House of Commons
Wednesday 5 March 2008
The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Scotland
The Secretary of State was asked—
Electricity Generation
The most recent estimate is that Scotland has about 10.5 GW of generating capacity.
Generating capacity has an effect on prices. As my hon. Friend is aware, Ofgem has launched a welcome investigation into the electricity and gas markets. In view of the similarities between the price increases imposed on consumers by energy companies, will the Minister ask Ofgem specifically to look into the possibility that the companies are operating a nice, cosy cartel against the public interest and are a major cause of fuel poverty?
My hon. Friend has reflected the concerns of many by talking about fuel poverty. As he is aware, given that in today’s climate the cost of a barrel of oil is now in excess of $100, the issue affects not only the UK but countries right around the world. My hon. Friend is right to point out that Ofgem’s role is to ensure that no cosy cartel exists, and I am sure that that will be part of the review that it is undertaking.
As a Government, we can ensure that those discussions can take place. My hon. Friends in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have been talking with Ofgem representatives about those matters, too. In the meantime, we will continue our attack on fuel poverty through measures such as the winter fuel payment—now worth up to £300 in households where somebody is aged 80 or more—and by ensuring that the great inroads that we have made to reduce fuel poverty are not undone by rising fuel prices.
Does the Minister agree that it is important to ensure Scotland’s future generating capacity? In that regard, is he aware that the Pentland firth is estimated to have 31 GW of potential? People on both sides of the firth are working to exploit that potential. The last Scottish Executive helped, and the current one is helping; on the other hand, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is being somewhat slow. What can the Minister do to help that UK Department ensure that there is a UK supply of electricity from the far north?
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is, of course, a distinguished former Liberal Democrat Scottish spokesperson, and if press reports are to be believed, he may be back in that job tomorrow. I look forward to welcoming him back to the post, following the outcome of this evening’s vote.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am well aware of the potential of Solway firth; I have been to look at it twice in the past couple of months, and the Minister for Energy has been to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as well.
I do not accept that DBERR is dragging its heels. We have ensured the correct levels of subsidy at the correct time in the development of technology. Because we have international targets to meet and the threat of climate change is real, those have been designed predominantly to meet the needs of onshore wind technology. However, the next generation of tidal and wave power will have a part to play and the Government stand ready to assist it.
Does my hon. Friend agree that nuclear power generates more electricity than any other form of power in Scotland, and that the Scottish Executive are irresponsible and short-sighted to rule out building any new nuclear power stations?
Factually, my hon. Friend is entirely correct. Nuclear power is responsible for producing about 40 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity. It should be part of a balanced portfolio of energy that includes renewables, which have a very important part to play, as well as clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage. I also agree with my hon. Friend’s criticism of the Scottish Executive.
The Minister is, of course, quite wrong. The last figures from DBERR itself show that nuclear power made up only 26 per cent. of generation and was falling as renewables rise. Is the future not with renewable energy, such as that to be produced by the Glendoe hydro-station, which, when it comes on line, will produce enough energy to cover the whole of Glasgow?
I support the Glendoe hydro-scheme, which the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive consented to. The fact is that, even if we accept the hon. Gentleman’s figures—which are only the case because of temporary outages at Hunterston—historically speaking, nuclear power has been responsible for 40 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity. How would the hon. Gentleman replace that? He could not replace it with intermittent renewables, and he is attempting to con the Scottish people if he says that he can.
Devolution
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the time has come to assess how we can strengthen devolution. The cross-border, cross-party Scottish parliamentary review is the right place for that assessment to be made and I am not in a position to prejudge its outcome.
We have another review, but I remind my friend that Joel Barnett called for a review of the Barnett settlement, which gives to Scotland £1,500 more in public spending per head than it does to England. My question is this: should Holyrood have additional tax or revenue-raising powers, and if so, what are the implications for the Barnett formula?
I say to my hon. Friend that, as he is well aware, the Scottish Parliament has tax-raising powers under the Scotland Act 1998, but it has chosen not to exercise them. Members of the Scottish Parliament, in a motion that they overwhelmingly passed, accepted that proper financial accountability must be looked at in the context of the review, and we shall have to wait and see what comes out of that process. The Barnett formula has delivered stable and transparent settlements for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for about 30 years. Despite the lurid headlines in some of the newspapers this morning, there are no plans for any review of the Barnett formula.
Last August, the First Minister called for the reconvening of the Joint Ministerial Committees, and we have heard today that that will happen, which my colleagues and I welcome. We also learned today that when Scottish voters last year were deciding in favour of change, there was an embarrassing secret meeting between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to stop that change. Still going against public opinion, the Prime Minister says that he wants to take away democratic powers that the Scottish Parliament holds as part of the devolution settlement. Which powers would those be?
The hon. Gentleman sometimes gets slightly over-excited in these circumstances. We saw there a fine example of the Scottish National party’s attitude to Scotland. His question was not, “another day, another grievance”, but “another day, another three grievances”. As I recollect—I was not party to any of the discussions—in the aftermath of the Scottish Parliament elections, discussions took place between all sorts of people about the formation of a Government in Scotland. I am absolutely certain that the man who is currently the First Minister in Scotland took part in such discussions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reveal which discussions took place with various other parties, I would be delighted to hear about them.
As far as the powers of the Scottish Parliament are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the settlement for that Parliament includes a degree of flexibility that has, over the years, allowed powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament and, on occasions, from it. The test that we will apply as to which powers go and which powers come will be what is in the best interest of the people of Scotland and the Union. If he wants to join me in those discussions, he is welcome to do so.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are going to discuss the powers of Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, one of the best places to do so is not in the media or commissions, but on the Floor of this House or within parliamentary structures? Would it not be a good idea, as I have suggested to my right hon. Friend in the past, for the Grand Committee to discuss all matters concerning Scotland—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend will note that the Liberals and the SNP do not want to discuss Westminster issues in Scotland in this Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees with me.
My hon. Friend has raised a point that he has been raising consistently for some time. He is to be commended for his consistent championing of that agenda, but it is a matter for the House rather than the Executive. However, he has made a good point. Those issues are alive, and they ought to be discussed in this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament. The democratic deficit in Scotland is that, allegedly, a conversation is going on, although it is a pretty muted one, instigated by the Scottish Executive and paid for with public money, but without the authority of the Scottish Parliament. The democratic deficit in Scotland is that the SNP has been unwilling—dare I say it, afraid—to bring the national conversation to the Scottish Parliament to get it endorsed.
I thank the Secretary of State for his input so far into discussions leading to the setting up of the Scottish Constitutional Commission. He has always been very positive and engaged. However, he will need to explain to the Prime Minister that there is no appetite in Scotland for the transfer of powers between here and Edinburgh to be a two-way street. Unless that can be explained to the Prime Minister, the prospects for the commission’s success will be diminished.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of my contribution. For my part, I reciprocate that and look forward to building the same sort of relationship with his successor. Our discussions have been constructive, because all the people at the heart of those discussions have the best interests of the Scottish people at heart and reflect the overwhelming view of the Scottish people that devolution must be made to work. Currently, we see a significant reduction in support for independence in Scotland, but that is no wonder, given that we have an Executive running Scotland who are more interested in powers that they do not have than in using those that they do for the people of Scotland. As for the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, I well understand his party’s position, but the reality is that the transfer of powers under the 1998 Act has been a two-way street, and we should not deny it.
I understand that the Secretary of State does not want to pre-empt the outcome of the commission, but does he agree that it is a matter of principle that where a Government have responsibility for spending money, they should also have responsibility for raising it and not just have tax-raising powers as an option?
It is interesting that the current Scottish Executive aspire to that position but are taking such powers away from local government in Scotland. There is no question but that financial accountability is an important part of democracy, and I am sure that the review consideration will come up with an answer to that.
I have heard what the Secretary of State has said about reviewing the Barnett formula, but is he really telling the House that no one on the Government Benches believes that such a review should take place? Specifically, will he confirm the position of the Justice Secretary on the Barnett formula, as he appears to be playing an increasingly shadowy role in Scottish devolution?
The hon. Gentleman knows what I have said at the Dispatch Box, but I cannot speak for everybody who sits on the Government Benches, any more than he can speak for everybody who sits on the Conservative Benches behind him. If he wants to know what each person believes, he should ask them. To describe the Secretary of State for Justice, who has responsibility for devolution in departmental terms, as a shadowy figure is a distortion of the truth. The fact of the matter is that no review of the Barnett formula is planned, and I understand from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments yesterday that he does not plan one, either.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain to the House how it is tenable for Labour to agree to review the financial powers of the Scottish Parliament on the one hand, as he and the Prime Minister have done, but on the other hand to declare the Barnett formula to be sacrosanct.
It is as tenable for the Government to be in that position as it is for the Conservative party, and that is exactly the position that the Conservative party is in.
Armed Forces (Health Care)
I have had various discussions with the First Minister on a range of subjects, including armed forces personnel. The Scottish Executive have the duty to ensure that NHS boards in Scotland implement their responsibilities to the armed forces, service families and veterans. The Ministry of Defence has numerous regular discussions at various levels to assist the Executive and NHS Scotland in that respect.
Although I acknowledge the excellence of the medical facilities for our military personnel at Selly Oak, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the First Minister about providing an equally good range of facilities—a centre of excellence—for those serving who are based or living in Scotland, such as those in 52 Brigade, which is currently in Afghanistan? Most personnel will be based in Scotland, but there will be people from the north of England, too. Should they not receive equal treatment to that which people being looked after at Selly Oak receive?
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s recognition of the world-class clinical care that our troops receive at Selly Oak hospital. That has not always been recognised, but the Defence Committee has done the House, Selly Oak hospital and our troops a significant service by clearly confirming that a world-class service is provided there. The reason the service is world class is that there is a concentration of expertise at Selly Oak hospital that would be almost impossible to replicate anywhere else. I am aware of one occasion, for example, on which a soldier returning from Afghanistan required the attention of 16 trauma consultants. Only Selly Oak hospital can provide that. Any attempt to replicate that anywhere else in the United Kingdom would run the risk of diluting the care that we can give. Selly Oak should be built up.
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Defence Committee’s report, which highlights the fact that veterans in Scotland do not receive the same treatment as veterans in the rest of the United Kingdom? The Select Committee was highly critical of that. When my right hon. Friend meets the First Minister of the minority Government in Scotland, will he make it clear that our troops deserve to be treated in exactly the same way in Scotland as they are throughout the rest of the UK?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Defence Committee, and to the work of the Committee. It has done a service to our armed forces by identifying that one criticism among a small number of criticisms in a report that was otherwise substantially complimentary about medical care. The Scottish Executive—in particular, the Health Minister in Scotland—have responded immediately to that matter. They have suggested that their dealings with the Ministry of Defence are very good on that issue, and I can confirm that they are. We will work together to deal with that and sort it out.
Given that many veterans are now retired and elderly, does the Secretary of State agree with the report by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that free health care for the elderly should now be subject to eligibility criteria?
I am not aware of the individual report that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I will consider the matter in the context in which the report is written and get in touch with him.
If there have been any failings in the treatment of veterans in the past, the Secretary of State has only his Scottish colleagues in the previous Labour Executive to thank. Will he join me in congratulating the Scottish Government on putting an extra £500,000 into helping veterans with mental health issues, and on the priority treatment that veterans with service-related conditions are now about to receive from the Scottish Government? Does that not contrast vividly with the failings and shortcomings of the previous so-called Executive?
That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman—
But not surprising.
Indeed. It is unworthy of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to play party politics with the health and welfare of our troops, particularly those who are serving in Afghanistan or Iraq and who might come back injured. His party has responsibility for the delivery of that service. I have told the House that I am pleased with the response by the Health Minister in Scotland that she will engage with the issue now that it has been brought to her attention. The fact is, however, that it took her some months to find out that it was even an issue.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the treatment of our veterans is of the utmost importance to Members on both sides of this House—except, it would appear, to Members from one party, which happens to be in a minority Government in Scotland? Does he agree that, if we were to open up the Scotland Act 1998, the important function of looking after our veterans might be one of the powers that we should bring back to this House, so that we can look after the people who defend this country?
There is growing consensus across the House that, in regard to the delivery of our public services, we ought, as a country, to recognise our commitment to our veterans and our serving troops, and to the families and extended families of those who serve our country in that way. It is disagreeable and disappointing that the Scottish National party should choose to make party advantage in that matter. However, I have no doubt that, as it learns more about the responsibilities of Administration, it will learn that that does not help, and that it will not be forgotten by the people of Scotland in the long term.
The recent Defence Committee report made it clear that the Scottish Executive were not giving high enough priority to the medical care of our service personnel. Last year, Scottish nationalist MSPs supported a ban on the Army visiting schools. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP’s treatment of our soldiers as second-class citizens is simply the worst kind of politics? Will he seek an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to ask him to raise that matter with the First Minister, in order to remind the First Minister that our armed forces personnel are part of the British Army, and that we stand together and fight together?
I will do what I can to get an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence, but I know that his diary is very busy. However, the hon. Gentleman has made the good point that one party in the House plays around with those issues for political purposes. In the absence of a coherent defence policy, it is not surprising that it chooses to exploit circumstances as it does. Members of that party should not continue to believe, however, that our armed forces do not recognise that. Those Members do not provide the coherent strategic support that our armed forces need, and they should not play about with those issues as they do.
Unemployment
I have discussed the issue of Government support to assist unemployed people to return to work in Glasgow with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform on a number of recent occasions.
I welcome the good work of the Department for Work and Pensions in Glasgow and Glasgow city council in focusing on employment in the city. They have identified two main challenges, namely the lack of skills among low-paid workers and the lack of appropriate after-school care for lone parents. When my hon. Friend next meets the First Minister, will he remind him that Glasgow needs more, not fewer, apprentices and more funding for comprehensive after-school care rather than taking money out of the voluntary sector?
I agree with my hon. Friend that, after many years of decline, the city of Glasgow has undergone an astonishing renaissance in recent years. It is now important that economic opportunity is expanded out from the centre to all Glasgow’s inhabitants. We will be able to do that only if we ensure that people have the right skills and training to be part of Glasgow’s economic success. That will not happen by capping the number of available apprenticeships, which is what the SNP has done, in sharp contrast to the big expansion in apprenticeships that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced. We have ambitions for Glasgow, but it seems that the SNP does not.
One way of getting more people into employment in Glasgow and elsewhere is through the Department for Work and Pensions’ Workstep programme, which provides job subsidies to employers of people with severe disabilities. What would my hon. Friend say about a local authority that signed a Workstep contract with the DWP to supply work for 35 disabled people a week after SNP and Liberal Democrat councillors effectively voted to close the same factory in which those people work? How can that help people get into employment?
My hon. Friend is an acknowledged and nationally respected champion of disabled people, who has championed many programmes to help disabled people get into work not only in Glasgow, but in her own Aberdeen constituency. I am very concerned to hear about that proposed cut by Aberdeen city council, so I beg it not to take any action that would make it more difficult for disabled people to get into work, which would be entirely wrong.
Devolution
I have discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues and I look forward to further constructive discussions in the interests of the people of Scotland in the future.
I speak as a Conservative and Unionist Member. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Minister of State, who is sitting alongside him, has concluded:
“There is no case for the massive restructuring”
of the current fiscal arrangements for Scotland, when apparently the Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament believes that they should be fundamentally reviewed? May I have a straightforward answer?
The hon. Gentleman does not need to remind us of his qualifications to ask that question, as the whole House knows who he is. May I say that if I infer from his question correctly, he is a welcome convert to the improvement of the devolution settlement? This Government believe in devolution and we delivered it. I am delighted to be working with the Conservative Front Benchers both here and in the Scottish Parliament to devise a method for the review of the devolution settlement in order to improve it for the people of Scotland. I welcome his contribution.
Employment
The employment level in Scotland stands at 2.53 million, with the rate of employment at 76.5 per cent. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, the employment rate stands at 78.4 per cent.
Unemployment in my constituency stands at 2.4 per cent., but that figure will increase because of the cuts being implemented by the Scottish National party. Along with a 6 per cent. increase in rents, there are cuts in the Education Department, cuts in the Health Department and cuts in the Development Department, yet the SNP is spending £70,000 on a tent. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about that?
My hon. Friend is right. Since 1997 there have been more than 250,000 additional jobs in the Scottish economy thanks to Labour’s management of the economy, and it is a great shame to see that good work being undone by the SNP, both in the Administration in Edinburgh and locally. I am sure that the voters of Livingston will bear that in mind the next time that they go to the polls.
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
Before I list my engagements, let me say that I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Royal Air Force Sergeant Duane Barwood, who died in Iraq on Friday. To him and to others who have lost their lives we owe a huge debt of gratitude.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
I endorse the Prime Minister’s comments.
Poverty pay in this country was largely eradicated by the national minimum wage legislation introduced by this Government 10 years ago. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and the House that the minimum wage will continue to rise in line with average earnings, and that he will maintain his commitment to high employment and investment in our public services?
I am pleased to announce that the minimum wage will rise to £5.73 this October. That is a 60 per cent. increase on the original minimum wage introduced in 1999. Some people said that the minimum wage would cost us 2 million jobs. We have a rising minimum wage, and we have created 3 million jobs. I am also delighted to say that in contrast to what others are suggesting—£10 billion of tax cuts will be paid for by huge cuts in public spending—we will maintain public services in health, education and transport infrastructure, and those for children and pensioners. We will keep our promises on public services.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sergeant Duane Barwood, who was killed in Basra on Friday. His family live in my constituency, and our thoughts and prayers are with them as they honour his memory.
Does the Prime Minister think that if he held a referendum on the Lisbon treaty he would win it?
No country in Europe apart from Ireland is holding a referendum on the constitutional treaty—Interruption.]
Order. Hon. Members should not be shouting down the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition.
If this were a constitutional treaty, we would hold a referendum. If there were a vote on the euro, we would hold a referendum. But the constitutional concept was abandoned, and that is why the nine countries that proposed a referendum—including Ireland—are not holding one.
The question that the Opposition must answer is this. If after ratification they hold a referendum, they will essentially be renegotiating our membership of the European Union, and that would put thousands of jobs in this country at risk.
Everyone who is watching will see that the Prime Minister will not answer the question. The truth is that all of us in the House promised a referendum. We have the courage of our convictions and are sticking to that promise. The Prime Minister has lost his courage, and that lot—the Liberal Democrats—have lost their convictions. So let me ask the Prime Minister again: does he think that if he held a referendum, he would win it?
The last time a referendum was held on Europe, it was won with a massive majority. Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposals put our membership of the European Union at risk. When will he wake up to the fact that three and a half million jobs are dependent on our membership of the European Union, that 700,000 companies are trading with Europe, that 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, and that all that is put at risk by Conservative intransigence on Europe?
And answer came there none.
The Prime Minister says that the constitutional concept has been abandoned, yet this treaty includes provision for an EU Foreign Minister, an EU president and an EU diplomatic service. I do not think that Tony Blair is running for president of some feeble organisation. He is running for president of the United States of Europe.
This treaty gets rid of dozens of vetoes, and gives the European Union, for the first time, the ability to get rid of further treaties without another treaty. If it looks like the constitution and sounds like the constitution, that is because it is the constitution. Tony Blair found the courage to back a referendum; why will not the Prime Minister?
The Conservative party is wrong: this is not “the United States of Europe”. The Conservative party is wrong: foreign policy is decided at intergovernmental level. As far as what the right hon. Gentleman says about this institutional arrangement, a former Conservative Chancellor says:
“What we have now is far less important than Maastricht”
—and their party did not have a referendum on Maastricht.
If the Prime Minister wants to trade quotes, why does he not try this one from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who was Labour’s appointment to the organisation that drew up the constitution? She said:
“A referendum was promised. It should be delivered. If Labour can’t trust the people, why should the people trust Labour?”
Does not the Prime Minister understand that this is one of the reasons why our political system is so badly broken? All three main parties in this House made a promise to our constituents for a vote on the EU constitution. When we turn around and say, “You can’t have it any more,” it is no wonder people feel cheated and cynical because promises are being made and broken. Why cannot the Prime Minister see the damage that he is doing?
I have explained to the House that if this was a constitutional treaty, we would be having a referendum. The constitutional concept was abandoned. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to persist in talking about “the United States of Europe” and a “constitutional treaty”, he will have no support in the rest of Europe. Indeed, the only party that supports him in Europe, the Czech ODS party, says:
“The document is no constitution any more.”
If the right hon. Gentleman’s party had truly changed and moved to the centre, he would be standing up to his Back-Benchers: he would be leading them instead of following them, he would be standing up to the Eurosceptics instead of appeasing them, and he would be moving to the centre of Europe instead of being left at the margins of Europe.
More, more.
The opportunities for young people to receive a higher education are greater than ever before. Is Swindon, with its high employment level but low skills base, a suitable candidate to bid for a much needed new university?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many towns and cities in this country will want a university or higher education institution in the next few years. We are expanding higher and further education because we are investing more in education and not cutting it, and as we do so there will be scope for towns and cities in this country to apply to have universities or higher education institutions. That is the right way forward for Swindon and for many other towns and cities, and I hope that people will support the increase in education investment that makes that possible.
May I— [Interruption.]
Order. I call the right hon.—[Interruption.] Order. I call the right hon. Gentleman.
May I add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Sergeant Duane Barwood?
The Prime Minister once said that he would,
“build a wider pro-European movement in Britain”.
How does he think he can achieve that by colluding with the anti-European Conservatives to block the in out referendum that the British people really want?
By not walking out of the House of Commons, for a start. By not saying that there is a principle in abstention when it comes to a European issue. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will lead the agenda on the future of Europe, and that we will lead on the environment, international development, the approach to globalisation and security. There is not much principle in recommending abstention.
The Prime Minister talks about leadership, but the fact is that he has bottled it and, as far as I can make out, the leader of the Conservatives wants to leave the European Union but has not got the guts to say it. Is not the truth that this country will never lead in Europe until politicians who believe in the European Union have the courage to stand up for it, and politicians who want to leave it are flushed out in an honest debate on our membership?
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely. The Conservative party leadership is being driven by the Eurosceptics on the Back Benches. I also agree with him that we need to put the pro-European case in the country, but I have to say that to go back to the 1970s and relive a referendum in the 1970s is not the way to plan for the future. The way to plan for the future is to have an agenda for a global Europe, which is exactly what this Government have.
I am proud that this Government have made it possible to have free local pensioner travel and now free off-peak national pensioner travel. That is why we have made available £650 million over the next three years. We consulted local authorities and we agreed to the scheme that they put forward. There is no excuse for local authorities denying pensioners their right to travel throughout the country. This is a scheme that is right, that can be done and that should happen from next month.
There are currently six police investigations under way into the conduct of government in London. The most recent allegations are that the London Mayor’s director for equalities and policing has been channelling public funds into organisations run by friends and cronies. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that that is completely unacceptable?
As on any occasion when a matter referring to a police investigation is raised, I have to say this is a matter for the police. It should be fully investigated, but it is not a matter for this House until the police complete their investigations.
The point is that while these accusations are going on and this investigation is under way, the Mayor—the Labour Mayor—has said that he
“trusts Lee Jasper with his life”,
and last night he said that he is already planning to reappoint him. Does not every element of the Prime Minister’s moral compass tell him that this is wrong?
As I understand it, the person whom the right hon. Gentleman is talking about has resigned and is no longer in that employment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to support the police in their investigation, why does his candidate for the Mayor of London say that the first target for cuts is transport and policing? That is the Conservative party—cutting transport and cutting policing.
One of the good things of recent years is that the number of people using drugs appears to have fallen. It is also true that the number of people receiving drug treatment is up, and we have doubled the budget available for people receiving treatment for drugs. But I have to agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important, when there are celebrities and role models for young people, that they send out the proper messages. Some of our role models and celebrities send out the right message about the damage of drugs, but I hope that those people who take a casual attitude to drugs will think again and remember the message, as celebrities, that they are sending out to young people in our country.
The Prime Minister, speaking of education, boasts of opportunity for all, but has he forgotten that under his stewardship, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has soared to 1.25 million? Does he believe that the principal reason for that failure is that nine in 10 jobs go to foreign workers, or is it that 40,000 school leavers leave at 16 functionally illiterate and/or innumerate?
The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that about 500,000 more young people are in education after school than when we came into power in 1997, so far from there being fewer young people in education, there are more. He has also forgotten that more young people are in work now than there were in 1997, and that youth unemployment has fallen by 80 per cent. Yes, there is an issue to address about young people who fall through the net and young people who leave school without qualifications, but the only way to deal with it is through the measures that we are taking to raise to the age of 18 the opportunities for young people and not to cut them, as the Conservative party would do.
As my hon. Friend knows, the head of Ofgem has set up an inquiry into the market in electricity and energy in this country. It is right that he pursues an investigation to see whether competition is working effectively in the industry. It is also true that as a result of the European emissions trading scheme windfall profits have been made by the energy companies. That is a matter on which the head of Ofgem has also commented. The energy companies have made additional money available this year to help people on low incomes pay their fuel bills, but that is a small amount in relation to what the Government are doing through the winter allowance. Our winter allowance is £200 for the over-60s and £300 for the over-80s. This winter, when people are experiencing high utility bills, the winter allowance that we are giving is crucial.
Since last November, the Government have secretly trebled the bribe offered to foreign national prisoners to go home. Have the Government done that in secret because they have failed?
Two years ago, only 1,500 foreign national prisoners were leaving and being thrown out of this country. Last year, as a result of the actions that we have taken, the figure more than doubled to 4,200. I think it is right that we get as many foreign national prisoners in British prisons back to their country of origin as quickly as possible. I would have hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would support the measures that we are taking to return people to their country of origin.
Answer. [Laughter.]
Order. I will remember some hon. Members when they make a mistake.
In the week when we are celebrating both mother’s day and international women’s day, would my right hon. Friend commit to helping improve maternal and child health programmes in developing countries through improvements in reproductive health services and, in particular, through the international health partnership?
There would be no better way to mark international women’s day than by taking action to deal with infant and maternal mortality. I would have thought that both sides of the House would think it a tragedy that 500,000 mothers die unnecessarily each year in childbirth and that in a country such as Sierra Leone one in every seven mothers dies in childbirth, bringing into life a baby while dying herself. That is why it is very important that the international health partnership that we have formed takes action to deal with maternal mortality. It needs more nurses, more midwives and more help with treatment in those countries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she has put this issue on the agenda in this country. If the Opposition would get serious about issues relating to maternal mortality, perhaps together, as a House, we would take action on this matter.
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and First Minister of Northern Ireland, on the announcement that he made yesterday that he plans to stand down from his position as Northern Ireland’s First Minister? Will he also join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on almost 40 years in this House and on his resolve and determination not to give in to terrorism? Will he also join my right hon. Friend, my colleagues and me in reassuring all of those who want to see continuity in Northern Ireland that true democrats will have nothing to fear from the next Democratic Unionist party First Minister in the Assembly?
The hon. Gentleman is right: all of us want to pay tribute to the work that the First Minister did in making possible the final stages of the peace process, the work that he has done as First Minister, his resolute determination to stand up to terrorism at every point and his decision to work with other parties for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I had the privilege of phoning him last night to thank him for the work that he has done as First Minister, and I hope that the whole House will join me in acknowledging his 40 years of service in this House and the historic role that he has played in the peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills made an important announcement on Monday about the designation of 20 towns or cities for new universities or higher education institutes. I hope that all cities and towns will consider whether they could add to their higher education and university amenities, and I hope that many will make submissions as part of that process. Milton Keynes has done a historic job as the home of the Open university, which is known throughout the world, and given Milton Keynes’ size, its application for university status will be welcomed in every part of the country.
To return to the European treaty, what polling or survey evidence did the Prime Minister have on what the result of a referendum would have been?
The one poll that people look at is an actual referendum. In 1975 there was a referendum that recorded a yes vote, with more than two thirds of the population voting yes. I remind Conservative Members that most of those who were here in 1992 walked through the Lobby to oppose a referendum on Maastricht, and now they want a referendum on a treaty that is far less significant. They should think again about their position.
In the White Paper on the constitution, the Government said that we would consider lowering the voting age to 16 and that is now part of the debate that will take place in the country. On Friday, we announced the appointment of Jonathan Tonge as chair of the Youth Citizenship Commission, which will consider a range of issues including not only the voting age, but the curriculum on citizenship and whether there is a case for a citizenship ceremony when people come of age. All those issues should be part of a public debate.
We have a Parliament, we have a democracy and we are having debates on that very treaty in this House as part of our democracy. The hon. Lady should be honest with the House, because she was a member of the campaign—[Interruption.] I hope that Conservatives who are putting the case for the referendum will tell the House what they really want. They want a no vote in the referendum and many of them want to renegotiate our membership of the EU. They are not simply anti the amending treaty; they are anti-Europe.
Ministerial Visits
I visited Leicestershire in September, when I visited policing in the community. I look forward to returning to the area soon.
When he comes to north-west Leicestershire, the Prime Minister will receive a warm welcome, not least from the area’s general practitioners, who have implemented our Government’s primary care policies very successfully since 1997. Will he meet those GPs, such as the highly respected Dr. Orest Mulka, whose experience with polyclinics abroad indicates that they will be a step too far and that they might lead to a lower regard for generalist doctors, damage the GP- patient relationship and be wasteful and demoralising as a consequence?
The key priority is that we have more doctors who are serving their communities, not just during working hours but during evenings and weekends. That is why it is right that in every area of the country we are investing more in the GP service. I hope that our GPs will vote for the three extra hours that will allow half the practices in this country to offer weekend opening or evening opening so that doctors are available for people when they need them.
Engagements
Of course, I would be very happy to meet an all-party delegation. The work of hospices and the great contribution that they make should be commended in every part of the country. It is true to say that we are providing more finance for hospices than ever before. We will continue to look at what we can do and to value the service that is given by volunteers, as well as professionals, in this area. When we meet, we will discuss the future funding needs of hospices.
I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s second point. We are proposing major changes in the EU so that it is more outward looking, more global in its orientation, more flexible and less bureaucratic. On her first point, let us be absolutely clear that on every other amending treaty for the EU, the decision has been made by this House and not through a referendum. The Single European Act, Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht were all decided on in this House. It is the Conservative party that has changed its mind, not the Labour party.
I understand that security vetting does take place. The important thing for the hon. Gentleman to recognise is that we have created 20,000 more prison places over the past 10 years. Even this year there will be a rise in prison places from 82,000 to 85,000 and we will create 15,000 more prison places in the years to come. The reason that we are doing that is that we have brought more offences to justice. Five years ago, 1 million offences were brought to justice; now the figure is 1.4 million. That is a tribute to good policing in this country, and it is because we have been prepared to invest in the police services through our public expenditure.
I can tell my hon. Friend that weapons that cause unacceptable harm are something that we have got to negotiate about. We are engaged in a negotiation on this, and of course the Defence Secretary will report back to the House when that negotiation is completed.
Fireworks Act 2003 (Amendment)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the noise emitted by fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom.
Fireworks used in the United Kingdom are too often too noisy. We need a lower limit on their noise, and improved labelling of fireworks to go along with it. I thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, of which I am a long-time member, for its assistance with background information to the Bill. I pay tribute to my former colleague Bill Tynan for the work that he did to bring in the Fireworks Act 2003, which has benefited millions of people and millions of pets in the United Kingdom.
Under the 2003 Act, there is a ban on those aged under 18 buying fireworks. It introduced a curfew on the use of fireworks between 11 pm and 7 am, except on four major festivals: Diwali, Guy Fawkes night on 5 November, new year’s eve and Chinese new year. Regulations made under the Act in 2004 introduced a limit of 120 dB for fireworks.
Fireworks fall into four categories. Category 1 fireworks are suitable for use inside domestic buildings; category 2 fireworks are suitable for outdoor use in relatively confined areas; category 3 fireworks are suitable for outdoor use in large open spaces, and category 4 fireworks are incomplete or not intended for sale to the general public. Most fireworks with which the Bill is concerned, and which concern our constituents, fit into category 3.
The 2003 Act also introduced criminal sanctions for contravention of fireworks regulations—an offence punishable on summary conviction by up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine up to level 5, which is currently £5,000. Unfortunately, a recent poll suggested that 60 per cent. of people in this country think that the Act and the regulations made under it are not effective.
Like many Members, I love fireworks—I love the visuals of fireworks. I am not against fireworks or against their use in domestic situations, but I am against the antisocial use of fireworks, which is generally connected to their noise.
Over the years, I have received lots of letters about fireworks, but I have never received a letter about the visual pollution of fireworks, although I appreciate the fact that certain nights of the year may be difficult for astronomers. However, what my constituents write to me about is the noise of fireworks, and I suspect other Members receive similar letters from their constituents.
As I said, the current limit is 120 dB. To give the House some idea of what that sounds like, it would be like being 120 m from a passenger jet. A road drill is 100 dB, and 95 dB is roughly equivalent to a book being dropped 1 m on to a table. At a lower level, 70 dB is the normal sound one would hear on a television and, depending on traffic volume, between 70 and 80 dB is the background traffic noise that many of us experience.
We continue to receive letters from constituents understandably complaining about the noise of fireworks, even though most fireworks sold and used in the United Kingdom are below the current 120 dB limit. However, they still disturb humans and pets, so the Bill would lower the threshold from 120 to 95 dB in the interests of improving the lives of all of us—human beings and pets. There would also be safety implications.
Secondly, the Bill would improve the labelling of fireworks. Three and a half years ago, I tabled early-day motion 1549:
“That this House believes that, in the interests of helping to promote good neighbourliness and animal welfare, regulations should soon be made under the Fireworks Act 2003 requiring all those selling fireworks to label them clearly specifying the decibel level produced by each firework when used.”
I want informed choice for consumers. I am sure that many people who buy fireworks have no intention of disturbing their neighbours. However, unless we have clear labelling on the noise level to be emitted by fireworks it is difficult for people to know until they use them whether they will in fact disturb their neighbours or animals in the neighbourhood. We should lower the level allowed for fireworks used in the United Kingdom from 120 dB—the current limit—to 95 dB, and we should make sure that fireworks supplied for use in the UK have a clear label specifying the decibel level to be emitted by the firework.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Rob Marris.
Fireworks Act 2003 (amendment)
Rob Marris accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the noise emitted by fireworks supplied in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 83].
Orders of the Day
European Union (Amendment) Bill
[11th Allotted Day]
(Remaining Proceedings on Clause 8 and proceedings on New Clauses and New Schedules)
Further considered in Committee.
[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
Before I call the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to move his amendment, may I say to the Committee that we will have a single debate on the amendments that have been selected? It is not usual for hon. Members to write in to signify a wish to speak in Committee, but a good number of colleagues have indicated such a wish to me, so I suspect that this will be a well-subscribed debate. As time limits cannot be imposed by the occupant of the Chair, I would appreciate it if right hon. and hon. Members took account of the fact that there is heavy demand today.
Clause 8
Commencement
I beg to move amendment No. 293, page 4, leave out line 8 and insert—
‘(2A) Section [Referendum] comes into force on Royal Assent.
(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force if an affirmative answer has been given to the question asked in a referendum held in accordance with section [Referendum] and any legal challenge made under an order made under that section has been disposed of by the court or courts in question.’.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 296, page 4, leave out line 8 and insert—
‘(2A) Section [Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)] and Schedule [Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] come into force on Royal Assent.
(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force if an affirmative answer has been given to the question specified in section [Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)] in a referendum held in accordance with that section and Schedule [Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] and any legal challenge made under that Schedule has been disposed of by the court or courts in question.’.
Amendment No. 297, page 4, leave out line 8 and insert—
‘(2A) Section [Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 3)] and Schedule [Conduct of the Referendum No. 2] come into force on Royal Assent.
(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force if an affirmative answer has been given to the question asked in a referendum held in accordance with section [Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 3)] and Schedule [Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)] and any legal challenge made under that Schedule has been disposed of by the court or courts in question.’.
Amendment No. 63, on page 4, line 8, leave out ‘on Royal Assent’ and add
‘only if an affirmative answer has been given to a referendum held in accordance with Schedules (Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon) and (Conduct of the Referendum) (which shall have effect) and any legal challenge made under paragraph 3 of Schedule (Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon) has been disposed of by the court or courts in question’.
New clause 1—Referendum—
‘(1) A referendum shall be held throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The question to be asked in the referendum is—
“Should the United Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?”
(3) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision in relation to the referendum which—
(a) determines the referendum period for the purposes of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41); and
(b) requires ballot papers to be used by voters in Wales, after having set out the question and the possible answers in English, to set them out again, with equal prominence, in Welsh.
(c) makes provision as to the conduct of the referendum, entitlement to vote in the referendum and legal challenge to the referendum result.
(4) The question in Welsh is—
“A ddylai’r Deyrnas Gyfunol gymeradwyo Cyfundeb Lisbon?”
(5) Every power of a Minister of the Crown to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(6) An order under this section may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
(a) laid before Parliament; and
(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
(7) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument bring the provisions of this Act into force provided that a majority of votes in the referendum shall have been cast in favour of approving the Lisbon Treaty.’.
New clause 18—Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 2)—
‘(1) A Referendum shall be held, not later than six months after Royal Assent, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) This question shall be asked in the referendum—
“Should the United Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?”
(3) A Minister of the Crown may by order vary the wording of this question, or add a supplementary question.
(4) An order under this section may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
(a) laid before Parliament; and
(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
(5) The referendum shall be conducted in accordance with Schedule [Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)].’.
New clause 19—Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (No. 3)—
‘(1) A Referendum shall be held, not later than six months after Royal Assent, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) This question shall be asked in the referendum—
“Should the United Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?”
(3) The referendum shall be conducted in accordance with Schedule [Conduct of the referendum (No. 2)].’.
New schedule 1—Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon—
‘Holding a referendum
1 (1) A referendum shall be held, not later than six months after Royal Assent, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by an order made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The question to be asked in the referendum is—
“Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty of Lisbon?”
(3) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision in relation to the referendum which—
(a) determines the referendum period for the purposes of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41); and
(b) requires ballot papers to be used by voters in Wales, after having set out the question and the possible answers in English, to set them out again, with prominence, in Welsh.
(4) The question in Welsh is—
“A ddylai’r Deyrnas Gyfunol gymeradwyo Cyfundeb Lisbon?”
(5) Every power of a Minister of the Crown to make an order under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(6) An order under this section may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
(a) laid before Parliament; and
(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
Entitlement to vote in the referendum
2 (1) Subject to subparagraph (2), a person is entitled to vote in the referendum, if on the day it is held, he has—
(a) an individual who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in a constituency in the United Kingdom;
(b) a peer who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in an electoral area in Great Britain or at a local election in an electoral area in Northern Ireland;
(c) a peer who, by virtue of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (c.50) (peers resident outside the United Kingdom), would be entitled to vote as an elector at a European Parliamentary election in an electoral region; or
(d) a Commonwealth citizen who would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as an elector at a European Parliamentary election in the combined electoral region in which Gibraltar is comprised.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may by order made by statutory instrument make provision for the purposes of subparagraph (1) for disregarding alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors.
(3) An order under subparagraph (2) may—
(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, any provision of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to elections;
(b) make different provision for different cases;
(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
(4) An order under subparagraph (2) may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
(a) laid before Parliament; and
(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
(5) In subparagraph (1)—
“electoral area” means—
(a) an electoral division or ward (or, in the case of a parish or community in which there are no wards, the parish or community) for which an election of councillors is held in England and Wales under the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70);
(b) an electoral ward for which an election of councillors is held in Scotland under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c.39); or
(c) an area for which an election of members of a district council is held in Northern Ireland under section 11 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c.14);
“electoral region” means an electoral region mentioned in section 1(2) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (c.24);
“European Parliamentary election” means an election of a representative to the European Parliament.
Legal challenge to the referendum result
3 (1) No court may entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast in the referendum, as certified—
(a) by the Chief Counting Officer, or
(b) by counting officer,
unless the proceedings are brought in accordance with this section.
(2) The proceedings may be brought—
(a) in England and Wales, only by a claim for judicial review;
(b) in Scotland, only by a petition for judicial review;
(c) in Northern Ireland, only by an application for judicial review;
(d) in Gibraltar, only by a claim for judicial review.
(3) The court in England and Wales or Gibraltar must not give permission for a claim unless the claim form is filed before the end of the permitted period.
(4) The court in Scotland must refuse a petition unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
(5) The court in Northern Ireland must refuse an application for leave to apply for judicial review unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
(6) In this paragraph “the permitted period” means the period of six weeks starting with—
(a) the date on which the Chief Counting Officer or (as the case may be) the counting officer gives a certificate as to the number of ballot papers counted and votes cast in the referendum; or
(b) if he gives more than one such certificate, the date of the last to be given.’.
New schedule 2—Conduct of the Referendum—
‘Introductory
1 (1) In this Schedule “the 2000 Act” means the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).
(2) Expressions used in this Schedule and in Part 7 of the 2000 Act have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Part.
Encouraging voting
2 The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum.
3 (1) For the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum the Electoral Commission may, in particular, direct each counting officer to provide such impartial information as may be specified in the direction to every person who is entitled, in the referendum, to vote in the counting officer’s voting area.
(2) A direction under this paragraph may also include requirements as to the form and manner in which the information is to be sent.
(3) A direction under this paragraph may not require the inclusion of additional information in a document or part of a document the form of which is prescribed by or under any enactment.
(4) In subparagraph (1) “voting area”, in relation to a counting officer, means—
(a) in the case of a counting officer appointed for a relevant area in Great Britain, that area;
(b) in the case of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland in his capacity as a counting officer, Northern Ireland; and
(c) in the case of a counting officer for Gibraltar, Gibraltar.
Provision of information to voters
4 (1) This paragraph applies if the Electoral Commission have not, before the appropriate day, designated an organisation under section 108 of the 2000 Act (organisations to whom assistance is available under section 110 of that Act) in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum.
(2) The Electoral Commission shall take steps to provide such impartial information for persons entitled to vote in the referendum as will promote a proper and fair understanding and awareness among those persons about the arguments for each answer to the referendum question.
(3) The Electoral Commission shall ensure that expenditure in money or money’s worth in any form by those persons responsible for promoting the arguments for each answer to the referendum question is as far as possible of equal value and shall require those persons to produce audited accounts to ensure compliance with this paragraph within the permitted period for proceedings under paragraph 3 of Schedule (Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon).
(4) No public expenditure nor any expenditure in money or money’s worth from the European Union or its institutions shall be provided or spent in pursuance of the referendum campaign.
(5) In this paragraph “the appropriate day” means—
(a) the day specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an order under subsection (6) of section 109 of the 2000 Act;
(b) if no such order is made and one or more applications under that section are made in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum before the 29th day of the referendum period, the 43rd day of the referendum period; and
(c) in any other case in which no such order is made, the 29th day of the referendum period.
(6) Information provided in pursuance of this paragraph must be provided by whatever means the Electoral Commission think is most likely to secure (in the most cost-effective way) that the information comes to the notice of everyone entitled to vote in the referendum.
(7) The Electoral Commission shall publish rules and guidelines for and shall monitor compliance by the broadcasting authorities regulated in the United Kingdom by Charter or statute as providers of programme services in relation to the referendum so as to ensure that the provision of those services complies with the same impartiality as is required of the Electoral Commission itself under paragraph 4(2).
Combination of polls
5 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for, or in connection with, the combination of polls at the referendum with those at an election or at another referendum, or both.
(2) An order under this paragraph may include provision creating criminal offences.
Payment of the charges and expenses of relevant officers by the Electoral Commission
6 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the payment by the Electoral Commission of any of the following—
(a) the charges in respect of services properly rendered, or expenses properly incurred, in connection with the referendum by a relevant officer; and
(b) the sum equal to any increase in the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority in respect of a person in consequence of a fee paid as part of those charges.
(2) The order may include provision as to—
(a) the services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses, in respect of which payment may be made;
(b) the maximum amount to be paid or reimbursed in respect of such services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses;
(c) payments in advance; and
(d) accounts to be submitted.
(3) Before making an order under this paragraph, the Minister in question must consult the Electoral Commission.
(4) The consent of the Treasury is required for the making of an order under this paragraph.
(5) In this paragraph “relevant officer” means—
(a) a counting officer; or
(b) a person appointed by the Chief Counting Officer or a counting officer to discharge all or any of his functions.
Accounts relating to expenditure under paragraph 6
7 (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the referendum the accounting officer of the Electoral Commission and—
(a) prepare and sign an account of the payments made by the Commission in accordance with an order under paragraph 6; and
(b) submit a copy of the account, as signed, to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(2) The account must be in such form as the Treasury direct and must set out—
(a) the aggregate amount of charges and expenses falling within subparagraph 6(1)(a) in respect of which those payments have been made; and
(b) the aggregate amount of sums falling within paragraph 6(1)(b) in respect of which they have been made.
(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
(a) examine and certify the account submitted to him under this paragraph; and
(b) lay a copy of the account, as certified, and of his report on it before each House of Parliament.
Gibraltar
8 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, one or both of the following—
(a) the holding of the referendum in Gibraltar; and
(b) the regulation there of the conduct of the referendum.
(2) The provision that may be included in an order under this paragraph includes, in particular—
(a) provision about any matter as respects which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) makes provision for the United Kingdom in connection with referendums;
(b) provision for applying any provision made under section 7(2) of this Act to Gibraltar with modifications;
(c) provision about donations to political parties and others who campaign, or are proposing to campaign, for one or other of the possible outcomes to the referendum;
(d) provision imposing obligations in relation to the referendum on the providers of programme services;
(e) provision conferring functions in relation to the referendum on any public authority in Gibraltar that is responsible for regulating those providers;
(f) provision conferring jurisdiction on courts in Gibraltar that are specified in the order or which are determined in the manner so specified;
(g) provisions conferring jurisdiction in relation to matters arising in Gibraltar on courts in the United Kingdom;
(h) provision for expenses incurred by specified persons in accordance with the order to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
(3) Before making an order under this paragraph the Minister in question must consult both—
(a) the Government of Gibraltar; and
(b) the Electoral Commission.
(4) An order under this paragraph may—
(a) provide for conduct to constitute a criminal offence under the law of Gibraltar;
(b) extend and apply to Gibraltar, with or without modification, the provisions of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to any matter mentioned in subparagraph (2);
(c) modify any such enactment or subordinate legislation (including any imposing criminal liability) so far as it has effect in relation to any part of the United Kingdom;
(d) modify or apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provisions of any legislation in force in Gibraltar relating to elections or referendums or to any such matter.
(5) The capacity of the Gibraltar legislature to make law in relation to any matter in relation to which provision may be made under this paragraph is not affected by the existence of the power conferred by this paragraph.
(6) But subparagraph (5) is not to be construed as restricting the operation in relation to a law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (c. 63) (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to provision made under an Act of Parliament).
Supplementary provision
9 This Act does not affect the power of the Secretary of State to make provision under section 129 of the 2000 Act (orders regulating the conduct of referendums) for or in connection with the referendum.
10 Section 126 of the 2000 Act (identification of promoter and publisher of referendum materials) does not apply to any material published for the purposes of the referendum if the publication is required under or by virtue of an order under section 129 of that Act.
Orders under this Schedule
11 (1) Every power to make an order under this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) An order under paragraph 5 or 8 may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
(a) laid before Parliament; and
(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
(3) An order under this Schedule may—
(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provision of an enactment or subordinate legislation relating to donations, elections or referendums;
(b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different parts of the United Kingdom and different provision for Gibraltar;
(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
Interpretation of Schedule
12 (1) In this Schedule—
“donation” means anything which is or corresponds to a donation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41); and
“programme services” means any services which would be programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42) if Gibraltar were part of the United Kingdom.’.
New schedule 3—Conduct of the Referendum (No. 2)—
Introductory
13 (1) In this Schedule “the 2000 Act” means the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).
(2) Expressions used in this Schedule and in Part 7 of the 2000 Act have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Part.
Referendum period
14 A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision which determines the referendum period for the purposes of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).
Wales
15 A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision which—
(a) requires ballot papers to be used by voters in Wales, after having set out the question and the possible answers in English, to set them out again, with prominence, in Welsh; and
(b) determines the question in Welsh.
Entitlement to vote in the referendum
16 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person is entitled to vote in the referendum if, on the day it is held, he is—
(a) an individual who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in a constituency in the United Kingdom;
(b) a peer who would be entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in an electoral area in Great Britain or at a local election in an electoral area in Northern Ireland; or
(c) a Commonwealth citizen who would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as an elector at a European Parliamentary election.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may by order made by statutory instrument make provision for the purposes of subsection (1) for disregarding alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors.
(3) An order under subsection (2) may—
(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, any provision of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to elections;
(b) make different provision for different cases;
(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
(4) An Order under subsection (2) may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
(a) laid before Parliament; and
(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
(5) In subsection (1)(b) “electoral area” means—
(a) an electoral division or ward (or, in the case of a parish or community in which there are no wards, the parish or community) for which an election of councillors is held in England and Wales under the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70);
(b) an electoral ward for which an election of councillors is held in Scotland under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c. 39); or
(c) an area for which an election of members of a district council is held in Northern Ireland under section 11 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c. 14).
Encouraging voting
17 The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum.
18 (1) For the purpose of encouraging voting at the referendum the Electoral Commission may, in particular, direct each counting officer to provide such information as may be specified in the direction to every person who is entitled, in the referendum, to vote in the counting officer’s voting area.
(2) A direction under this paragraph may also include requirements as to the form and manner in which the information is to be sent.
(3) A direction under this paragraph may not require the inclusion of additional information in a document or part of a document the form of which is prescribed by or under any enactment.
(4) In subparagraph (1) “voting area”, in relation to a counting officer, means—
(a) in the case of a counting officer appointed for a relevant area in Great Britain, that area;
(b) in the case of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland in his capacity as a counting officer, Northern Ireland; and
(c) in the case of a counting officer for Gibraltar, Gibraltar.
Provision of information to voters
19 (1) This paragraph applies if the Electoral Commission have not, before the appropriate day, designated an organisation under section 108 of the 2000 Act (organisations to whom assistance is available under section 110 of that Act) in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum.
(2) The Electoral Commission may take such steps as they think appropriate to provide such information for persons entitled to vote in the referendum as the Commission think is likely to promote awareness among those persons about the arguments for each answer to the referendum question.
(3) In this paragraph “the appropriate day” means—
(a) the day specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an order under subsection (6) of section 109 of the 2000 Act;
(b) if no such order is made and one or more applications under that section are made in relation to each possible outcome of the referendum before the 29th day of the referendum period, the 43rd day of the referendum period; and
(c) in any other case in which no such order is made, the 29th day of the referendum period.
(4) Information provided in pursuance of this paragraph must be provided by whatever means the Electoral Commission think is most likely to secure (in the most cost-effective way) that the information comes to the notice of everyone entitled to vote in the referendum.
Combination of polls
20 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for, or in connection with, the combination of polls at the referendum with those at another referendum.
(2) An order under this paragraph may include provision creating criminal offences.
Payment of the charges and expenses of relevant officers by the Electoral Commission
21 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the payment by the Electoral Commission of any of the following—
(a) the charges in respect of services properly rendered, or expenses properly incurred, in connection with the referendum by a relevant officer; and
(b) the sum equal to any increase in the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority in respect of a person in consequences of a fee paid as part of those charges.
(2) The order may include provision as to—
(a) the services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses, in respect of which payment may be made;
(b) the maximum amount to be paid or reimbursed in respect of such services and expenses, or descriptions of services and expenses;
(c) payments in advance; and
(d) accounts to be submitted.
(3) Before making an order under this paragraph, the Minister in question must consult the Electoral Commission.
(4) The consent of the Treasury is required for the making of an order under this paragraph.
(5) In this paragraph “relevant officer” means—
(a) a counting officer; or
(b) a person appointed by the Chief Counting Officer or a counting officer to discharge all or any of his functions.
Accounts relating to expenditure under paragraph 6
22 (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the referendum the accounting officer of the Electoral Commission must—
(a) prepare and sign an account of the payments made by the Commission in accordance with an order under paragraph 6; and
(b) submit a copy of the account, as signed, to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(2) The account must be in such form as the Treasury direct and must set out—
(a) the aggregate amount of charges and expenses falling within subparagraph 6(1)(a) in respect of which those payments have been made; and
(b) the aggregate amount of sums falling within paragraph 6(1)(b) in respect of which they have been made.
(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
(a) examine and certify the account submitted to him under this paragraph; and
(b) lay a copy of the account, as certified, and of his report on it before each House of Parliament.
Gibraltar
23 (1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, one or both of the following
(a) the holding of the referendum in Gibraltar; and
(b) the regulation there of the conduct of the referendum.
(2) The provision that may be included in an order under this paragraph includes, in particular—
(a) provision about any matter as respects which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c.41) makes provision for the United Kingdom in connection with referendums;
(b) provision for applying any provision made under section 7(2) to Gibraltar with modifications;
(c) provisions about donations to political parties and others who campaign, or are proposing to campaign, for one or other of the possible outcomes to the referendum;
(d) provision imposing obligations in relation to the referendum on the providers of programme services;
(e) provision conferring functions in relation to the referendum on any public authority in Gibraltar that is responsible for regulating those providers;
(f) provision conferring jurisdiction on courts in Gibraltar that are specified in the order or which are determined in the manner so specified;
(g) provision conferring jurisdiction in relation to matters arising in Gibraltar on courts in the United Kingdom;
(h) provision for expenses incurred by specified persons in accordance with the order to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
(3) Before making an order under this paragraph the Minister in question must consult both—
(a) the Government of Gibraltar; and
(b) the Electoral Commission.
(4) An order under this paragraph may—
(a) provide for conduct to constitute a criminal offence under the law of Gibraltar;
(b) extend and apply to Gibraltar, with or without modification, the provisions of any enactment or subordinate legislation relating to any matter mentioned in sub-paragraph (2);
(c) modify any such enactment or subordinate legislation (including any imposing criminal liability) so far as it has effect in relation to any part of the United Kingdom;
(d) modify or apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provisions of any legislation in force in Gibraltar relating to elections or referendums or to any such matter.
(5) The capacity of the Gibraltar legislature to make law in relation to any matter in relation to which provision may be made under this paragraph is not affected by the existence of the power conferred by this paragraph.
(6) But sub-paragraph (5) is not to be construed as restricting the operation in relation to a law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (c.63) (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to provisions made under an Act of Parliament).
Legal challenge to the referendum result
12 (1) No court may entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast in the referendum, as certified—
(a) by the Chief Counting Officer, or
(b) by a counting officer,
unless the proceedings are brought in accordance with this section.
(2) The proceedings may be brought—
(a) in England and Wales, only by a claim for judicial review;
(b) in Scotland, only by a petition for judicial review;
(c) in Northern Ireland, only by an application for judicial review; or
(d) in Gibraltar, only by a claim for judicial review.
(3) The court in England and Wales or Gibraltar must not give permission for a claim unless the claim form is filed before the end of the permitted period.
(4) The court in Scotland must refuse a petition unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
(5) The court in Northern Ireland must refuse an application for leave to apply for judicial review unless it is lodged before the end of the permitted period.
(6) In this section “the permitted period” means the period of six weeks starting with—
(a) the date on which the Chief Counting Officer (or as the case may be) the counting officer gives a certificate as to the number of ballot papers counted and votes case in the referendum; or
(b) if he gives more than one such certificate, the date of the last to be given.
Supplementary provision
13 This Act does not affect the power of the Secretary of State to make provision under section 129 of the 2000 Act (orders regulating the conduct of referendums) for or in connection with the referendum.
14 Section 126 of the 2000 Act (identification of promoter and publisher of referendum materials) does not apply to any material published for the purposes of the referendum if the publication is required under or by virtue of an order under section 129 of that Act.
Orders under this Schedule
15 (1) Every power to make an order under this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) An order under paragraph 5 or 8 may be made only if a draft of the order has been—
(a) laid before Parliament; and
(b) approved by a resolution of each House.
(3) An order under this Schedule may—
(a) apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provision of an enactment or subordinate legislation relating to donations, elections or referendums;
(b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different parts of the United Kingdom and different provision for Gibraltar;
(c) make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Minister making the order thinks fit; and
(d) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that Minister thinks fit.
Interpretation of Schedule
16 (1) In this Schedule—
“donation” means anything which is or corresponds to a donation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41); and “programme services” means any services which would be programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42) if Gibraltar were part of the United Kingdom.’.
Amendment No. 293 is linked with new clause 1, and its effect is very simple: it would mean that the Act would come into force, and the Lisbon treaty would be ratified by the United Kingdom, only once there had been a referendum of the British people, in line with the manifesto commitments of every party in the House.
The Committee will understand that the arguments in favour of a referendum are many and varied. They include the arguments that the issues being decided are of great importance to the governance of Britain, that the constitutional nature of what is being proposed is transparently obvious, and that referendums have become a regular part of our constitutional practice in Britain in recent years, on matters ranging from directly elected mayors to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. However, there is one argument that all of us in the House would do well to reflect on in the coming hours as we debate the issue of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It is an argument that goes to the heart of trust in politics and faith in political institutions. Put simply, it is this: a referendum should be held on the issue because a referendum was promised—by the Government, by the Opposition and, yes, by the Liberal Democrat party.
While we are talking about trust, on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s considerable historical knowledge of the Conservative party, can he tell me of any occasion when the Conservative party has held a referendum on any treaty that it has negotiated—or indeed on anything else at all? Ought we not to measure the Conservative party’s attitude by how it behaves in power, rather than how it behaves in opposition?
Parties should be judged on whether they keep the promises that they make. The only occasion on which the Conservative party has promised a referendum, other than on the possible introduction of the euro under the Maastricht treaty, was in the 2005 general election, and we are keeping that promise by voting for the amendment today. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman’s party will not keep its promise by voting for the amendment.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there have been substantial changes, particularly as regards justice and home affairs, for which the opt-in and opt-out arrangements are far more extensive than they were under the proposed constitution? That was a matter of particular sensitivity for him and his colleagues. Circumstances have changed, and as that great Liberal, Lord Keynes, said,
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
The hon. Gentleman says that there are substantial differences between the constitution and the treaty before us, but last night on the BBC’s “Newsnight”, a commentator said, “There are differences but they are differences of nuance.” He also said: “I think you have to go through some pretty perverse constitutional contortions to be able to go back and explain to the electorate why that promise for a referendum doesn’t hold.” That commentator was one Mark Littlewood, head of media for the Liberal Democrats until last year. That is the accurate position. Clearly, it is not only the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party who can run into calamities from time to time.
The promise was made specifically about the European constitution, and given the overwhelming similarity between the constitution and the reform treaty, all attempts to wriggle out of that commitment will only be seen, and will only be, the weasel words with which a solemn promise is deliberately and calculatingly broken.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of opting out of measures as a nuance, but it is much more than a nuance. Also, does he not think it significant that countries such as Denmark, Holland and France, which voted against the constitution, are not having a referendum on the treaty, because they do not see it as the same?
“Nuance” was not my word. It is the word of a former head of media for the Liberal Democrats. I will present my own analysis of the changes or similarities between the treaty and the constitution in a moment.
Since when has it been an argument that a Government in this country are absolved of keeping their election commitments because a Government in another country are not doing a similar thing? We cannot say that the election manifestos of parties in the House are invalidated because a referendum is not held in another country.
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
I shall give way once more, then I must make a little progress.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Surely one of the fundamental changes, other than the promise made in 2005 by all the parties, is that the ratchet clauses in the treaty mean that there could be fundamental changes in the future, on which Members of Parliament would have no say whatever?
Of course that adds to the case for a referendum. It is an issue that we debated in Committee last night, and I am pleased to say that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I, and Members of other parties, made common cause in saying that the use of such ratchet clauses should be subject to primary legislation, rather than the simple motion to which the Government have so far committed themselves.
Let us remind ourselves of the categoric nature of the promises made. The Conservative manifesto was clear. The Labour party manifesto stated:
“We will put it”—
that is, the European constitution—
“to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote”.
The then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, elaborated, as he often did, to The Sun. He said:
“We don’t know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event, and that is a government promise”—
I repeat—“in any event”. Asked what it was that made the European treaty constitutional in nature, the then Foreign Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, said at the Dispatch Box on 6 June 2005 that it was the creation of an EU president and an EU Foreign Minister. He said:
“Those points are central to the European constitutional treaty, and of course I see no prospect of their being brought into force, save through the vehicle of a constitutional treaty.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1001.]
Even the most casual voter, looking to see whether the promises made at election time are fulfilled, would recognise that that combination of statements does not allow for the abandonment of the referendum when a redrafted treaty still contains the essence of its constitutional nature, as defined by the current Lord Chancellor himself.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen will wait a moment. I am coming to the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto of 2005, then I will gladly give way. That stated:
“We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest—but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people.”
A few months later, at their party conference in Blackpool, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) proposed a conference motion that stated:
“Any proposals which involve significant change in the relationship between the Union, the Member States and its citizens should be approved in Britain through a referendum”.
That is of interest to the Committee, because it went further even than the manifesto commitment. Not only, in the view of the then future leader of the Liberal Democrats, should the constitution be submitted to a referendum, but any proposals involving significant change in the relationship between the EU and its member states, he said, should be submitted to a referendum.
That is an interesting view. Difficult as it is to argue that the Lisbon treaty is fundamentally different from the EU constitution, relying, as the argument does, on the exaggeration of the significance of a small number of changes, when one considers the sheer sweep of the treaty’s provisions—the creation of a president and Foreign Minister, or high representative, the abolition of so many vetoes, the provision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) pointed out, for the abolition of even more to come, the total collapsing of the third pillar of the EU, the widened scope of the European Court of Justice and the increased powers of the European Parliament—an argument that the treaty is not even a significant change in the relationship of the EU to the member states can only be an exercise in intellectual nonsense and political deception. And that is what it is.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he avoided answering my previous intervention on justice and home affairs, which he and his colleagues always regarded as the most sensitive of the subjects that we are considering. Does he now accept, and will he put it on record, that the reform treaty is substantially different from the constitution in that every single aspect of justice and home affairs is subject to an opt-out or an opt-in? That is a fundamental change, which he should acknowledge.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there are some differences on justice and home affairs, which I will tackle shortly, between the constitution and the Lisbon treaty. However, there is an important point, which the European Scrutiny Committee has studied at length, to make. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who has spoken so often in our proceedings, pointed out that the red lines—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) was considering the red lines on justice and home affairs—leak like a sieve. That is why I am not satisfied with the changes.
rose—
Let me finish my point about the Liberal Democrats before I take a further intervention.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats should be true to his original conviction. When he wrote in The Guardian on 15 October 2003, as a Member of the European Parliament, he attacked the Government for
“dismissing all calls for a referendum”
and
“playing straight into the hands of the Eurosceptics.”
He said:
“Nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide, that we do not have the ‘cojones’ to carry our argument to the people.”
An explanation of why the Liberal Democrat leadership’s protests in the debates have become ever more shrill is that, at some point in recent months, they have become separated from their cojones. Those unfortunate objects are now to be found impaled on a distant fence.
The argument that the Lisbon treaty is not only different from the European constitution, but so different that entire political parties are relieved of their commitment to hold a referendum does not stand up to much analytical scrutiny.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that every party in the House committed itself to a referendum, not least the Scottish National party, which committed itself first, and will vote for a referendum this evening. However, is not it right and proper to remember the public in the debate? Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the overwhelming majority of supporters of the Labour party, the Conservative party, the SNP and even the Liberal Democrats want a referendum on the issue. It is no surprise that cynicism arises in the country about democratic decisions when we ride roughshod over our promises and public opinion on this matter.
Absolutely. That is well said. People in 10 parliamentary constituencies have had the opportunity, organised by the Electoral Reform Society, to cast a vote. It is noticeable that one of the highest turnouts and one of the largest majorities in favour of a referendum on the treaty was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. The margin for a referendum was vastly greater than his majority at the general election. He should reflect on that.
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Did he notice two other things about that interesting referendum? First, the number of votes in favour of a referendum was greater than the number of votes that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) got—
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) just said that.
No; my right hon. Friend said “greater than his majority”. The number of votes for the referendum was actually greater than the number that elected the hon. Member for Eastleigh on the promise to hold a referendum. Secondly, the hon. Member for Eastleigh failed in his campaign to stop people in his constituency voting on that crucial issue. Was that not an anti-democratic disgrace?
It was a shame to discourage people from voting. My right hon. Friend has picked me up on an important point. The number of votes cast and the majority may be similar in the Rhondda, but not in the rest of the country. My right hon. Friend has made an important distinction—matters are even worse for the hon. Member for Eastleigh than I imagined, because the number of votes cast in a referendum was greater than his support in the constituency.
I am spoiled for choice. Let us bring in the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor).
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s passionate commitment on the subject and his concerns about the treaty, which I do not doubt, will he clarify what will happen if, as is likely, the treaty goes through? If the treaty were in place and the Conservatives were in government, what exactly would they put to the British people in a referendum to enable them to vote on the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed?
The hon. Gentleman asks me to look a long way into the future. It is perfectly understandable that hon. Members in other parties are ever more inquisitive about a Conservative Government, since that moment draws steadily nearer. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says that I always give that answer to that question, but it is the same question, so it receives the same answer. That consistency will apply under a Conservative Government.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell asks me to concede the argument before it is over, but the issue is not yet decided. When it is decided in this place, it will go to another place, when it will not be too late for those parties that committed themselves to a referendum in their election manifestos to insist that it happens. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should recommend that course to his colleagues.
The right hon. Gentleman’s party has claimed throughout the debates that there has not been enough time to discuss all the detail, and many amendments have been tabled, yet the right hon. Gentleman expects the British people to vote a straight yes or no, which is nonsense. One cannot vote on a treaty that is 30 or 40 pages long; one can vote only on a principle.
If the people of Ireland can have a referendum, the people of Britain have every ability to hold one. We suggest not a Committee stage throughout the country, but that once the Bill has passed through Parliament, and before it receives Royal Assent, there should be a referendum so that people can give their verdict. The voters of France and of Holland had a referendum, and the people of Britain should have the referendum that they were promised.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the people of France and of the Netherlands had a chance to vote in a referendum, yet he says that the treaty is the same as the constitution. If so, what did their vote achieve?
It certainly did not lead to their withdrawal from the European Union—some people claim that voting on the treaty is the same as withdrawal. The hon. Lady might well ask what the votes achieved. The European leaders went away and tweaked and tinkered with the constitution and brought it back under a different name, which brings me to a point that I wanted to make.
The treaty was designed to seem different. In the words of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who wrote the original document:
“All the earlier proposals will be in the new text , but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
That is the French.
The Minister says that that is the French, but here come the Belgians. The then Belgian Foreign Minister put it honestly when he said:
“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable: the aim of this Treaty is to be unreadable…The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this Treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
I give full marks to Giuliano Amato, the former Italian Interior Minister, who said last year that it was
“decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception…Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister—imagine the UK Prime Minister—can go to the Commons and say, ‘look…it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
At least that was a disarmingly honest admission of what was going on. Hardly anybody has been fooled—except, unfortunately, some of the party leaders in the House of Commons. In spite of the deliberate attempt to baffle the people of this and other countries, which should in itself redouble the determination of the people’s elected representatives to secure a referendum, it is not beyond the wit of interested human beings to come up with a comparative analysis of the constitution and the Lisbon treaty.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I must complete this point, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.
A comparative analysis is, however, beyond the capabilities of the Foreign Office, it seems. Throughout last autumn, the initial answers to the written questions that I had tabled to the Foreign Secretary asking for a comparative, clause-by-clause analysis were simply delaying replies, as Ministers worked out how to avoid publishing something so deeply inconvenient to their argument. In the end, the Foreign Secretary just refused to do so, relying on the discredited mantra that the constitutional concept had been abandoned, which was not conducive to open debate. From a Government who are supposedly committed to freedom of information and transparency, that should not be acceptable to Parliament.
As a result, it has been left to others to perform the comparative analysis with intellectual rigour and honesty. The European Scrutiny Committee has published a table showing that the overwhelming majority of the constitution’s provisions are replicated in the Lisbon treaty. We always say that we will try not to get the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, who is reading at the moment, into too much trouble, but the Minister for Europe has told us that the hon. Gentleman is in so much trouble as it is that that does not matter any more. The hon. Gentleman said that
“every provision of the constitutional treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the reform treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 211.]
Another analysis showed that of the 250 main provisions in the constitution, 240 are replicated in the Lisbon treaty. Every cross-party analysis of the treaty has reached the same conclusion. The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that
“there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied.”
I must give way to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also remind the House that my Committee decided in two specific votes—by nine votes to three and by eight votes to four—to reject moves for a referendum on this treaty?
It is well known that that was what the Committee decided on a referendum; I am discussing whether the Lisbon treaty and the constitution are the same. The hon. Gentleman’s Committee and the report, with which he presumably agreed, said that, on foreign affairs, the treaty and the constitution are exactly the same.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I shall, because I promised I would.
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that a constitution that would have swept away every treaty from the treaty of Rome to the treaty of Nice, and incorporated them in a single document capable of being determined on a yes or no vote, is quite different from a set of rules that are bound to incorporate changes, if they are going to advance the workings of the European Union? That is the fundamental difference. If the right hon. Gentleman is successful tonight in the Lobby, secures a referendum and campaigns for a no vote, how will he explain and interpret what the British people want the Government to do next?
The right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a fundamental difference between the documents, but my argument is that there is no fundamental difference between them. Let me complete the answer to that, and I shall come to his second point in due course.
Faced with that onslaught of evidence and analysis from independent commentators and Committees of this House, the promise breakers have made their last stand on one forlorn but intriguing argument—the “mouse” argument, originally introduced, I think, by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will explain later who originally came up with it. That argument concedes that the Lisbon treaty is indeed 90 per cent., or thereabouts, the same as the constitution, “But,” it goes on, with an air of triumph inappropriate to the facts available, “a mouse is 90 per cent. genetically the same as a human being, and it is the 10 per cent. difference that really counts.”
The difference between a man and a mouse is indeed a fascinating question, and if Liberal Democrat Front Benchers vote for a referendum tonight, the performance of their leader might be part of the analysis of that difference. Even if we bend over backwards to accommodate that view, however, by no stretch of the imagination do the changes made between the two documents turn the man-like constitution into the mouse-like treaty of Lisbon.
Compared with the constitution, the Lisbon treaty contains some improvements, such as the explicit ruling out of European Court of Justice competence in foreign policy and the six words on climate change, which we debated last week. They are nice to have, but they make no material difference to the policies, powers or procedures of the EU. The changes between the constitution and the Lisbon treaty also take one important step backwards—the removal of the commitment to undistorted competition within the EU from the overriding objectives of the European treaties—but the vast majority of the rest is the same.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I know that we are in Committee, and I am trying to give way as much as I can, but I must be allowed to make an argument.
Why have the debates in this House on this treaty over the past six weeks been in essence the same as the public debate that raged about the European constitution? We would not be arguing about the same things if the two documents were fundamentally different. The Government are fond of alleging that the Conservative party is alone in its view of European affairs—they always omit to mention that they opposed vast tracts of the treaty to which they have now signed up—but on the issue of whether the constitution and the treaty are the same, it is the Government who are alone in Europe.
I give way to the author of the “mouse” argument.
Squeak, squeak!
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is as usual making an amusing speech. However, will he deal with the substance for a change? Will he give a proper answer about the difference between the provisions of the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty on justice and home affairs, which are among the most significant changes proposed by the constitutional treaty? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are now major opt-ins that make a complete difference to how the Lisbon treaty affects the United Kingdom? Will he agree with that on the record?
We had that discussion just 10 minutes ago. Of course there are changes between the Lisbon treaty and the constitution, and I have just listed some others. However, they do not equate to the difference between a man and a mouse, which is the argument here.
The Spanish Prime Minister has said:
“We have not let a single substantial point of the constitutional treaty go.”
The Finnish Europe Minister has said:
“There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.”
The German Chancellor has said:
“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I must proceed for another few minutes.
The Government cannot argue that the treaty is different and that the referendum is unnecessary because they have met their four red lines, which relates to the point that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has just made. One of the red lines was that the treaty should have no impact on tax policy. The fact that the impact on tax is the same in the treaty as it was in the constitution is clear—there is no impact at all. It was only ever a red herring that Tony Blair invented when he was before the Liaison Committee.
The second red line is that there should be no loss of independence in foreign policy—that can be debated in respect of either document—but other than the renaming of the foreign minister as the high representative, almost nothing has changed between the two documents.
A third red line—claimed by Tony Blair at the Dispatch Box in front of me at the end of June in his last days in office—was a clear opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, but the Minister for Europe has since told us:
“The fact is that the United Kingdom has neither sought nor achieved an opt-out on the charter of fundamental rights, which will apply in every member state of the European Union.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 34.]
That is a total reversal of what the former Prime Minister said, and he is no longer here to explain that to the House of Commons.
The final red line was the opt-in on justice and home affairs. The value of that has been debated, and the European Scrutiny Committee has cast doubts on parts of it. The Government claim to have met their red lines, although few objective analysts agree with them, but when they promised a referendum they made exactly the same claim about their red lines.
So, what has really changed between Tony Blair standing at the Dispatch Box and saying
“let the battle be joined.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 157.]
about a referendum in April 2004, and the current Prime Minister saying, “Let battle be avoided at any cost, and please don’t let me be photographed at the signing ceremony”? Only two things have changed: the general election of 2005 was got out of the way, and the Government decided that a referendum could not be held because they did not think that they would win it. The Prime Minister who did not have the bottle to call a general election he had prepared for is the same Prime Minister who does not have the courage or honour to hold a referendum that he has promised.
As a result, this treaty is devoid of any democratic mandate or legitimacy, which is a rarity in the history of European treaties. The authority of the Wilson Government in the ’60s to pursue entry negotiations into the then European Economic Community derived from a clear commitment in their election manifesto. The mandate of the Conservative Government elected in 1970 to complete those entry negotiations was based on an explicit manifesto commitment. The Labour Government elected in 1974 said that they would hold a referendum, and they did. The Conservative manifesto in 1992 included the intention to ratify the treaty of Maastricht. However, nowhere did the Labour manifesto of 2005 say that if the constitution were defeated elsewhere in Europe, it would be brought back with a few tweaks or that a commitment to a British referendum would be abandoned.
The opportunity to call a general election last autumn, with the ratification of the treaty proposed in the Government’s manifesto, was not taken up. Given that the treaty brings about major changes in the way in which Britain is governed, the Government have nowhere—neither in a general election nor in a referendum—requested or received the authority and consent of the people. The absence of such authority damages the democratic legitimacy of the European Union in the eyes of the electorate. The unwillingness of those who favour a treaty of this kind to submit their views to the electorate contributes neither to democracy nor to the quality of argument.
In a speech last month to the Centre for European Reform, the Foreign Secretary was reported to have said that once the new EU treaty had been ratified, pro-Europeans in Britain, as he termed them, would have no more excuses in trying to combat public hostility to the EU. The implication is that, once the treaty is ratified without the voters’ consent, Ministers must start working on the voters in order to encourage them to favour such things. What is wrong with trying to persuade the voters of the merits of the case before ratification, rather than afterwards? What does it say about the convictions of politicians when they reserve their arguments for following quietly in the wake of decisions, rather than arguing boldly for them in advance? It tells us that their calculations are more important than their convictions. As one commentator wrote yesterday in The Independent:
“This treaty strategy is Gordon Brown’s personal creation, this is his specified treatment of Parliament, and visible to all is his definition of politics as cynicism in action.”
I think that the United Kingdom negotiated a good deal. Indeed, many in France would say that the rejection of the constitutional treaty in a referendum has led to a worse deal for France on the Lisbon treaty. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, and there were a referendum and it were lost, what evidence does he have that the UK could renegotiate a better treaty for itself? In that case, would he wish to return to the status quo ante, with, as he believes, the EU functioning not very well?
Of course, there are many arguments, which are probably beyond the scope of the amendment—they are certainly beyond the time available for my speech—about what could be achieved in different situations and through different negotiations. We could go into all the arguments about what would have happened if the Government had actually taken a lead in the past two years, rather than sitting immobile and allowing this to be done to them—declaring the constitution dead two years ago. They could have negotiated many things more successfully. The argument that we cannot possibly ever say no for fear of what would happen afterwards is a strange argument in a democracy. This House must be able to come to a judgment, and the country should be able to come to a judgment, when it has been promised the opportunity to do so. The Government’s refusal to call a referendum—
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), then I shall try to conclude.
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the answer he just gave, he has been asked about that matter three times already. One of the great merits of an in/out referendum is that there is total clarity about the implications, whatever result is obtained. There is a total lack of clarity about the referendum he proposes. Just once, would he answer this fundamental question: what would be the implications of a “no” result in the referendum he seeks?
If the Liberal Democrat party is so concerned about the implications of a “no” result in a referendum on the treaty, it should not have included a commitment to such a referendum in its election manifesto. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that an in-out referendum would give a clear view. On the question of in or out, it would give a clear view, but it would tell us nothing about what people think about the Lisbon treaty. Many people—including me—are strongly in favour of remaining in the European Union but against the Lisbon treaty.
This group of amendments includes an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), which would enable a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and give the Government an order-making power to add another question. Although we prefer amendment No. 293, which proposes a straightforward referendum on the treaty, our second preference would be to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West. I would have thought that the Liberal Democrats would want to support it, too, because it would allow a vote on the Lisbon treaty and on another question, which is what they want.
The amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) allows the Government to change the question, which presumably includes changing it to include support for the treaty. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman really supports?
If the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West were passed, we could be sure that there would be a referendum, and the terms of the question would then be open to further debate and discussion. It would be wrong to rule out the hon. Gentleman’s amendment simply on drafting grounds.
The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech, but I shall let him intervene one more time.
On the question of what would happen if there were a referendum and the country voted no, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the British Conservative party has no friends in Europe. All the other 26 conservative parties oppose it. How would he negotiate in the British national interest, when every conservative party in the European Union opposes him?
The logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that no nation is allowed to vote no, that even the power of veto does not really count and that no nation can stand up against the orthodoxy of the times. I say that that is not democratic, and it is not right. Indeed, it was not an argument accepted by the Liberal Democrats when they wrote their election manifesto.
My right hon. Friend is again making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the crux of the matter is that thousands of my constituents have filled in forms demanding a referendum, and that they feel cheated? Either the Government and the Liberal Democrats think that my constituents are too thick to make a decision on the treaty, or they know that they would lose a vote on it. Which of those two things does my right hon. Friend think it is, or does he think it is both?
It might be both. There is a patronising attitude along the lines of, “Although this is important, it is so detailed that you out in the country needn’t worry your little heads about it”, but I suspect that the more powerful argument that has prevailed on the Government is that they do not think that they would win such a referendum, which does us no favours.
In fairness to the Committee, I must try to conclude my remarks, because I want to put one further argument.
In addition to my earlier points, of equal concern to all of us who believe in thriving democratic parliamentary government is the position taken by those who promised a referendum and now wish to deny one, which damages the reputation and standing of our politics. In our role as constituency Members of Parliament, most of us in the House—I suspect that this applies to all parties—visit sixth forms and local colleges, and speak about the work of Parliament and why elections matter and votes count. We encourage young people to exercise their civic responsibilities. In many cases we send them birthday cards on their 18th birthday saying, “You now have the right to take part in decisions about your country’s future.”
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I am explaining my argument.
It is central to people’s faith in participation, which we so strongly encourage, that Members of Parliament, once elected, do their best to be true to the broad direction and principal promises that they have made to voters. On occasion, when Members of Parliament cannot do so, there should be a compelling reason that the country as a whole can understand and, at least in part, accept.
No such argument prevails in this case. If the Committee votes down the amendments calling for a referendum, we will have to go to our schools and colleges and say that there are times when almost the entire House of Commons can be elected on a specific pledge, and yet a majority in the House can then decide to renege on it, not because it is unaffordable, not because there is an emergency and not because the voters no longer want that pledge, but simply because those in the majority calculate that it suits them in the short term and that they can probably get away with it. The unavoidable implication is that politicians are not trustworthy, that Parliament does not see itself as accountable and that votes do not necessarily matter.
So, I believe not only that a referendum is right and appropriate on a treaty of such importance, but that if the Committee were to tell the Government today that a clear promise that could so easily be kept ought to be kept, it would, in a climate of loss of faith in political institutions, do more to restore public confidence in the basic honesty and accountability of our politics than any other action that we could take. The Prime Minister said that trust in the Government was central to his purpose. The leader of the Liberal Democrats called for
“a new politics, of politicians who listen to people, not themselves.”
If those leaders remain heedless of the arguments for a referendum on the treaty, they will win short-term relief from the views of the electorate tonight, but the damage to their standing and to the politics and reputation of our country and Parliament is something on which they will have to reflect and repent for many years.
This important debate raises fundamental questions about our parliamentary democracy, and about the role of Parliament and its relationship with the people. In our system of government, we do not have a legal test for whether we should hold a referendum, but we do have a clear principle, based on precedent and for many years supported by all the main political parties. Where there is a shift in power of a fundamental nature, it must be put to the people. That is the question that I want to address today. However,
“every time we have such a referendum it is, in a sense, an abdication of responsibility by the House and the Government of the day. This Government intend to make no such abdication of their responsibilities; nor do they intend to invite the House to abdicate from its responsibility.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1992; Vol. 204, c. 627.]
When the Foreign Secretary fought the 2005 general election on a manifesto that promised a referendum on the issue, did he put out a personal statement saying that he was opposed to the holding of that referendum?
No, I did not.
I happen to be one of the Members of this House who voted in favour of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. If a sufficient number of my colleagues, in all parts of the House, had joined me and helped to carry the vote, we would not have had the Amsterdam or Nice treaties or now the Lisbon treaty. However, 400 of the people who failed to do that have since fled the premises, leaving me virtually alone, as the boy on the still burning deck. We hear a lot about the military covenant, but behind a military covenant is an even more important constitutional position, which is the social contract. That is what the Government have broken, by ignoring their pledge to the electorate to hold a referendum.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that a significant number of the members of the shadow Cabinet were here in 1992, and each and every one of them voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.
The comparison with Maastricht simply will not wash. No party went to the general election that preceded the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, after it was signed, promising the electorate a referendum, as the Foreign Secretary’s party did before the previous election.
I am going to address directly the novel constitutional argument that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) put on the radio this morning, which is that it is not the content of a treaty that should decide whether there is a referendum.
I will make a little progress and then I will give way to right hon. and hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks covered a lot of ground in his speech, but dodged the central question in tonight’s vote, which is whether the treaty of Lisbon represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the nation state—and this nation state in particular—and the European Union. If it does, there should be a referendum; if it does not, there should not be one.
Let me address directly the question that has been raised. I can see why the right hon. Gentleman dodged the question of whether there had been a fundamental shift, because on the radio this morning he made the extraordinary claim that it was not the content of treaties that should determine whether they are subject to a referendum. In other words, he denied the constitutional practice that says that it is a shift in the balance of power that determines whether there should be a referendum.