Bangladesh

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

All of us who have Bangladesh close to our hearts are deeply worried by the situation, particularly, as my hon. Friend rightly says, over the past seven years. There seems to be a sense that that country is again plummeting towards the prospect of some military takeover and martial law. Does she agree that while one inevitably has to look at the history, going back as far as partition in 1971, it is also important that there is a responsibility in the hands of today’s Bangladeshi politicians to draw a line under the past and look with a firm eye to the future?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have shorter interventions. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to speak in the debate, but he cannot make a speech in an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not imposing a time limit, but I suggest that hon. Members take about 10 minutes each. If they do, we will get through nicely.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure that every amendment tabled to any Bill by the hon. Gentleman is serious in intent, but Mr Speaker judges not the quality of the content of an amendment, but whether it is in order. If it is in order—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is orderly. I am sure that no one will want to challenge Mr Speaker’s decision. I am correct on that I take it, Mr Gapes.

[Mike Gapes]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am going to make some progress. [Hon. Members: “Give way.”] The commission first proposed—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. In fairness to the Minister, he has given way a couple of times and does not want to do so again. Having three Members shouting “Give way” when he has no intention of doing so is not good for me or for Members, because I cannot hear anything.

[Mr Lidington]

The commission first suggested that Parliament should reflect on whether to use the word “remain” in place of the phrase “be a member of”. As it acknowledged in its report, the judgment about that wording boiled down to an assessment of whether one believed that either form of wording would tilt the electorate unfairly towards supporting one or other camp in the referendum campaign. The problem with trying to make that assessment is that it requires making an assumption about how other members of the electorate will be affected by the wording. My own view is that if we look not just at the theory of how people might react but at the practical context of a referendum campaign, the outcome of which will certainly be a subject of very vigorous public political debate, it is hard to see how the form of words proposed by my hon. Friend is likely to tilt the playing field one way or the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that Mr Speaker stated that if someone speaks from the Treasury Bench as a Minister they are speaking as a Minister, but that does not necessarily mean that they are representing Government policy, and the Minister is certainly not doing so on this occasion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman has certainly made his point as well, so we can return to Mr Gapes.

[Mike Gapes]

Clearly, a novel interpretation of ministerial responsibility applies in this debate.

To return to the amendments, amendment 37 concerns having a “version” or a “translation” of the question, about which I intervened on the Minister earlier. There are important implications, because a version is not the same as a translation. A translation would be much closer to the meaning of the words in the original question, whereas a version might be looser and more roundabout or “good enough”. But that is not good enough, because the question has legal and constitutional implications.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the people of Wales vote differently from the people of the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a narrow result that is influenced by the Welsh speakers. Would we not face potential legal challenges to the outcome if the people of Wales said, “We wish to remain in the European Union, even though the rest of the UK has left”? That could happen if the votes of Welsh speakers swing the result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. If he had not, I would have raised this matter on a point of order. Further to my previous point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think that Mr Gapes gave way to an intervention, rather than to a point of order.

[Mr Spellar]

In that case, further to my previous intervention on my hon. Friend, at 10.30 am on 8 November I asked:

“Is it not the case that anyone speaking from the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the Chamber is speaking on behalf of the Government?”

Mr Speaker replied:

“The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That is the situation—a Minister who speaks from the Treasury Bench is speaking for the Government.”

Interestingly, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) then said:

“That raises an interesting issue that perhaps the Government—both sides of the coalition—should reflect on. I stand corrected for the second time in the space of an hour”.—[Official Report, 8 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 548.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The point has been aired. I am sure that Mike Gapes will get back on track and speak to the amendments.

[Mike Gapes]

Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would never wish to be off track when discussing these matters.

Amendment 38 requires consultation with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government on these matters. Amendment 39 relates to Scotland, where there will be similar issues. It would require a consultation with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. It is important to remember that the United Kingdom has a devolution settlement, so we cannot simply magic up the wording of questions for political convenience and to suit those who lobby the Daily Mail. We have to consult the different parts of our United Kingdom.

I have experience of that because I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) when he was Minister for Political Development in the Northern Ireland Office between 1997 and 1999. I took part in the negotiations in Castle buildings that resulted in the Good Friday agreement. I understand well from that experience the importance of language and identity in Irish politics and within the two communities and faith traditions in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week we had the Government advisers in the Box communicating via Back Benchers and even with the Bill’s promoter. Today I notice that another Back Bencher is doing the same thing. Is this really in order?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

People are allowed to come and speak. I think everything is in order. If it was not, we would have stopped it.

[Martin Horwood]

As I was saying, in amendment 71 the hon. Member for Glasgow North East is attempting to remedy the strange issue with the timing and the attempt by this Parliament to bind its successor through this referendum Bill. Of course, we pass legislation all the time that carries forward into future Parliaments, but when it comes to referendums, we normally want to take the decision at the time that we want to hold a referendum. That was the debate we had about the Lisbon treaty—whether it was a proposed constitution and whether we should have at that stage a referendum on the treaty or a referendum on membership, which is what Liberals Democrats supported at that time. We were quite happy to hold a referendum on the question of membership—not in four or five years’ time, but right then and there—because of the clear statement about what the Lisbon treaty contained and what our relationship with Europe would be. We are not in that situation now. The future relationship between the UK and Europe and the rest of the European Union is now less clear because of the economic crisis, the need to restructure the eurozone and the potential treaty changes that are in the offing because of that crisis. It is therefore odd to be discussing a Bill that talks about a referendum four years in advance. Amendment 71, which would provide for an order to be made under the affirmative resolution procedure in a future Parliament, is perhaps one way of tackling that issue.

That is certainly preferable to what I see as the Prime Minister’s position on the referendum, which is what I would describe as an Augustinian position. St Augustine famously said:

“Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”

Of course, the Prime Minister has an interest in creating paper unity in the Conservative party on the matter of a referendum, but it would be a political disaster for the Conservatives if they got the referendum, because they would be split absolutely down the middle. The Prime Minister made some impressively pro-European statements in his Bloomberg speech. I do not have them at my fingertips, but he talked about the European Union delivering peace in Europe and about it being essential for prosperity and jobs. Indeed, he made a speech of which, in some respects, any Liberal Democrat would be proud, with its explanation of the value of the European Union to both Europe and the UK. However, it is clear from today’s debate and the debate a few weeks ago that many Members from his own party would be campaigning on the opposite side in that referendum.

In a funny way, there is a sort of sub-Orwellian process going on in the Conservative party, in that the Conservatives would rather have a constant campaign for a referendum, which allows them to create some kind of unity, yet they would be rather shocked and disappointed if they got it—indeed, they would be in a bit of a crisis—because then they would be split down the middle. However, although many speakers from the Labour Benches today have answered the big question by arguing in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) popped up briefly, and there are certainly Labour Members who are far from clear about what their answer to the big question in this debate would be.

This referendum Bill is, at heart, a device to dodge the big question. I suppose there are two parties that are absolutely clear on the answer to that big question of whether Britain should remain in or out of the European Union: UKIP is pretty clear that we should be outside the EU, while the Liberal Democrats are clear that we should be in it, because it enables us to fight cross-border crime more effectively, to protect the environment more effectively and, above all, to protect British jobs and support a sustainable economy in this country. There is confusion among the other two parties. The Conservative party is split down the middle, and the Labour party is, if not split right down the middle, at least split a little down the left-hand side. We need to move on from the minutiae of referendum questions and arcane debates about the precise wording of the question to the big issue of whether Britain should remain in or out. That is what many opinion formers, such as the CBI, are starting to do.

Amendment 71 makes a reasonable attempt to tackle the rather peculiar issue of timing in a quite imaginative way. I am not sure that it resolves the issue, but I would be happy to support it in the meantime.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby? We seem to be suffering some type of blockage.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If only that were true. I would hope that Bills would be repealed at any time, but sadly the House is much keener to pass new Bills than it is to repeal old and defunct ones. Every so often a Session will pass 20 repeals of ancient Bills. I think we had one earlier in this Session or at the end of the last Session, which repealed some Bill relating to the purchase of the Isle of Man from whoever previously owned it to make it part of the Crown territory. That does happen, but not often enough.

A sunset clause in this Bill would be particularly attractive, especially if the Americans are not part of this. I rather like the American approach to internationalism; that is to treat it with the deepest caution, and not to sign up to every international body that comes along. My hon. Friend mentioned what Sir Teddy Taylor said about the Foreign Office. It is interesting that in the United States the State Department almost always wants to sign up to any bit of internationalism that is going. But the sensible people in the Senate who have to ratify treaties almost never do, because they do not think it is in the interests of the American people. Because of our system, we seem to be rather too keen to sign up to international agreements, when, as I was saying earlier, we should do things by free enterprise, which will often ensure more success, riches and wealth for the nation at large.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker has done a long stint and we are glad to have you standing in for him.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

This will be an even longer stint.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Then Mr Deputy Speaker will no doubt be pleased that I will try to entertain him for at least part of his stint in the Chair.

Following that preamble and my concerns about the nature of the Bill and internationalism, including the risks that that has for democracy and the problem of it being a dead hand on enterprise, if we are to have this type of regulation, the Bill is obviously sensible. It is obviously wise to extend it from purely metals to include gas and liquids, because there may be all sorts of exciting things at the depths of the sea. There may be endless supplies of gas. There may be oil spurting out as if Saudi Arabia was on the sea bed rather than in Arabia where it is more normally located, and therefore one would find that there is this enormous wealth that could reduce the price of oil to the enormous benefit of our constituents, particularly those in rural seats where the price of petrol is a serious problem. These resources, liquid and gas, could be sucked out of the earth and used to the benefit of our constituents.

To that extent, I am happy to support the Bill. I do not think that there will be much opposition to it. It is a sensible level of amendment to what already exists, bearing in mind my overarching concern that we are being too internationalist and that, in principle, we are not encouraging enough enterprise.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). With you having appeared on the scene, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought that he was about to take a second crack at the whip—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

He would have been all at sea.

[Mr Brown]

I suspect that he would have been.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on introducing her private Member’s Bill this morning. Like many others in the House, I fully understand her passion for all things maritime. She is steeped in the very issue. The Bill would amend the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. Like one or two others in the House this morning, I knew very little about deep-sea mining until I discovered that I would be at the Dispatch Box this morning. I thank the House of Commons Library for producing a standard note, which has been used by other Members this morning and which was my starting point.

I want to make clear my interest in the environment and that I make a monthly contribution to the WWF, but I say to those on the Government Back Benches that that does not colour my position. It is a contribution that I make to the WWF, not one that it makes to me. It does not lobby me in any shape or form; let me be frank about that.

I had breakfast this morning with an expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who is chair of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Members present may be interested to know that the committee will undertake a programme of work during the autumn and bring in experts to examine the issue of deep-sea mining. Back Benchers who have spoken this morning may wish to attend those sittings.

Just because we cannot see something does not mean it is not precious. There is much going on down in the depths of the seas and oceans, and as I said earlier, if we do things in a radical way we could do damage that can never be repaired. I believe that we should explore—I do not know whether exploitation is the right word, because it worries me—what could be of benefit to mankind. That is what this is all about: we have explored space, so why not explore the depths of the oceans as well?

We must, however, be measured in our approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) completed a quote that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) gave earlier by pointing out that we have to be “reasonably practicable”. As a trade unionist, I know that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is littered with the term “reasonably practicable”.

I would like to think that we have moved on since the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, which is the very reason why the hon. Member for South East Cornwall has proposed the Bill. It is 30-odd years later and I know that the hon. Member for Bury North will be wondering why the Labour party has changed its mind. We need clarification—perhaps the Minister will provide it—on how many applications have been made for licences and how many have been refused, and on the important issue of how we will police the companies that have secured them. I will not be anywhere near as radical as the hon. Member for North East Somerset, because I think we need some kind of control over what is happening. Our environment is precious not only to us, but to those who will come after us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

But I know you will not.

[Alistair Burt]

As I think the House knows well, Bury North is not only a constituency that I was proud to represent for 14 years but my birthplace and home, and the place to which my fondest memories are attached. It remains a matter of great pride that I was able to represent my home town, and I only ask that my hon. Friend take my very best wishes to the metropolitan borough, all those in it and the diverse community of Bury.

[Alistair Burt]

Indeed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister gives way, it may help if I say that we are not going to have a love-in about Bury, either North or South, or the north-west.

[Mr Nuttall]

I will take the Minister’s good wishes back to Bury, but to return to the Bill, does he agree that it has potential advantages for businesses based there? Opportunities will open up for them as a result of it, maybe not directly but through the supply chain.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember—he will know this from first-hand knowledge—how wide the industrial base is in Bury. For example, I recall being very impressed with how many were involved in the aerospace industry.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am now intervening. It is a great temptation to listen to the Minister talk about the wonders of the north-west as I represent a north-west constituency, but I am sure he is itching to get on to the Bill. The problem is that the rest of the Chamber is also itching to hear him on the Bill rather than on the virtues of our great north-west.

[Alistair Burt]

With that admonition, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave the subject of Bury North when I have reminded my hon. Friend to take my best and fondest wishes to Bury football club, and to Gordon and Morris who do the commentary on Shakers Player every week. I am young enough to have played football regularly with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown)—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will help the Minister. I do not want to hear about football or about Bury, and certainly not about whether he plays football with the shadow Minister. I want to hear about the Bill. I know he will tell me about it. If not, we will move on.

[Alistair Burt]

I am very pleased to move on.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Not as pleased as I am.

[Alistair Burt]

I should like to set out responses to the Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, and, when I have made some progress, to deal with the series of questions colleagues have raised during the morning. This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I thank colleagues for their contributions. Deep-sea mining is in its infancy, but by being at the forefront of developments, we can ensure that the UK economy sees the benefits and that any environmental concerns are fully addressed.

The subject of the Bill is probably, in all fairness, unfamiliar to most colleagues. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway was honest enough to say that it is a relatively new subject for him. I could pretend that my situation is different, but I will not. I am indebted to Mr Chris Whomersley and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues for their assistance in preparing me for the debate.

On the background, I want to fill out what colleagues have said about the origins of the Bill and the importance of correct definitions of, for example, the deep sea bed. Deep-sea mining does not come up every day, so it is important to alleviate concerns, particularly bearing in mind recent concerns about mineral extraction and the environment on land, by noting that any activity would take place a long way from any coastal area.

The term “deep sea bed” is defined in amendments in the Bill to the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. The UN convention on the law of the sea calls it the “area” of the

“sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

That is commonly referred to as the common heritage of mankind, a phrase that has found its way into the UN convention in article 136. The concept, which goes back to the 1960s, expresses a profoundly important point, namely that the area and its resources do not belong to any one state. They should be developed for the benefit of everyone on the planet. They are controlled through the International Seabed Authority, an international organisation to which all states can become a party. I will say more about the ISA later.

To refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), getting the balance right between what is controlled by regulation and legislation and what is allowed to run free, as it were, is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke about the freedom of the seas and the like. Access to the sea and freedom to roam on the seas is important, as is the enforcement of such rights to freedom. However, the world recognises that the resources of the sea and what lies on the sea bed and below are genuinely precious. Hon. Members are aware how resources can be badly exploited—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall knows that some countries have badly exploited resources through their fishing practices. That gives us pause to say, “Simply having a free-for-all will not work.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset can be assured, however, that the attitude of the United Kingdom is to ensure that, if international regulation does curtail freedoms, it must be because that is the right thing to do. We have to take our responsibilities seriously, and our responsibility to the environment and the need to ensure that the regulations cover that adequately are as important as ensuring that opportunities for prosperity are not lost through over-regulation or complicated bureaucracy.

The “area”, or the common heritage of mankind, is the area beyond the limits of any coastal state’s continental shelf. Under article 76 of the UN convention, a coastal state is entitled to a continental shelf of at least 200 nautical miles from coastal baselines, and more where the slope of the continental margin meets certain specified criteria. This entitlement is without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between states with opposite or adjacent coasts. The exception to the rule is for a small islet or rock that cannot support economic life. Under the UN convention, such rocks only generate a territorial area—a maritime zone up to 12 nautical miles from coastal baselines.

The UK has one such rock which is sometimes the subject of academic debate. That is Rockall, some 186 nautical miles west of St Kilda in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Anyone who has seen this rock, or seen pictures, will well understand why we could not claim that it could support economic life, being only a jagged spike of rock jutting up some 60 feet above sea level. Therefore, and contrary to some of the sometimes ill-informed comments about Rockall, the United Kingdom does not regard Rockall as capable of generating a continental shelf of its own. Does this mean that deep sea mining could take place in the vicinity of Rockall? No. While the UK uses a baseline on St Kilda—which, coincidentally, is uninhabited but has in the past supported a human population—the UK claims a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in a westerly direction, way out into an area known as the Hatton Rockall plateau. Other states have overlapping continental shelf claims in the same area, but while the claims exist and their validity is yet to be considered by the appropriate international body, the area does not fall within the definition of one

“beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

To be clear, deep sea mining as provided for by the Bill, would not take place anywhere near the coast of the UK, or the UK’s overseas territories, or any other coastal state for that matter. Indeed, most of the current applications relate to areas in the Pacific ocean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned, and are a long way from any landmass.

I have described the “where”, now let me explain the “what”. As hon. Members appreciate, we are not talking about hydrocarbons, at least not at the moment. My notes suggest that it is safe to say that many hon. Members will be unfamiliar with the mineral types, but the debate suggests that they have made themselves very familiar with the mineral types we are discussing. Those minerals currently being explored for in the deep sea are composite mineral deposits, in formulations unique to the sea bed, which is why they are so special.

Presently there are international regulations in place for the exploration of three mineral types in the deep sea. The first, polymetallic nodules, have already been the subject of discussion today. Polymetallic or manganese nodules contain manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel, and are—as far as the FCO is concerned—potato-shaped balls generally found on the sea bed surface. I have no information about whether they may be tennis-ball sized, and it is the official view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that they are potato-shaped balls. They are generally found partially buried in sediment, and cover vast plains in the deepest areas of the sea bed.

Secondly, there are polymetallic sulphides. These, mainly sulphide deposits, are found in ocean ridges and seamounts, and often carry high concentrations of copper, zinc and lead, in addition to gold and silver, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset will be pleased to hear. Not for the first time, he is right on the ball—the tennis ball-sized ball. Such deposits are associated with previous volcanic activity, where the deposits have built up over time via plumes from vents. Where such vents are active, they tend to be places of unique fauna and flora. However, mining would take place only when such sites were extinct, not least because of the very high temperatures associated with live vents. That deals with one of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley raised. There is no question of mining such areas when they are live, because frankly the temperatures would make it impossible.

The third group of mineral elements to which the current legislation applies are found in cobalt-rich crusts or ferromanganese crusts, which form at the flanks and summits of seamounts, ridges and plateaus. They contain amounts of iron and manganese, and are especially enriched in cobalt, manganese, lead, tellurium, bismuth and platinum. Such minerals are important. Mineral prices have increased noticeably since 2000, largely as a result of increases in demand, especially from emerging economies such as China and India, as colleagues have noted. According to the United States geological survey in 2013:

“China has advanced from consuming less than 10% of the global market for metals to over 25% of the market in the past few years and that trend is increasing; India is following on a similar path.”

As I will explain, changes in demand have created a need for legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Just to correct the impression that may have been given to the House by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the treaty of Windsor in 1386 was of course a treaty between Portugal and England, and as so often with the hon. Gentleman, the key is, who is the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is testing the patience of the Chamber a little bit, and I will be quite honest with him. We have had a lot of long interventions, and the last thing I want to get into is a history lesson from either side of the House, because other Bills want to get a hearing, and I am sure he has an interest in those as well.

[Alistair Burt]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The procedures for handling applications to explore for minerals on the deep sea bed are set out in the regulations adopted by the authority—one set for each type of minerals, polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts. The applicant makes an application to the authority, and pays the fee of $500,000. But as we have indicated, there is a certificate of sponsorship from the state party concerned; it is stipulated in the convention that all applications must be sponsored by a state party.

Because of the concerns voiced about environmental protection, I have taken the liberty of obtaining a copy of the two applications for licences that we have made under that sponsorship. The House will be pleased to know that in both, the issue of environmental standards is put forward by a representative of the United Kingdom, who makes the application on behalf of the company being sponsored. So environmental protection is at the heart of the application that is made by the United Kingdom when sponsorship applications are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to placing papers that contain confidential information in the Library. You will be aware that Mr Speaker ruled in 2006 that any confidential papers that are referred to ought to be placed in the Library with the confidential information removed. Will that practice be followed today?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is obviously a matter for the Minister, but as the hon. Gentleman is going off a previous ruling, I am sure the Minister will take it on board.

[Alistair Burt]

indicated assent.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

I have already spelled out very clearly our position, which is exactly the same one as we took at the time of the Lisbon treaty and of the last election: at a time of treaty change, fundamental change or a transfer of power from the British to the European level, we would want an in/out referendum, and we would legislate to make that possible in the event of our having a majority in Parliament.

The Conservative position has flip-flopped dramatically. The position in the Conservative manifesto was enacted in the European Union Act 2011, yet within a year and a few months the Prime Minister was expounding a completely different position. Even that has changed between his speech and this Bill, because the question has changed from whether to remain in the European Union to whether to be in the European Union. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Many conversations are going on. I know that not many people may be agreeing with Mr Horwood, but I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.

[Martin Horwood]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. The chances of the Conservative party getting as far as 2017 without changing its policy again are pretty slim. Let me reinforce that point. Only 19 months ago, the Prime Minister said:

“That, for me, in a parliamentary democracy, is the right use of a referendum. However, as we are not signing a treaty, I think that the whole issue of a referendum does not arise.”

He continued by saying that

“there is a role for referendums in a parliamentary democracy, but that comes at the moment when a Government or a Parliament proposes to give up power, rather than at other times.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 535-549.]

That is precisely the Liberal Democrat position and has been for some time.

We are not going to oppose this Bill, but we are not content to support it because there is a long list of problems with it. Legislation already in force—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—is supposed to lay down the procedure under which we hold referendums and, for example, the role of the Electoral Commission in helping to determine the question. This Bill is pre-empting any decision by the Electoral Commission and it does not even appear to comply or be consistent with the 2000 Act. I do not know whether the draftsmen had forgotten that that Act existed.

Then there is the question of the franchise, which has also been referred to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, would you remind Members that this is a debate about the principle of a referendum, not the relative merits of being in or out of the EU?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can see frustrations building up in the Chamber. I think that Mr Horwood is trying to give us an encompassing view of why the referendum may be good or bad. I am sure that even he recognises that a lot of people wish to speak, and hopefully we can move on. In the meantime, it is Martin Horwood.

[Martin Horwood]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall draw my remarks to a close. Even if hon. Members do not listen to me, and even if they do not listen to the leader of the Norwegian Conservative party, or even the CBI, perhaps they should just listen to what the Prime Minister himself said in that speech. In the end he moved on to the main question, which is whether in an in/out referendum we would be campaigning to stay in or out. The Prime Minister said:

“Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State. But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?”

He went on:

“Continued access to the Single Market is vital for British businesses and British jobs...being part of the Single Market has been key to that success...There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland—with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours—but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market—and pays for the principle—it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.”

The Prime Minister obviously is not really willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. This is a delaying tactic to get us past the next election. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. Europe means jobs, and we should not put those jobs in jeopardy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If we have very short speeches, most hon. Members will be able to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As much brevity as possible, Andrew Miller.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, a large number of colleagues on both sides of the House were unable to make a speech on Second Reading. I understand that the Bill is going to be considered in a Public Bill Committee, where it will have full scrutiny. Can you advise me on how we can draw attention to the fact that many Members were unable to contribute to today’s debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

First, I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who did speak, because 29 managed to get in, but unfortunately 18 did not, and I feel disappointed for them. In fairness, that is pretty unique for a Friday. Perhaps that has set the tone for future Fridays.

NATO

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley]

I must say I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, but I do not want to turn the NATO debate into a debate about the future of the EU. Turkey plays and has played an important role ever since it joined the alliance in helping to defend our freedoms in Europe, and that ought to guide the views of other EU member states when decisions are made about Turkey’s accession to the EU.

I mentioned the history, but only to show that things have moved on. Despite our foreign policy differences with Russia on certain matters, such as Syria, we co-operate on many matters. Russia provides the land bridge to convey NATO’s non-military assets to Afghanistan and will help us remove many of our assets from Afghanistan as we bring our troops home.

The question that we must answer for Members of this House who do not share our views and for the public is, “If the cold war is history, why isn’t NATO?” It is not history because we still need international co-operation and solidarity with our allies and shared and permanent structures to plan to deal with the security risks we face, to deter those risks and, when things go wrong, to manage military action.

No single NATO state, with the possible exception of the United States, has sufficient military assets to protect itself from today’s risks without the help of colleagues. Actually, I do not think the United States should be excepted, because it needs and gains international legitimacy at the UN and elsewhere when it engages in military action that is supported by its allies.

Since the end of the cold war, we have needed NATO to end conflict in the heart of Europe—in Bosnia, for example; to respond to the threat of global terrorism, which had devastating effects on the streets of New York, London, Madrid and a number of cities in east Africa and elsewhere; and to protect human rights and stop ethnic cleansing, as in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya. We needed NATO to provide humanitarian assistance during the 2005 floods in Pakistan and, indeed, following Hurricane Katrina in the United States, when other NATO states sent humanitarian assets. We have needed NATO to counter the threat of piracy off the horn of Africa: the losses suffered at the hands of pirates now cost insurers and shipping companies many hundreds of millions of pounds less than they used to, thanks to NATO and EU coastal patrols. We also need to work collectively with our allies to deal with new and emerging threats—cyber-attack, transnational crime, people trafficking or the drugs trade. All are threats that affect the United Kingdom, but none is a threat to which we can successfully respond and against which we can protect ourselves on our own.

What does the NATO Parliamentary Assembly bring to the table? Where is our added value? After the fall of the Berlin wall, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Assembly sought to build bridges with democrats in the former Warsaw pact countries that wanted to move closer to the west. Indeed, the Assembly moved faster than NATO itself or the Governments of many member states to open a dialogue with those democrats.

At the end of last week, General Nick Carter, the UK soldier and deputy commander of the international security assistance force, said that peace and reconciliation talks with the Taliban should have started a decade ago, and he is right. There were people engaging with moderate leaders in the insurgency in the mid-2000s, and I met them during some of my visits to Afghanistan; but there were disputes at the time about who should do this—whether it should be the Government of Afghanistan, or perhaps the United States. I remember when two people who had been involved in talks with elements within the insurgency were expelled from Afghanistan.

Last week, lead responsibility for security passed from ISAF to the Afghan national security forces in every part of Afghanistan. As our role changes so that we no longer provide the security lead in that country, we need to learn lessons from NATO’s biggest, longest and costliest military operation. Our Parliamentary Assembly has visited Afghanistan 11 times in the past eight years, and when preparing for this debate I looked back at our reports.

In 2004, we argued that NATO, which at that time had a role in Kabul but not throughout the country, should expand its presence throughout Afghanistan. In reports in 2004, 2005 and 2006, we called for a unified command, encompassing both ISAF, the NATO mission, and the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom. Between 2005 and 2008, we published reports calling for better burden sharing between NATO member states and for caveats imposed by some of the national contributions to NATO to be lifted. As early as 2004—nine years ago—we highlighted the need to accelerate the build-up and strengthen the training of Afghan national security forces; we stressed that particularly strongly from 2006 onward.

Even in 2002—more than a decade ago—we were stressing the link between security and development assistance; and from 2006, in reports and resolutions we called for what is now described as the comprehensive approach: diplomacy, defence and development co-operation. Again as early as 2004, we identified that much aid was used inefficiently because it was not channelled through Afghan institutions, and now even 50% of US aid is channelled through the World Bank’s trust fund and the Government of Afghanistan. Interestingly, in 2006—seven years ago—we called for reconciliation talks with moderate elements in the insurgency. Since 2006, we have stressed the need to challenge the safe havens in Pakistan and we have been involving Pakistani MPs in meetings of our Assembly. I have visited Afghanistan five or six times during the period our forces have been in the country, and I have to say that many of the prescient ideas reflected in reports of our Assembly came from British commanders, British diplomats, DFID staff or British aid workers.

The Assembly is an effective forum for sharing good ideas and good practice and, where we identify good practice adopted by one country, we try to persuade others in the alliance to support similar approaches. Often, it is easier for legislators who do not have executive responsibilities to reach conclusions on these matters than it is for members of a Government. We are still, even now, debating defence budgets, following the reports we produced some years ago on burden sharing. As we know, Robert Gates, the former US Defence Secretary, in his outgoing statement, called on Europe to step up to the mark on defence spending, and it is clear to our Assembly that most countries in Europe do not spend enough on defence. Indeed, only two—Britain and Greece—spend the 2% of GDP that NATO recommends.

When I put that point to our Secretary of State, as I have a number of times, he says that, with the economic situation so fragile, now is not the right time to press Governments of other countries to increase their defence expenditure, but I believe it is necessary for security reasons, and that the way to get through the difficulty is to seek commitments that, as the economic situation improves and Governments receive a taxation dividend from growth, they will devote a proportion of it to greater defence expenditures. I do not think we have public opinion on our side for that proposition at the moment, which is another reason we need to do more to explain why we have the security structures we have in NATO and why it is necessary to maintain them and finance them properly. Both the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and NATO itself need to do more to get their case into the public domain, and I congratulate the Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he has been speaking for 20 minutes, and it was to be 10 to 15 minutes? I am sure that he is nearing the end now.

[Hugh Bayley]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I should not have taken so many interventions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You have had some extra time.

[Hugh Bayley]

I simply want to say this: we have a responsibility to make the case for defence spending in our constituencies and through debates such as this.

We need to stress also—this is the final point that I shall make—the importance of maintaining the trans-Atlantic relationship, which underpins NATO as an alliance. We share much with the United States and Canada in terms of our culture, history, family links from not just the United Kingdom but many European families, and trade links. The United States and Canada exported more to the European Union last year—$304 billion worth of goods and services—than they did to Japan, China and Korea combined, to which they exported $266 billion. EU exports in the opposite direction are more than $400 billion to the United States and Canada and $300 billion to east Asia.

We need to stress these things that we have in common. Of course the United States should focus on security concerns that it faces in the Pacific, but it should not forget the common interests it has with us in Europe, on which we need to work together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

No doubt in the second world war, the hon. Gentleman would have complained if he had to meet both Montgomery and Eisenhower. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has only just walked into the Chamber, but he seems to have a lot to say.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think I know when people came in, but not to worry about that. I am more concerned about the fact that you have been speaking for 15 minutes and only have a minute left, Mr Spellar.

[Mr Spellar]

I have been giving way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Giving way does not extend the debate, and we have given a lot of extensions. There are 15 minutes for each Front Bencher. I am very lenient and can allow a minute or two, but not much more.

[Mr Spellar]

In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall move on to two other areas I think we need to consider in the context of NATO. One is security, the work of GCHQ and operations in cyberspace.

For Britain, more than for any other alliance country, our relationship with NATO is intrinsically bound up with our defence and security relationship with the United States. That is clear to those who serve in the Parliamentary Assembly and other right hon. and hon. Members who take defence and security matters seriously. Our relationship with the United States is unique and indispensable, not only in the hard power defence of our liberties and interests, but in the developing struggle against international terrorism and organised crime—especially the trafficking of people, narcotics and weapons, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said—and in the sphere of cyberspace, through our security services and GCHQ.

Unfortunately, albeit for understandable reasons, success against those threats cannot be widely publicised, but the pooling of technology resources and intellectual analytical capacity, and indeed the courage of individuals who often have to operate in very dangerous environments, is a joint endeavour. We owe a great debt to all those involved in that work and should acknowledge it more widely, and I am pleased to do so here today.

Military and security cohesion is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the ongoing health of the alliance. Other elements of the transatlantic relationship also need to be refreshed, which is why the talks on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership are so encouraging. As ever, there will be a host of complications and vested interests to overcome, but if the participants can keep their eye on the main prize, it will be considerable. Achieving greater integration of the north Atlantic market, with five of the G8 countries and approaching half the world’s GDP, would not only provide a vital economic boost, but further consolidate our political and security relationships.

NATO, founded by the great post-war Government of Attlee and Bevan, has served this country and the free world well. It faces challenges, and we should be prepared to meet them. We should remember that some of those who argue NATO’s irrelevance today are those who, at the height of the cold war, were most opposed to NATO. Collective defence and collective security have served us well throughout my lifetime. May they continue to do so into the future.

Sudan and South Sudan

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have six speakers and about one hour’s time, so I suggest Members try to take that into account when they speak.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I shall wait for the right hon. Gentleman’s speech for him to elaborate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think it is a bit late for that.

[Mr Ellwood]

As the Minister said, there have been a number of successes of which we can be proud, so we should not be too dismayed: the referendum has led to a new constitution, there has been a series of elections and to some extent all-out civil war has been avoided, but there remains huge sectarian violence and a number of challenges ahead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who spoke very articulately and has huge experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, said that Iraq was not Britain’s finest hour. This was there with the Suez crisis and our invasion of Afghanistan in 1839. There was no conflict plan. The decision to disband the army and de-Ba’athify Iraq in one fell swoop was bizarre and ignored the fact that teachers, nurses and others were forced to be part of the Ba’ath party. As soon as we made it illegal and those who were part of it unable to work, we lost the mindset of support from an important swathe of the middle-class population.

The timeline makes for grievous reading. In summer 2007, we failed to do any development and reconstruction. Our military were forced to withdraw from the city centre, as it became untenable to stay there, and relocate to the airport. The Prime Minister, Mr Maliki, said:

“Basra has been left to the mercy of the militia men”.

In the absence of anything happening, a vacuum developed. Gangs formed, which turned into militia, which then ran the city. In 2008, it was not the British who liberated the city; it was the Iraqi army. Maliki came down to Basra and decided the situation needed to come to an end and that the Mahdi army needed to be pushed out. In spring 2009, our military interest in Iraq came to an end. We did not hand the base over to the Iraqi army; we handed it over to the Americans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). He is of course right to mention the sheer bravery and commitment of our service personnel, the effectiveness with which they conducted Operation Telic, and the speed with which Iraq was defeated, if can use that word. I remember those days clearly, as the MP representing the regimental headquarters of the Black Watch, which was engaged in the operations. I also recall the time of the surge in Falluja, when the media came to me for comment on the many losses sustained by the Black Watch at that time. That was a difficult period for all those Members of Parliament with a military interest in the Iraq war. Those interviews, in which I paid tribute to the many soldiers from my constituency who lost their lives during that war, were among the toughest interviews I have ever had to do. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is also right to mention what happened after the war: the total lack of planning for a sustainable reinvention of Iraq and the stripping of all state infrastructure relating to the Ba’ath party. That was a massive mistake and it led to many of the difficulties that followed the invasion.

I want to go back to 18 March 2003, the day on which we debated the Iraq war. I was here that day, as a few hon. Members who are in the Chamber today were, and I remember it as a dark ugly day, a horrible day. There was nothing like the light Whip that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described. I was the Whip of our group, and I remember seeing some of the Labour Whips’ activities on that day. People were drawn aside and told that the Prime Minister would resign if the vote did not go through. They were told that their careers would be at risk if they voted against the Government. It was a horrible day. I remember lots of good men and women being dragooned into the Lobby to support their Prime Minister and their Government against their better instincts. It was good to hear the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher)—it is a pity that he has now left the Chamber—acknowledge that we were fed a lot of nonsense about the case for war. Many Members of Parliament, particularly those on the Labour side, knew that, but they were dragooned into providing that perverse support for their Prime Minister and their Government.

I remember listening to Tony Blair that day. I actually watched the YouTube video of the speech this morning, just to refresh my memory of the atmosphere in the debate. We had to listen to endless drivel and nonsense. He said that the case for weapons of mass destruction was beyond debate, that they were really there, and that they could reach us in 45 minutes. He talked about collusion with al-Qaeda, and said that Saddam Hussein was preparing a nuclear programme using uranium from Niger. It was all total and utter bollocks—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should use that word, and I am sure that he will want to withdraw it immediately.

[Pete Wishart]

I withdraw it, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was not that, but something very similar, that we had to listen to on that day.

The House passed the vote on Iraq by 412 votes to 149, and 217 hon. Members voted for the amendment tabled by Chris Smith. I was among those who voted against the war, as were my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), my hon. Friends the Members for Angus (Mr Weir) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I am looking around the Chamber to see who else is here: I see the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), whom I commend for his fantastic speech today. It was excellent to hear a speech from the Front Bench from a former Minister who meant what he said and I thank him for that. He was listened to very carefully throughout the House. All of us here on these Benches today voted against the war. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but one thing is certain: had she been a Member, there is no doubt that she would have been in the Lobby with us that evening.

That vote is the one that I am most proud of in my 12 years as a parliamentarian. It defined my first Session in Parliament. I, a young whippersnapper of an MP in short trousers, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, first came here in the Session that lasted from 2001 to 2005, and the Iraq war was the defining feature of that parliamentary term. That was the context and the subtext of a lot of the debates we had on similar and other issues. I certainly remember during the 2005 election the sheer anger on the doorstep about the invasion of Iraq and how the war went.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this important and useful debate. The honesty and frankness with which Members have taken part does credit to this place: it has shown the House at its best. I note with interest that no one spoke in defence of the UK’s support for the war. Over and over again, hon. Members emphasised the heavy price paid for the invasion, not only by people in this country, but crucially by people in Iraq, where sectarian violence continues to grow.

The debate focused on looking forward as well as back, and I want quickly to underline a few of today’s conclusions. Hon. Members expressed a lot of support for having free votes—and, crucially, votes based on information—when the House debates going to war. Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of basing our decisions on information. We also heard about the importance of reforming the relationship between the Foreign Office, the military and Parliament to ensure that it works better; about the need for structural changes to the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Intelligence and Security Committees; and about the significance of Iran and Syria.

Many Members spoke about how the war undermined Parliament’s reputation. I hope that this debate has been a step towards reinvigorating confidence in Parliament. I pay particular tribute to the contribution from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), whose comments, as everyone said, were from the heart and delivered with a frankness that made us all listen. I would like to pay tribute to other colleagues, too. The anger with which the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) spoke about the level of deception rang out across the House and, I hope, much wider. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke powerfully and with an expertise that not many of us in this place have about the importance of acknowledging when we get things wrong and of being able to say that we are failing. He warned of the dangers of thinking that we can only ever succeed.

I thank the Minister for loyally sitting through just about the whole debate, although I cannot thank him for the substance of his remarks, given that he was constrained, as he explained, by the convention preventing him from speaking before Chilcot reports. Waiting for Chilcot is like waiting for Godot. It would be helpful to have that report as soon as possible. The debate lacked a contribution from a Minister made with the same degree—or any degree, frankly—of honesty and frankness about what went wrong as other speeches. [Interruption.] I wanted to give credit to all my wonderful colleagues, but I am being told that my time is up. Is that correct, Mr Deputy Speaker?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

You have had your two minutes, but I am allowing you to continue. I am sure you are coming to an end.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) made an important point about the conflict of interest of those on the Chilcot inquiry and about the importance of the Attorney-General’s advice being put in the public domain. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) talked about the problem of a lack of planning post-Saddam. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) catalogued many of the deceptions and reminded us that the rules of the House prohibit us from reading out names of the dead.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) shared with us his interesting perspective as a serving officer and what it felt like to be in that position. He stressed that threat is a combination of intent and capacity, which needs to be borne in mind when trying to judge what constitutes a threat. I welcomed the contribution from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because he put it clearly on the record that there was very heavy whipping during the vote and that that day, 18 March, was a “horrible day”. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) implied that the whipping was all very nice, light and happy, but that was not the case.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) raised the crucial issue of depleted uranium, while the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly reminded us that Hans Blix pleaded for more time. He did not say it was a lost cause and that war was the only option—on the contrary. Finally, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) gave us some fascinating insights into the mind of the Prime Minister. Quite how he thought the invasion would help the middle east peace process is a question that will keep me thinking for the rest of the day and beyond.

I apologise to those I have not mentioned in my brief winding-up speech, which has already stretched your kind patience, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War.

Court of Justice of the European Union

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am always willing to say that if any right hon. or hon. Member, or any UK business, can come forward with evidence that another member state is refusing to implement European law—whether that is law as interpreted by the Courts or the law as enacted through the European legislative process—we will be happy to champion those British citizens or companies with the relevant institutions. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, once law has been established and clarity assured by a judgment from the Court, it is then for the European Commission to initiate infraction proceedings if a member state fails to implement the European Court’s rulings. It is fair to say that sometimes there is argument after the judgment about the exact meaning—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are drifting from the question of advocates-general. Mr Shannon has tempted you, Minister for Europe, and you should know better. Back on course!

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) applies to Mr Speaker for an Adjournment debate, he and I might have the opportunity to explore those matters in the detail that he so ardently desires.

Let me return to the issue we are debating and the criticisms the European Scrutiny Committee has raised. Let me turn first to the important issue of funding. Although broadly supporting the proposal, the Government are clear that any additional advocates-general should not and need not result in an increase in the Court’s budget. The appointment of the new post holders and their support staff should lead to a relatively small additional cost of about €4 million a year, which the Court can meet from within its existing budget. Its budget was more than €354 million for 2013, and the Court has underspent by more than the cost of the additional advocates-general in each of the last three years. In the current economic climate, there is an imperative on all the EU’s institutions, including the Court, to find ways to reduce their administrative costs.

As I set out in paragraph 12 of my explanatory memorandum to the European Scrutiny Committee, the UK is prepared to submit a minute statement in Council to set out our expectation that the increase is cost-neutral. If necessary, we will do that during voting on the Council decision. As I know the House understands, a minute statement in itself will not be enough to guarantee cost-neutrality, but would be a clear statement of the United Kingdom’s position ahead of the separate financial negotiations next year on the annual budget. Indeed, the minute statement is not intended to secure budget neutrality at this stage, but is intended to signal clearly the beginning of our negotiating position for next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

But does the Minister not agree that what we want is fewer judges because we want fewer cases? The judges we want are the ones who will uphold the sovereignty of national Parliaments on far more issues than is currently the case—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to intervene on the Minister even though he only arrived in the Chamber three minutes ago. However, the debate is about advocates-general, not about judges.

[Mr Lidington]

I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that we need less legislation at European level. We need legislation to be written as clearly as possible, so that there is less need for the arbitration of the Courts. Regarding some of his criticisms of the ambiguity and over-prescriptive nature of European law, I have to say that I have heard such criticism being made of United Kingdom Acts of Parliament as well from time to time. None of this is perfect. He might have missed the point that I made earlier in my speech that British business finds it helpful to have a European Court of Justice applying the rules of the single market with clarity and, one would hope, with fairness. There have been a number of leading cases in which the decisions of the European Courts have led to significant practical advantages and opportunities for United Kingdom businesses and business sectors.

I want to give a little additional information to the right hon. Member for Leicester East. I have been advised that Lord Mance is the United Kingdom’s member on the panel and that there are seven members of it in total. From memory, they are people who are selected on merit and who have held usually very senior judicial office, perhaps in the constitutional court or supreme court of their own country.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just suggest that we have to be careful, as this debate is about the referendum and we are being dragged over other different subjects? I know that Mr Opperman wants to keep to the subject of the debate, so I ask hon. Members not to distract him—that would be helpful.

[Guy Opperman]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Death Penalty (India)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. For the hon. Gentleman just to walk in and intervene in this way is discourteous to everyone else in the Chamber. I understand that he wants to make an intervention, but he must be in the Chamber for at least five minutes before he does so. I am not making a personal attack on him, but he must show good manners to everyone else.

[Mr Ward]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

India’s growing status in the world, its growing economy and its importance to Britain and the EU are no excuse for not doing anything about this matter. They provide an imperative for ensuring that the crucial link between our two countries can be used as a lever to bring about change in India. When we are seeking to improve our own economy, particularly through exports and international trade, the temptation is there, but there is a danger that we hold back for fear of offending a foreign economic power with which we feel we need to develop closer links. It would be immoral, in my view, if growing trade links were used as an excuse for holding back on deserved criticism.

It is crucial for today’s debate that pressure is placed on the Indian Government— not by a group of Back Benchers or petitioners, but by this Government—to uphold basic human rights as a fundamental policy and procedure. We need to outlaw this terrible death penalty once and for all. It is one of the most inhumane and abhorrent punishments used in today’s world—and it needs to end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise us whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement to the House to explain his outrageous comment about schools in east Durham made in a speech last night, that:

“when you go into those schools you can smell the sense of defeatism”?

That is a slur on the hard-working teachers, students and parents of the area. Why is he talking down our schools and young people? He should come to the House and apologise to the people of east Durham.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can assure you that the Chair has not been notified by the Secretary of State that he is about to make a statement, but that is on the record and I am sure that it will have been noted.