final opportunity for this House to look at this vital question. This is not about the narrow interests of any one political party; it is about coming together in the national interest. If, like me, the House believes Britain is stronger, safer and better off in the EU, I urge it to support this motion.

Question put.

EU Referendum Leaflet

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I am sure that the Minister has heard that, and I hope that he will respond in full to the debate.

Katie Ghose of the Electoral Reform Society expressed similar concerns, and after the referendum on Scottish independence the Electoral Commission warned the Government over taxpayer-funded propaganda, saying that it could give an

“unfair advantage to one side of the argument”.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is this not a terribly easy case? No previous Labour or Conservative Government have ever thought they should spend taxpayers’ money on promoting Government policies ahead of a general election in the hope of getting a better result. Is that not exactly what the leaflet is doing, and is it not therefore a scandal?

[Paul Scully]

Absolutely. The Government are taking many difficult decisions across the five years of this Parliament, but we do not need to write in full to every household to explain why we are doing it. That is why the media and websites are there, and that is what Parliament is there for—we can report on that through our speeches and debates. I am not sure that the Government’s case for remaining is being helped, because it is likely that the contents of the leaflet will be long forgotten by the start of the purdah period on 27 May, but the £9.3 million price tag will still resonate with voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Government document is a disgrace. It is morally wrong, it is financially wrong and I think that it will backfire on them politically, which is the only good news in this otherwise rather sad debate. We should not need to do this. Any British democratic Government should understand that we want to have fair elections and referendums, and that we have a long tradition of not taking taxpayers’ money to spend in promotion of party political purposes or other political purposes during an election or referendum. In my experience, no Government have ever taken taxpayers’ money close to an election to propagandise for party policies. Nor should this Government be taking money from the many taxpayers who wish to leave the European Union in order to spend it on propaganda to try to thwart their wishes.

I was proud to stand in the general election on a platform of offering people a free choice and a free vote, after all these years when we have had no right to such a thing, and it is a great pity that it is being sullied by taking money from taxpayers and spending it in the distorting way that others have already mentioned.

I know that many other colleagues wish to speak, so I will concentrate on just two matters. This leaflet is extremely misleading and part of a very misleading campaign that is based on fear and misinformation about our relationship with the EU and what the EU is doing to us. The two claims in the leaflet that I wish to highlight go together in some ways. The leaflet says that we now have “a special status” and that often we can get our own way as a result of that special status. So I thought I would look at three crucial areas and ask, “Do we have a special status and are we getting our way?” Those areas are our right to choose our own taxes; our right to control our own borders; and our right to decide what benefits to give to which people who live in our community. All previous Governments who have negotiated treaties have always solemnly promised Parliament that we still had complete control over what taxes we raised, complete control over what benefits we chose to spend our money on and complete control over our borders. I am afraid, however, that none of those things is true.

Let us take part of the negotiation—this special status. We were told that, as a result of the negotiation, changes would be made to the VAT system. It is clearly the settled will of this Parliament that the tampon tax should be abolished, and it is clearly illegal under European law to do so. It is also clear that last summer our European Union Commission took our Government to court and successfully prosecuted them for daring to set the VAT rate on green products—insulation, all sorts of boiler controls and other things that promote the green agenda—at 5% instead of at the full VAT rate, and of course the Commission successfully won that court case. So our Government are now under a legal requirement of the European Court of Justice to put our VAT up to 20%, although of course they have not done so before the referendum because it would be embarrassing and tedious for them to do so.

We were then told that this new special status means that that is going to change, so that we will not have to put up our VAT on green products and we will be able to get rid of the VAT on tampons. So I looked at the document that the EU has now issued following the negotiation to see whether that is indeed the case.

The first thing to note is that the consultation that the EU is holding on VAT reform is mainly about centralising and taking more powers to Brussels over VAT, not giving more powers to member states. The second thing to note is that the document makes absolutely no reference whatever to the EU-UK agreement, or to the special status that we asked for and we were told we had got on VAT. The third thing is that, in the talismanic last couple of paragraphs about whether it might be possible to offer more freedom to member states to choose their own rates of VAT, no mention is made of the rates that we wish to remove or keep low and no guarantee is offered that there will be any legislation forthcoming. Again, the document says that it is terribly important not to have tax competition within the single market and very important to have a central policy that has political support.

One has to read that document to understand that there is absolutely no agreement on special status and no agreement at all that the UK can choose its own VAT rates. That is a broken promise. Also, we are told by the Treasury that we will lose a series of court cases on corporation tax again in this Parliament. We lost many such cases in the last Parliament and it cost £7 billion of revenue, which the British Parliament wished to raise on corporations but had to give back, and the Treasury forecast is that we will lose another £7 billion in this Parliament in losing court cases in the ECJ. The Treasury has never suggested that this new special status will prevent that. Therefore, it is quite obvious that we cannot raise taxes from companies where we want to and we cannot cut taxes on consumers where we want to, and that we have no “special status”.

If one then asks, “Is there a special status on borders?” the answer is, “No, of course, there isn’t.” We are governed by the freedom-of-movement provisions and that means we have to allow in anyone who can get a job or who is seeking work under the provisions of the freedom-of-movement clauses. The Government, who made a solemn promise to the electors to reduce the number of migrants coming into the country—so that we can catch up with the need for more school places, more GP surgeries, more hospital capacity, more roads and more houses for people—are unable to fulfil that pledge in any way, and the Treasury has now admitted that that pledge is for the birds over the five years of this Parliament and all the way out to 2030. Goodness knows why the Treasury thought it could forecast to 2030, because it cannot even forecast for this year, let alone to 2030.

[Mrs Main]

My right hon. Friend has just made a fantastic point about the lack of transparency. Does he share my concern? An independent report states that 3.5 million people are expected to come in by that time—it will probably be considerably more than that—but there is no indication to the British people where they are going to go, and it is calculated that a quarter of a million acres of extra developed land will be required to provide the housing for those people coming in.

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is right—there is absolutely no proper provision for the very large number of people that the Treasury now admits are likely to come in. That is one of the few Treasury forecasts that I might believe. It is quite obvious that it could not forecast its own public spending, its own interest rates or anything in the recent Office for Budget Responsibility and Treasury documents. It had to make another revision again in the March Budget—it revised the forecast made in November—because it had found it difficult to grasp how the world might change between November and March. So there is this inability to forecast the economic numbers, but for once I think the Treasury may be honest in forecasting a substantial increase in migration. I suspect that the Treasury’s estimate is an underestimate because it has been constantly underestimating these figures in recent years, and it proves that we have no control over our borders and no “special status” whatsoever.

The third area is benefits. The Prime Minister made a great deal about benefits in the renegotiation; it was one of the few areas where he really pushed quite hard to get reform in the way that Britain wanted. I think both major parties campaigning in the last election wanted, for example, to no longer have to pay child benefit to children who are not resident in our country, but apparently that is something that we cannot negotiate. There is no “special status” to allow us to decide that child benefit should go to children living in our country rather than to children living elsewhere. There is some kind of fudge whereby we could pay the benefit at the level that applies in that country, which means in some cases that we will have to pay a higher level of benefit, although in other cases it means we will pay a lower level of benefit. So there is absolutely no control there.

Again, both major parties wanted amendments so that people coming here to work under the freedom-of-movement provisions would not automatically get the full range of benefits until they had been here for a bit and made some kind of contribution. We were not able to get a guarantee on that, either. There is some sort of four-year clause as a temporary expedient, but the benefits have to be phased in over the four years and the negotiating aim was not met.

On the big three things, therefore, which all independent democratic countries control through their Parliaments and Governments, Britain is unable to exert control: we cannot decide what taxes to impose; we cannot decide what benefits to spend our money on; and we cannot control our own borders. So I have to submit that the Government are completely misrepresenting the position when they say that they have negotiated a “special status”. They are completely wrong when they say that shows we can get our own way. They could not even get their own way on a very limited number of negotiating objectives at a point when they were threatening withdrawal and a referendum, so how will they ever get their way at all once the referendum is out of the way if, by any chance, the British people have not seen through this and voted to stay?

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman find it strange that, although the Government claim to have special status on some issues—and he has proved they have not gained such status—they refer time and again to things that we have opted out of? They make a case for joining Europe, but they boast that through our special status, “We opt out of this, we opt out of the euro, we opt out of border controls—we opt out of a whole range of things.” The Government are actually making a case for staying clear of the European project.

[John Redwood]

I agree. I always liken it to someone joining a football club and then announcing truculently that they have no wish to play football or watch football, getting cross when they go to club functions and people talk about football, and wanting to reduce the club subscription because, as they do not join in the football, they think they are overpaying. That is what the Government are doing to Europe. They do not want to join the single currency or Schengen, or the quota system for refugees. They do not like political union being talked about, although that is the EU’s main purpose, and they think that the club subscription is too large. They are right about one thing: the club subscription is far too large for us because we do not believe in practically any of the club’s purposes. Most of us would draw the conclusion, however, that the simplest thing to do would be to leave the club and spend the subscription on things we do like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

We are here to state the merits of a petition that I understand was started by Jayne Adye, who is the director of the Get Britain Out campaign. She is therefore not a disinterested person who is independent of the issue or whose only concern, as the petition claims, is about the spending of public money.

We need to be honest about what this debate is about. It is yet another example of the wider leave campaign wanting to talk about process and not the real issues. I do not have a problem with that, but let us not pretend that this is about a leaflet issued by the Government. The faux outrage is intended to drown out the arguments made in the leaflet. I very much doubt that the director of the Get Britain Out campaign would have raised a petition if the Government were spending taxpayers’ money on a leaflet arguing that we should leave.

[John Redwood]

Has the hon. Lady been listening to the debate? Colleague after colleague has stood up and pointed out that the leaflet is simply wrong and misleading, because we care passionately about getting back democratic accountability and control for the British people.

[Pat Glass]

As the right hon. Gentleman said, I have sat through almost three hours of the debate very politely and courteously and listened to all of the arguments.

If we are going to do this, we should get it right. This is a small issue, but the petition talks about the Government spending

“money on biased campaigning to keep Britain inside the European Union”

and about the “Great British Public”. If we want to get this right, we must talk about the UK, not Britain. Britain is the island; the UK is much wider than that. I am sure that it was not the intention of the campaigners to cut out an entire country and all of the people of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, let us get it right.

Aleppo

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I welcome the tone in which the hon. Lady raises these important questions. We have had a series of debates on the matter, and I concur with the hon. Lady in welcoming the work that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) has done in her role as chair of the friends of Syria all-party group.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) mentioned the Geneva conventions. They are part of collecting the evidence that is necessary in the longer term to bring the culprits to account. That work is ongoing with a number of non-governmental organisations that Britain is supporting. If I may, I will digress to pay tribute to the White Helmets, an organisation that Britain helps to fund, which helps to dig people out of the rubble. Its members are based in these very dangerous areas and are trained to save the lives of civilians who are caught up in them. They go into those disastrous areas with the necessary technology to try to pull survivors out.

The hon. Lady mentioned the role of the EU. Federica Mogherini, the EU High Representative, is a member of the ministerial working group, and she is very much engaged on the matter at the highest level. As I mentioned, the group will be meeting in the very near future.

The hon. Lady talked about the importance of the Syrian opposition and its cohesion. I had the opportunity to meet the president of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul only a couple of weeks ago. The Syrian opposition was pessimistic at that point about the progress that was being made, and now we have seen events unfold. Given its disparate nature and the wide agendas that it follows, the fact that the group has stayed together is an indication of its determination to say, “We do not want to be part of Daesh, but we also do not want to have Assad as our leader.”

The hon. Lady is right to indicate that there is huge collusion, as a matter of convenience, between Assad and Daesh. Reports are coming out that in Palmyra, for example, a deal was struck that Daesh would retreat from that area and the Assad regime would be able to claim that retreat as a victory, but clearly something else was happening behind the scenes.

The hon. Lady alludes to the fact that there have been oil sales. The Assad regime is short of oil supplies and Daesh has crude oil that it can sell, which is another area of mutual convenience. Thankfully, the work we have been doing right across the board on counter-Daesh initiatives is preventing Daesh from being able to produce its oil and therefore to gain financially from sales or, indeed, to use the oil itself.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What is the Government’s current advice to the military opposition to Assad other than Daesh, given that the Government have been sympathetic to the opposition in the past, but it now finds itself in an extremely difficult position?

[Mr Ellwood]

I made it clear in my opening remarks that a political solution is needed in relation to the Assad regime. We need to move forward with a transition process to ensure the eventual removal of Assad, which will allow the country to unite to take on Daesh itself. However, the two are not mutually exclusive—we can continue our campaign to destroy Daesh. We have already seen the liberation of Ramadi, and I hope that we will see the liberation of the city of Mosul in the near future.

Government Referendum Leaflet

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

What the leaflet we are dealing with this afternoon does is explain the Government’s case in plain English. It can readily be understood by people who have not studied every detail of European Union treaties for the past several years. It explains that in clear language, but it is not over-egging the pudding. It is phrased and the argument is expressed in an extremely sober manner, and I hope people will find that argument persuasive.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that this leaflet is not so much “Project Fear” as “Project Slightly Worrying”, because it has been dumbed down, but is it not an abuse of public money and an insult to the electors, and does he not realise that it will drive many more people to vote to leave?

[Mr Lidington]

I return to what I said earlier: there is clear evidence from the independent polling research— its methodology has been published by the company concerned on its website—that more information is wanted by the British public. That research finding bears out what I and, I suspect, many other hon. Members on both sides of the House are finding anecdotally in conversations with constituents. I now spend time virtually every day signing replies to Members of Parliament, who have enclosed letters from constituents saying they feel they do not yet have enough information on which to make an informed decision and would like to have some more.

I hope that people will look carefully at what the Government are arguing, that they will look at the arguments put forward by the two campaign groups, once they have been designated, and that they will come to a decision about what they believe to be in the best interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is how the Government are approaching this matter.

EU-Turkey Agreement

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on what new financial and other obligations apply to the UK in the EU-Turkey agreement.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Agreements reached in principle at the EU-Turkey summit on Monday represent a basis on which in future all migrants who arrive in Greece could be returned to Turkey. That would, if implemented, break the business model of the people smugglers, and end the link between getting in a boat and getting settlement in Europe. That is something that the Prime Minister and the Government have been arguing for nearly a year.

The agreement would not impose any new obligations on the United Kingdom in respect of either resettlement or relocation. As we are not members of the Schengen area, we are able to maintain our own border controls and make our own decisions on asylum. Nor would the United Kingdom be obliged to resettle any additional refugees. We are already resettling 20,000 of the most vulnerable Syrians directly from the region through our own national scheme. We will not be part of the process of liberalising visas—that is a matter for Schengen countries—and we will still require visas for Turkish citizens to visit Britain.

The European Union also agreed on Monday to consider in due course extending the current financial support to help Turkey. There are currently no formal proposals for further funding on returns, and we will wait to see any proposals before commenting. We have already agreed to pay our £250 million share of the existing €3 billion Turkey refugee facility, and I made a written ministerial statement about that earlier this week. This builds on our existing £1.1 billion bilateral support for the Syria crisis and the additional bilateral commitment that we made at the recent London conference on Syria. The Turkey refugee facility is designed to provide immediate humanitarian support and also to fund the schools, hospitals and housing required over the longer term to support refugees and the communities that host them.

The agreement at the EU-Turkey summit on Monday will ensure that the €3 billion commitment agreed at last November’s EU-Turkey summit is properly and expeditiously disbursed. Intensive work will take place over the coming week with the aim of reaching final agreement at the next European Council on 17 and 18 March, after which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House as usual.

[John Redwood]

One of the reasons why I asked for this urgent question was that the statement from the EU Heads of State or Government issued yesterday makes it very clear that the visa liberalisation applies to all member states of the European Union, not just the Schengen area. I quote from the official document, which says that the EU Heads of State or Government agreed

“to accelerate the implementation of the visa liberalization roadmap with all Member States with a view to lifting the visa requirements for Turkish citizens at the latest by the end of June 2016”.

Will the Minister therefore be seeking clarification and amendment to this statement, given that he told us that these visa requirement waivers will not apply to all member states, or will he negotiate some kind of opt-out to make it very clear that those waivers will not do so? It will obviously be a matter of concern if the text issued from the Heads of State or Government meeting is at variance with the clear statements that we have been getting from Ministers here and through the media in the past few hours.

Secondly, I am surprised that the Minister has not mentioned that there was an agreement to an accelerated process to get Turkey to join the European Union as a full member, so will he comment on the United Kingdom’s position on the pace of the proceedings to get Turkey into the European Union, on what arrangements, if any, he thinks will need to be made when Turkey joins over freedom of movement, on whether there would need to be transitional arrangements, and on whether Britain would wish to be part of the freedom of movement area without proper transitional arrangements and protections?

Thirdly, I find it curious that we still do not know what we might be paying. If our share of the €3 billion is £250 million, plus the contribution that we have made through the EU budget, presumably we are looking at more than £250 million on top of that if the sum is doubled from €3 billion to €6 billion, because I presume that that will also be a levy on the member states. This should be properly reported to the House of Commons because it is an additional contribution to the EU, on top of the normal budget.

[Mr Lidington]

Let me respond to my right hon. Friend’s three questions. We already have an opt-out from Schengen; that is written into the treaties. Similar arrangements apply to Ireland and Denmark in slightly different respects. The legal measure that would be used for any liberalisation of visa arrangements for Turkey would be a Schengen measure that would be brought forward under the appropriate treaty base, so it would not apply to the United Kingdom, Denmark or Ireland. I made it clear in my initial response to my right hon. Friend that the Government do not intend to liberalise our visa arrangements with Turkey.

On my right hon. Friend’s second point, it has of course been the policy of successive British Governments, including the one in which he served with such distinction, to support the eventual accession of Turkey to EU membership. That is not going to happen in the near future. The statement of the Heads of State or Government said on Monday that they would prepare for the decision on the opening of new chapters in the accession negotiations as soon as possible. To open a chapter such as chapter 23, which deals with the rule of law, might well be very helpful to strengthen the dialogue that we shall be having with Turkey about the rule of law, human rights and the standards that are expected of candidate members of the European Union but, again, no agreement has yet been reached on any aspect of opening new chapters, and many member states will have their views about that.

On my right hon. Friend’s point about Turkish accession—or any new member’s accession—and freedom of movement, the Government have said repeatedly that we will not agree to any further EU enlargement unless we first have in place new arrangements for transitional controls on freedom of movement so that we do not take on the risk, as we did in 2004, of very large movements of people in the aftermath of a new accession. Every decision to do with EU membership requires unanimity, so every country has a veto on every such step.

Thirdly, my right hon. Friend asked about finance. As I said, there are no formal proposals on the table. There is an ongoing negotiation at EU level in which there are many different moving parts. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement after the European Council next week, but the refugee facility agreed last year is budgeted for and is causing the Commission to reprioritise its various spending programmes, which seems a sensible thing for it to do.

Referendums

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My advice to any elector would be to look at what the Government are saying and advising, but also at what the various campaign groups and other organisations in this country are saying. I will come later to the designation of campaign organisations. We need this statutory instrument to be approved, among other things, to make it possible for the Electoral Commission to go ahead and designate the campaign groups on each side of the argument, and give them access to the privileges that come with that status, precisely so that they can go out and present their case and make information and argument available to the people to whom my hon. Friend refers.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am very happy to have an early referendum, but did the Government decide not to push back on the absolutely pathetic non-offer we were made because they did not think we were ever going to get anything worth having out of the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

On the contrary, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured a deal that has brought some significant reforms to the European Union. I would advise my right hon. Friend to look at the reaction in many European capitals, in the media across Europe, and in the European Parliament, which has very largely been one of considerable surprise at the degree to which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was able to secure reforms. In some cases, that commentary involved a fair measure of criticism of other Government leaders for conceding what was believed to be too much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I agree entirely. Uncertainty is bad for British jobs and the British economy, and we believe that the longer this goes on, the more damage will be done to our economy and our jobs.

[John Redwood]

What does the hon. Lady think that EU state aid rules, energy prices, energy intervention and procurement rules have done to our steel jobs? What has the common fisheries policy done to our fishing jobs?

[Pat Glass]

People will have to make a decision on those issues, but they are not related to this statutory instrument. We accept that this great country would be able to make its way in the world outside the EU, but leaving would cost us dearly in all kinds of ways including jobs, our competitiveness in business, and the safety of our citizens from terrorism, crime, climate change and war. At a time of Russian expansionism and international terrorism from groups such as ISIS-Daesh, we do not believe that it is right to risk our safety and security as a nation. We want the UK to lead, not leave, Europe. We are the second biggest economy in the EU, and many of our partners such as Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and others want to work with us further to reform the EU, and they are looking to the UK to lead on that. Leaving the EU risks future peace in Europe, and Britain’s influence in the world.

In government, Labour passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and we supported the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015. We support this statutory instrument, and we will leave it to others to moan about the date of the referendum. We are getting on and putting our energy into winning the referendum and keeping Britain leading in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

The sentiments my hon. Friend expresses are very relevant to the question of voter trust. In the debate on 25 February, and when the Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, which has considered these matters in great depth, I said that the Government are effectively—in fact, I will go further and say definitely—cheating the voters. This cannot be said to be legally binding and irreversible. In the debate on 25 February, I pointed out that the Council conclusions—I ask that hon. Members look at the Council conclusions—refer to the words “legally binding” and there is a common accord with respect to the international law agreement. What they cannot do is say that it would be irreversible. Furthermore, although Mr Tusk, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been saying “irreversible”, they cannot prove that that is the case. I will explain why in one second.

On 23 June, a most momentous and historic decision will be taken by all the people in the United Kingdom who can vote. They have a right to know whether the question they are going to be asked, on whether to remain or to leave, can be answered. It is the basis of my proposition that it is impossible for them to know whether it is going to be irreversible for a simple reason. Under the international agreement where the European Court may or may not take into account the question that has been posed by the White Paper, certainly there is no guarantee of a treaty change and certainly there is no guarantee that the mechanics of the international law decision will produce a definite result that the European Court can decide on. Nobody can say that the European Court will or will not accept any treaty change. As a matter of fact, with respect to the question of referendums, there is no guarantee that there will not be referendums.

There are currently at least four Governments of the 28 in the EU, in the great stitch-up in the political decision-making process I referred to, who barely have control over their government at all. There are massive problems in Portugal and Spain, and now in Ireland as well, and there are massive problems in Greece. There is absolutely no reason why anybody should guarantee either that there will be treaty change or that it will be irreversible.

I happened to take part in the referendums that produced “no” votes in other countries, including France and Denmark. To say as a matter of absolute certainty in this disgraceful White Paper that it is irreversible when it is impossible as a matter of fact, let alone of law, for anyone to say that they know what the European Court will do or indeed that there will not be a referendum and what the outcome of that would be, is simply unacceptable.

[John Redwood]

Is it not also the case that if we read the language of this political agreement after rather difficult negotiations and if we take the example of something crucial such as the protection of our interests against the wishes of the euro, that language says that we can be overridden in certain circumstances, so we will have gained absolutely nothing?

[Sir William Cash]

Absolutely nothing at all. I think that the British people, who are a great people, are waking up to this. As I said in last Thursday’s debate, Churchill said that we should tell the truth to the British people and they will follow, but they are not being told the truth—that is the real truth, and nothing but the truth.

A comprehensive poll was published in the Evening Standard on Friday on the question of whether the voters trust the outcome of this negotiation. The result is simple to describe: 53% said that they did not trust it at all; only 22% said that they did; as for the balance, the pollsters said that half of those who were undecided tended not to trust it. I know that a poll is a poll, but I also say that on the question of trust, the outcome is either to be trusted or not to be trusted. This whole negotiated package, whether it be looked at from a political or a legal point of view, is not to be trusted.

I say that to the House of Commons because this is where the real issues have to be resolved, but we have quite rightly handed this over to the voters—and they do not trust it. I do not think that anything they will have heard today from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, or anything they will hear tomorrow from the Cabinet Secretary, or indeed any of the matters discussed in relation to the component parts of this package, either in aggregate or individually, will provide any reason for anybody to trust this deal.

The question before us today about the date of 23 June must be weighed against the background of whether that date is appropriate. I want to listen to what SNP Members say, as I have a great interest in that. They are elected to stand up for their own views and for their own part of the United Kingdom. I may disagree with what they say, but I saw what happened with the Scottish referendum, particularly regarding the date and the length of time allowed for debate. We will hear from SNP Members how they were stitched up by the BBC and all the rest of it. What I am saying is that this entire question of the date is dependent on the extent to which proper information is given to the voter. As I said in the urgent question earlier, the crucial issue is what reliance the voters can have on the fact that the information they are being given is transparent and honest, and additionally impartial and accurate, which is what the Minister for Europe told me on the Floor of the House it would be.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome a fairly early date for the referendum. I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but there is only so much that I can take of all the stories of the pestilence, famine and plague that are going to be visited upon us by the very European Union countries that the Government say we love and work well with. The Government have this strange vision that those countries would suddenly change and become extremely unpleasant were we to want a relationship based on friendship and trade rather than on the current treaties. I personally think that 16 weeks would be quite enough to do the job that I would love the Government to do, which is to win it for the leave campaign by using this highly inappropriate tone and by constantly slanging off our European partners by telling us just how unpleasant they would be. I would have thought that a Government wishing to encourage us to stay in the European Union would want to be rather more obliging about our European partners and to paint a picture of how things might be better were we to stay in, rather than concentrating only on ascribing false futures to the leave campaign.

I am interjecting in this debate because I am worried that 16 weeks might not be long enough for the Government to carry out all the tasks necessary to fulfil the requirements of the legislation. In particular, I have been moved to that view by listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is often absolutely right about these points and their salience. The Government have an important duty to provide impartial information to the public as part of the task of preparing them for the referendum. Having seen their work so far, I am afraid to say that it fails by all standards. It is not impartial, it is not well researched and it is often exceedingly misleading. I am using parliamentary language, Mr Speaker; I might use richer language were I not inside the House. It seems to me that the Government are going to need a lot more time to work with their ever-willing officials to come up with balanced, mature and sensible information about what the future might look like under either scenario.

One thing that the Government have clearly had no time to prepare so far—this is a particularly worrying lacuna—is information on what the future might look like if we stay in. We have had no response from the Government on how they would respond to “The Five Presidents’ Report: Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union” or on how they would handle demands for capital markets union, banking union, full economic and monetary union and political union. Would such a situation immediately trigger a requirement for us to veto the next treaty, would we seek a comprehensive opt-out from it, or would the Government want to work with their partners and agree to some modest treaty changes that would affect the United Kingdom, in the spirit of “The Five Presidents’ Report”? Any such changes would be triggered after about 2017, so probably within this Parliament. Could we then look forward to a second referendum if we stayed in the European Union? Under the European Union Referendum Act 2015, there would need to be a referendum on any treaty changes made as a consequence of “The Five Presidents’ Report” and the clear desire of our partners to go along the route to political union.

[Sir William Cash]

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see not only the White Paper that was produced a few days ago but the latest jewel in the crown from the Government, which is entitled “The process for withdrawing from the European Union”? It contains page after page of tendentious remarks, assertions and assumptions that cannot be substantiated. I can see the Minister for Europe wriggling around a bit on the Front Bench, because the bottom line is that he will not be able to answer these questions, but they will be tested before 23 June.

[John Redwood]

That is why, in my amiable way, I was suggesting that the Government might like to rethink their position on the timing of the referendum. Having seen that piece of work, I agree with my hon. Friend. I was frankly ashamed that such a document could come from the United Kingdom Government. It bore no relation to what the leave campaigns are saying about how we would like the Government to handle the British people’s decision if they decided to leave. It did not give any credence to the idea that we would be negotiating with friends and allies who would have as much interest in a successful British exit as we would, should that be the will of the British people.

Ministers never seem to understand that the rest of Europe has far more exports to us at risk than we have to the rest of the European Union, because we are in massive deficit with those countries. I have had personal assurances from representatives of the German Government, for example, that they have no wish to see tariffs or barriers being placed in the way of their extremely profitable and successful trade with the United Kingdom. To issue a document implying that all sorts of obstacles would be put in the way of such trade over a 10-year period simply beggars belief.

[Sir William Cash]

May I give my right hon. Friend an example? These documents contain scarcely any serious objective analysis from bodies such as the Office for National Statistics or the House of Commons Library, and their arguments are tendentious. I am sure he will remember, because this is at the forefront of his mind, that in current account transactions relating to imports, exports, goods and services, we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of about £58 billion a year, and that Germany runs a surplus in those same goods, services, imports and exports. If that is a single market, I’m a Dutchman.

[John Redwood]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is many fine things, but a Dutchman is clearly not one of them. He has, however, revealed an important fact, and it is the kind of fact that we would expect to see in a balanced document setting out the position on trade. I hope that the Minister will leave enough time in his urgent timetable to ensure that those sorts of important facts—

[Sir William Cash]

With references.

[John Redwood]

With references and proper statistical bases. Those important facts should be put before the British people. Indeed, the Minister would be wise to do that from his own point of view—perhaps I should not help him as much as I am apparently trying to do. The Government have been rumbled on this. The press and a lot of the public are saying that they want factual, mature and sensible information setting out the risks of staying in, the risks of leaving and what it would look like in either case, but that is not what we are getting.

We have had another example in the past few days. We have been witnessing a long-term decline of the pound against the dollar for many months, because we are living through a period of dollar strength. In the past few days, when Brexit was in the news, we were told that the pound was going down because of fears about Brexit, whereas that was clearly not the case on other days when the pound had been going down. However, on those same days, the Government bond market had been going up. The prices of bonds had been rising and our creditworthiness was assessed as being better, but I did not hear the Government saying that the idea of Brexit was raising Britain’s credit standing. We could make that case just as easily as we could make the case that the fear of Brexit was leading to a fall in the pound.

That is the kind of tendentious information that I hope the Minister will reconsider if he wishes to keep up the normally high standards of Government documentation and use impartial civil service advice in the right tradition, which we in the House of Commons would like to see. I can see that a few colleagues are not entirely persuaded that those high standards are always met, but I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I have certainly seen many Government documents that achieve higher standards than the ones on this matter.

I again urge the Minister to make sure that he leaves enough time in the action-packed timetable to produce high-quality, balanced information that includes the risks of staying in and the wild ride to political union that others have in mind, as well as what he sees as the risks of leaving. For instance, the Government should point out that if we stop paying the £10 billion of net contributions—money we do not get back—that will immediately improve the balance of payments by one fifth next year. Would that not be a marvellous advantage? I do not see it being pointed out in any of the current material in order to show some kind of balance.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a hugely powerful argument. The answer is quite simple: the Government do not want the facts in there—they do not want the British public to know. The British public will come to that conclusion, and it is not a good conclusion if we are to have a balanced debate on the referendum.

[John Redwood]

I fear that is right, but I also fear I am beginning to give the Government too much help. Obviously, I would like them to lose on this occasion, because I think we will be much better off if that happens. I will therefore vote with the Government, because 16 weeks is quite enough of “Project Fear” and of people misrepresenting a whole lot of things that are going on by saying, “These are the results of the fears of Brexit.” That will do the job I would like the Government to do and help the case I am trying to make, but the Government have a long way to go in the interests of good government and in meeting the legal requirements that they have placed on themselves to provide impartial information. I just trust that in the next few weeks they can lift their game.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I long since gave up using the word “clear” to describe anything about Russian policy, because it is anything but clear—it is always opaque. We simply do not know what the Russian strategy is. We do not know what Russia’s objectives are, and my assessment is that most people in the Russian system do not either; perhaps Mr Putin has in his head an idea about what the end game is. What I do know is that some 75% of Russian airstrikes are being conducted against people whom we believe have to be part of the solution to the Syrian problem, not against Daesh, which we are very clear is the enemy.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the emphasis on a political solution and possible ceasefire in Syria. Given the growing strength of Daesh in Libya, can my right hon. Friend tell us how we might get political progress in Libya? Are there military consequences of that growing concentration?

[Mr Hammond]

As they say, I am glad that my right hon. Friend asked me that question, because it just so happens that a signing ceremony is planned for tomorrow in Morocco, at which it is hoped by the UN special representative, Mr Martin Kobler, that a majority of the House of Representatives and a significant number of members of the General National Congress will sign an agreement creating a Government of national accord. If that happens tomorrow, the western countries and the Gulf countries will swing behind that Government of national accord and will look to build their capability as soon and as quickly as possible, so that we can start to work in Libya to contain the threat that Daesh now clearly represents in that country.

Middle East

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who serves valiantly on the Defence Select Committee with me. I know how much work he did on that visit, when we really delved deeply into what the capability and the success of the intervention were. Of course, the peshmerga are a tremendous asset and a great fighting force, but they are not going to fight everywhere in Iraq. They want to focus on their own area and on protecting Kurdish lands and Kurdish people. They are not the Iraqi armed forces; they are the Kurdish armed forces.

The Prime Minister told us last week that we are going to regain more territory. I do not want us to transfer our limited intervention capability from Iraq to Syria. In December 2015, our military presence in Iraq outside of the Kurdish regions was three individuals—we met them—yet our missions there are critical to preventing Daesh from spreading across Iraq.

I urge Members to read the Defence Committee report produced in January this year, which outlined the problems we faced in Iraq and the capability we had to intervene there. The report states that we saw no evidence of the UK Government seeking to analyse, question or change the coalition strategy to which they are committed. Ministers, officials and officers failed to set out a clear military strategy for Iraq, or a clear definition of the UK’s role in operations. We saw no evidence of an energised policy debate, reviewing or arguing options for deeper engagement.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is it not also the case that if we are to launch air-to-ground attacks, we need to be able to collaborate with forces on the ground to report the targets and whether or not the attacks were successful?

[Mrs Moon]

That is exactly the information that we need. We know that 360 attacks have been made by our planes, but what we do not know is how valid they were. Were they successful? Are they making a difference? Here we are, talking about intervening somewhere else, when we do not even know how successful our intervention has been in Iraq.

The expensively trained and equipped Iraqi army fell apart when confronted by Daesh. The army has serious structural issues, poor-quality leadership, and a sectarian divide that must be addressed before any real progress in combating Daesh is possible. The brutality of the Shia militias often forces Sunni tribes into seeing Daesh as the safer alternative; let us never move away from that recognition. Sunni reconciliation and the taming of the Shia militia are impossibly difficult. If we cannot make that happen in Iraq, what chance have we in Syria? What is the basis of the sectarian divide? Is it simply religion, or is it also the age-old strategy of divide and rule? Is it a question of getting groups to fight among themselves, and allowing the corruption and the repression of the autocratic ruling regime to continue, allowing the poverty to grow, and allowing young men to turn to jihadism when there is no work and no hope for the future?

In Syria there is no compelling image for the future, and there are no leaders to rally behind. Syria is a state in the midst of civil war. In Syria there is nothing that will pull people together, but in Iraq we have potential. There is a Shia president, a Sunni defence Minister, and a wonderful Kurdish president.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

The hon. Lady has made a very good point, and she made an extremely good speech.

I would like to believe that the Free Syrian Army is more than a label attached to a ragbag of tribal troops, factional militias and personal armies with no coherent command structure. I would like to believe that they are moderates. However, when I was carrying out a study of the conflict in Ulster many years ago, I examined similar situations, and concluded that

“it is nearly a law of human nature that where people fear the disintegration of the state they rally to the most forceful and extreme advocate of their group.”

In those circumstances there are no moderates, so at best we will have to rely on some pretty violent and unpleasant forces.

I would like to believe that there will be an effective fighting force. However, in October, the commander of the US central command, General Lloyd Austin, reported to the Senate that the programme to train some 5,400 moderate Syrians each year at a cost of $500 million had so far produced only four or five fighters. The number could be counted on the fingers of one hand. I would also like to be convinced that, if those moderate fighting forces existed, they could be persuaded to fight the Islamists rather than Assad, whom they have mostly considered to be their main enemy up to now.

[John Redwood]

But is not the issue for any Government contemplating air strikes the question of who they would get in touch with and co-ordinate with on the ground?

[Mr Lilley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have signally failed to train any forces, and it is far from clear that we could achieve our aim without any.

My second area of concern is whether this aerial bombardment in Syria will actually help to prevent terror on our streets in Britain. I should make it clear that I am not one of those who believe that we should hold back from bombing ISIL for fear of provoking more terrorism. Even if there were such a risk, to allow a handful of terrorists to determine British policy would be cowardly in the extreme. But in any case, the truth is that these extreme Islamists attack us not because of what we do but because of what we are.

The preamble to the Prime Minister’s memorandum to the Select Committee states that

“it is from Raqqa that some of the main threats against this country are planned and orchestrated.”

I would like to believe that this was a simple matter of taking out the command and control system to prevent the main threats of terrorism in this country, yet even in that document, when detailing the seven plots foiled by our security forces in the past 12 months, that claim is watered down to say the plots were merely “linked to ISIL” or “inspired by ISIL’s propaganda”.

The truth is that the atrocities we have seen in Britain and France were almost invariably carried out by home-grown terrorists. Many of them were probably inspired by ISIL propaganda or emulating previous suicide bombers and terrorists, but I have seen no evidence that any of them were controlled by, let alone dispatched from, Raqqa. Those plots were hatched in Brussels, not in Syria, and if the French and Belgian security forces on the ground could not identify and stop them, it is pretty unlikely that any plans being hatched in Syria could be prevented by precision bombing from 30,000 feet. In any case, the fact that one horrifying atrocity follows another does not mean that they are directed and controlled by a single organisation. We have seen horrifying school bombings in America, with one following another and one example leading to another, but that does not mean that there was a single controlling mind behind them.

My third concern is that we are led to believe that degrading and disrupting ISIL will reduce the flood of refugees. As I understand it—I am open to correction on this—scarcely any of the refugees coming to us or going over the border into Turkey are coming from the ISIL-controlled areas. My fear is that if we disrupt and reduce that area through bombing, we will add to the flow of migrants into Europe.

The real reason that the Government wish to join the operations in Syria is that we want to join our US allies. It is Britain’s default position that we should support America unless there is good reason not to, and that is a position that I hold to, but when there are doubts and reasons not to go ahead, we should reason and argue and try to persuade our colleagues to change their strategy before we join in.

We are celebrating this year the centenary of the birth of Harold Wilson, whose great achievement was to remain the closest ally of the United States while not being drawn into the Vietnam war. I believe we should learn from that example and, if my doubts cannot be cleared up, hold back rather than join in with our friends and allies in their endeavours, which possibly are doomed to failure unless they have boots on the ground to support the bombs from the air.