Syria and North Korea

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the end, it was the Russian intervention that saved Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Russians have it in their hands to change the outcome in Syria for the benefit of not just the Syrian people, but Russia as well.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but, to echo the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), there are Members who are concerned about this phrase “regime change” and any policy that moves in that direction. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the US moves towards a more explicit regime-change policy with regard to Assad, we would support it only after a vote in this House endorsing such a policy?

[Boris Johnson]

The policy of the Government is spelt out very clearly in resolution 2254, which calls for a political process leading to a transition away from the Assad regime. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is the right way forward.

President Trump: State Visit

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your highly tuned chairmanship, Mr Walker. I do not normally speak on foreign policy matters, but I feel duty-bound to speak because so many of my constituents have signed the petition. I have some sympathy with them. They are entitled to sign the petition against the state visit. As has been said, some of the things that Donald Trump has said are extremely offensive, but what concerns me is the points of substance, such as the ambiguity about NATO. That is what we should be worried about.

What we are debating here is UK foreign policy, which is best served by following the national interest, not through gestures or knee-jerk reactions. We need calm, effective diplomacy done in the old-fashioned way, often behind the scenes. We need to work towards a long-term strategy, rather than something redolent of student politics and gestures that get us nowhere. We need to focus on the strategic points, to which there are two parts. The first is the recognition that we need to be as close to the US Administration as possible. If we have concerns—hon. Members clearly have concerns about President Trump—we should be trying to shape his Administration rather than rescinding an offer that was sent and accepted in good faith.

My second point on strategy is to understand who wins if we rescind the offer. We will gain nothing if we withdraw the offer. I can tell Members who will win—there is one man: Vladimir Putin. There will be smiles all round the Kremlin if we follow the suggestion in the petition, because the one thing it wants above all else is to divide the west. It wants the UK and the US to be divided. It does not want a strong transatlantic partnership. I am talking not just about our interest but the global interest in saying that we would be crackers to withdraw the invitation. In fact, I would offer a state visit to Vladimir Putin, as Tony Blair did, despite the fact that Russian Bear bombers are buzzing our airspace and the fact that the Russians have nuclear missiles pointed at us and pose a huge threat. That is precisely why we offer invitations—because we want to influence an Administration.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

My hon. Friend is quite right that everyone wants us to influence the US Administration. Is he not buoyed up by the fact that Donald Trump has taken the opposite position to that of Obama, who came here during our referendum and told us that we would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal? He tried to influence our referendum, whereas Donald Trump has said that he wants to see us at the front of the queue for a trade deal.

[James Cartlidge]

The referendum is done and dusted, of course, and we have some interesting days ahead in the other place. I campaigned to remain in the EU, but when President Obama spoke about the referendum, it was a gift to the leave campaign. The issue today, however, is Donald Trump. As I said, I would invite Vladimir Putin for a state visit. For me, people can say offensive things and represent terrible values—Russia is not a serious democracy, and it has a terrible human rights record—but our foreign policy is about the national interest of the United Kingdom. That means being as strong as possible and having as much influence as possible on countries that are the major global players. I conclude by saying we will serve this country best by sticking to the invitation we have made instead of making ourselves a laughing stock to the countries that matter.

Victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism: Compensation

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. It is a great honour to bring forward this important debate on long-overdue compensation for UK victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism.

To set the scene of why this is such a critical and important debate, I first want to make a hypothetical case. Imagine if, in the coming weeks, the media were to report that there was strong evidence of the involvement of a sovereign state in the recent outrages in France. Imagine if we were to read that there was firm evidence that another country—not just the so-called Islamic State—had trained the lorry driver for the attack in Nice or had supplied the Kalashnikovs and the bombs for the attack on the Bataclan. There would be international outrage. Although that is hypothetical, the victims and their families in this case have had to live with such a reality for many years: throughout decades of IRA terrorism and murdering of people in this country, the weapons and explosives used were willingly and knowingly supplied by the regime of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya.

Two key and timeless principles are at stake here. The most obvious is justice. Quite simply, we wish to obtain compensation for the victims of this terrorism as a way for them to get accountability from Libya, and for Libya finally to pay for its role in those actions.

The other principle is fairness. For me, the most extraordinary fact of this whole issue is that compensation has been paid, but to citizens of countries other than the one where the murders were committed. Of course, this is a long-running campaign. These outrages happened many years ago and the victims and their families have been waiting many years for justice. It is no surprise that, in that time, many of the arguments have been made time and again, but I happen to think there is good reason to look at the issue that I am discussing again.

Before doing so, I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and which has an ongoing investigation into the matter. I pay tribute to the debate about the docklands bomb called by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is my friend, which I attended and at which he argued most passionately. I also pay tribute to the Bill to do with asset freezing currently going through the other place, which was brought by Lord Empey.

There is a lot going on and there have been many debates, but there are three key reasons why we should be looking at this issue again today. First and foremost, it is to seek an important update from my hon. Friend the Minister about what is happening in Libya. When he appeared before the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, he spoke of the fact that the Libyan Deputy Prime Minister will be setting up a new committee to look at the issue. It will be interesting to hear whether there have been any developments. We are hopeful but, of course, realistic and aware of the difficult situation that pertains in Libya at the moment with the civil war and so on.

Secondly, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), we parliamentarians have formed a campaign group to represent victims and their families. Many of its members are here today, including myself, and I am delighted to see them. We will continue to fight for justice for those victims, whatever happens and whatever the Government do.

Thirdly, the most important and timely point is that on Friday the House of Representatives in America voted unanimously, as did the Senate in May, to pass into law a Bill known as JASTA—the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act; it will empower private citizens of the United States to sue those involved in state-sponsored terrorism. In my view, the fact that that was passed unanimously in Congress throws open the whole issue of state-sponsored terrorism and its relation to individuals and their ability to seek redress through the courts and likewise.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. He is alluding to the recent American experience. Does he agree with me that, although there is a fundamental issue of restitution and compensation, alongside that is an issue of sending an international message to nation states across the globe that there is no escape from their responsibilities if, at any stage in the past, present or future, they finance international terrorism? That is the message that needs to come across from the debate.

[James Cartlidge]

I strongly agree. The point we are trying to put across is that the past catches up with those who perpetrate these vile acts. I am told by the Minister that the President of the United States has vetoed that Bill. It remains to be seen what will happen because, as I understand it, Hilary Clinton has pledged to support it. It seems hard to believe that the Bill is going to go away quietly, given that the biggest act of terrorism in the history of the west and the biggest attack on US sovereign territory since, I believe, Pearl Harbour, is involved.

After all, it must be remembered that cases against Saudi Arabia have been ongoing for years. The whole point of the Bill was to enable those litigants to overcome the issue of immunity. I personally think the Bill will come back and that we need to be cognisant of that. The hon. Gentleman’s important point was well made and I think it encapsulates that, when states support terror, justice eventually catches up with them. We are here to ensure that that is the case.

It will be helpful if I explain my personal involvement with this issue. I was elected last May as the Member of Parliament for South Suffolk, and that summer I met one of my constituents, Charles Arbuthnot, who is a campaigner on this cause and whose sister, as a 22-year-old WPC serving her country on the frontline early in her career, was murdered in the Harrods bomb attack with explosives supplied by Libya. He is one of the key campaigners.

In the months afterwards, Charles and I exchanged letters, and I wrote to the Minister many times about the subject to probe a key point. I had been surprised, being new to the subject, unlike many hon. Members here, to hear from the Minister that a US citizen who had been caught up in the same bombing that had so brutally slain my constituent’s sister had been compensated. To me that was quite extraordinary.

I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and we had a long exchange of letters about it. I was shocked to discover, when looking back over all the debates on the subject, that the assumption, including by many hon. Members sitting here, was that the Government were aware of that compensation—it was a given—but that there was never any formal recognition of the fact that it had been paid out. I should say that my hon. Friend cares strongly about this issue, has served in Northern Ireland and will do all he can to help; there may be, shall we say, institutional issues at stake, in terms of the Department and successive Governments.

Finally, in March this year, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister in which he referred to the deal made between the US and Libya, saying:

“Whilst the Commission did award compensation to a victim of the Harrods bomb, it is not possible to determine who the recipient was.”

He then went on to talk about whether that sets a precedent, which I think is absolutely key to this. He said:

“In future engagement with the Libyan Government, it may help us to mention that Libyan money has already been used to compensate victims of Qadhafi-inspired IRA terrorism. On the other hand, the Libyans may claim that Qadhafi made the decision to make payments to the US and that the decision to include US victims of the Harrods bombing within these payments was a US and not a Libyan one. They may therefore argue that this does not set a precedent for any future payments for victims of Qadhafi-inspired terrorism.”

My view is that it absolutely sets a precedent. Quite simply, money was paid to the victims—that is the bottom line. That is what our victims are seeking, because they want their redress and their justice, just as the Americans have received.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this very important debate. Bearing in mind that the coalition Government took over in 2010, headed by the then Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment, to put it lightly, that the British Government have not espoused the claims of the individual victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA violence? Instead they have insisted that individual victims should make their own individual claims. That is quite impossible for them. The simple solution is for the Government to do the right thing and to espouse their claims.

[James Cartlidge]

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, will be looking in detail at the issue of espousal shortly. If we go through all the documentation over the years, it is striking how there was a distinct change in tone around 2010. Let us be quite open about it—until then, the Government were proactive; they wanted to help and wanted to fight for justice. After that time, we kept getting the same line: “This is a private matter, but we will facilitate.” That has been the line ever since, and it has almost never changed. Even if we took that as the Government position, more can be done, but I will come on to that.

In terms of the precedent, if no money had ever been paid to anybody, there would still be a campaign, but I dare say it would be slightly easier for those campaigning to live with that and swallow it. If the money had been paid to a country such as Russia that had some deal with Libya, we might not be so surprised. However, the fact that money was paid to a citizen of the United States—our closest ally, with whom we stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terrorism—and that they hatched a deal in which they got paid off and our citizens, murdered in their own country, got nothing, remains a disgrace and a shame to this day. That is why we fight on this issue and why I will continue to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I represent Aldershot, and we were the victims of a response to what happened in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. IRA terrorism burns deeply in the resentment in Aldershot. He talks about people receiving nothing, but some people were compensated. I had a chat with our noble Friend Lord Tebbit, whom everybody knows suffered horrendously; his wife suffered even more horrendously than he did. He has been compensated, but the level of compensation was very pitiful indeed. It is a question not simply of those who have received none, but of those who have received some compensation being adequately compensated. I wholly support what my hon. Friend is doing.

[James Cartlidge]

It is a pleasure to receive an intervention from my hon. Friend. I agree with him, of course. I am not sure whether the money in that case came from Libya or from a state sponsor, so I honestly cannot comment on that point. Obviously, we want to see all victims compensated, not only in terms of accountability and the balancing of the scales, but because they will have injuries and so on and will need to use that money to support the quality of life to which they frankly are entitled.

I mentioned the actions of the United States. Despite the news in respect of the President, it is important to read the purpose of JASTA, which was passed unanimously:

“The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.”

The phrase “broadest possible basis” is incredibly powerful. I am not talking about the Minister individually, because I know he feels strongly about this issue, but many hon. Members here will think that at times, it has been the narrowest possible basis for the Government here, with them looking not at what we can do but at the reasons why we cannot do the things that campaigners are pressing for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Without singling anybody out, I should say that all the interventions have been quite lengthy. Interventions need to be short and to the point.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Ms Ryan. I am coming to my concluding point of substance. I share the sentiments just expressed about all the efforts up until now. I am well aware, as a new MP, that much water has passed under the bridge.

The point in respect of the United States Congress is their proactivity in really supporting their victims. In January 2008, the US Congress passed the annual National Defence Authorization Act, which is the omnibus Bill through which it funds its military commitments every year. In 2008, special provisions were added, allowing victims of state-sponsored terrorism to collect court judgments from terrorism-sponsoring states by seizing their assets. When that happened, Gaddafi immediately realised he was looking at a fairly substantial bill of several billion pounds, which led to the settlement that capped the liability. From that amount, the money was paid out that eventually led to compensation for the victim in Harrods to whom I referred.

It is incredibly important to reflect on the fact that the measures taken in America are not gesture politics; they lead to real action. In fact, JASTA was passed precisely because those civil litigants were running up against a brick wall of immunity, and Congress passed the Bill to help them go further. I am not commenting on whether Saudi Arabia has any implication at all. It is the principled point of proactive support.

The Government can do more. The key channel here is communication with Libya and trying to reach a deal, which I fully support and understand. In the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) talked about aid. We have a huge aid budget in this country. We are going to be spending a lot of money on aid in Libya, as I understand it.

Conditionality was also discussed in that Committee. Although I am not suggesting we should involve that now, if we see no progress, that may be something we can look at. We have the power to influence transparency. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any way we can have clearer communication, particularly for the victims—for example, a dedicated section on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website periodically informing us what is happening with the committee out in Libya and in this dialogue.

We do not expect dramatic things immediately, though we hope for them. We are aware of the reality of the position in Libya. I simply make the point that a contrast is now apparent to us, particularly given what happened in America on Friday, when it comes to the approaches of two supposed allies in the war on terror.

I conclude with a quote from Senator Chuck Schumer of New York in May, during the passage of JASTA. He said:

“The fact that some foreign governments may have aided and abetted terrorism is infuriating to the families if justice is not done. That is what they seek—justice, justice, justice.”

I would add that if families in other countries get justice and ours do not, ours also want fairness, fairness, fairness.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

This has been an excellent debate. I thank all hon. Members, from all parties and all parts of the United Kingdom, for participating. In this short time, I will highlight some of the key points made. Different proposals have been made on the subject of assets. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) talked about payment in lieu. The key thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned, is Lord Empey’s Bill, which unless I have misunderstood—I will check Hansard tomorrow—we will have Government time to discuss. We would be grateful if that Bill could be debated fully in the House of Commons so we can explore the details. I welcome that.

On the subject of aid, I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). To me, it is hard to defend paying large amounts of aid to Libya without any discussion of compensation. We should pursue that point. On Tony Blair, we would all like to see him before the Committee; I think that is unanimous. We want to discover what happened in those negotiations. It is a mystery to us, and we hope to explore it.

The Minister asked how we might determine how much compensation is due. As I understand it, in the US-Libya deal in 2008, a tariff was set up for the victims. Otherwise, how would payments have been awarded? It was not done on a random throw of the dice, so there is a precedent in the US for the people of the United Kingdom. The point is that compensation was paid—in some cases, millions of pounds. Either way, there is a precedent. That is what we should look at, and it is a key point in this debate. Compensation has been paid, and we want it for our victims in this country.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Lady is right. The deal on the table between Switzerland and China is deeply asymmetric and deeply unfavourable to the Swiss, but reflects the mismatch in scale between those two marketplaces. Being part of the world’s largest economic bloc allows us to stare squarely into the eyes of Chinese and American interlocutors when negotiating trade deals.

It is a well rehearsed and well understood fact that 44% of the UK’s exports go to the EU, but it is an underestimate because it addresses only exports to the EU. If we take into account the countries with which the EU has a free trade agreement—destinations for another £56 billion of British exports—the figure goes up to 56%, which does not take into account any of the countries with which the EU is negotiating free trade agreements. If we included them, we would be talking about more than 80% of UK exports going either to the EU or to countries with which the EU had trade agreements. At the very least, more than half of Britain’s exports would therefore be at risk if we left the European Union, and it could take a decade or more to put in place new deals with the EU 27 and the 53 other countries with which we have free trade agreements. It is not about choosing between growing our trade with the EU or with the rest of the globe—as the figures show, our EU membership is key to both.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Is not the central absurdity of talking about the EU deficit and the surplus with the rest of the world that our trade with the latter is largely conducted through foreign companies—Japanese car makers and American banks, for example—that base themselves here precisely because we are in the single market? They trade with the whole world—they do not see it as two different places. We as a country should have that attitude.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. The world’s supply chain has globalised itself. If I am honest, when I listen to the arguments of some of our opponents in this debate, although framed in terms of hostility to the European Union, I sometimes wonder whether what I am hearing is hostility to the globalisation of our economy.

What is true for trade is also true for investment—the other side of the coin. The reality is that Britain benefits hugely as a platform for investment from both EU and non-EU countries, many of which see us as a gateway to the rest of the European Union. They come here because of our language, our skills, our flexible labour market and our domestic regulatory environment, but if I talk to foreign companies based in this country—I have lots of them in my constituency, and other Members will be in a similar position—and to others around the world thinking of making that investment decision, it is clear that the single most important factor in the decision making of most of them is our membership of the European Union. Our membership makes Britain a launch pad for doing business with the rest of Europe. Almost three in every four foreign investors cite our access to the European market as a principal reason for investment in the UK. If we lost that access, we would lose the investment. It is as simple as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clegg]

I will, if I may, make a little progress.

The second point, which is completely omitted by the analysis of Brexit campaigners, is our current account deficit. To be fair, the Government are very silent on that as well, for the very good reason that it is shockingly large. We now have a current account deficit which, at 7% of GDP, is historically and internationally very high and, in my view, unsustainable by historical standards in the long run. As the Governor of the Bank of England has said, if a country runs such a huge, unprecedented current deficit, it has to rely, as he put it, on the “kindness of strangers”.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clegg]

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

The only way in which that current account deficit is sustainable is if strangers from elsewhere in the world invest in assets in this country—in property, infrastructure, the financial services sector, factories and companies. It is on those investors, and on the kindness of those strangers, as Mark Carney has said, that the sustainability of the ballooning current account deficit relies. What will those strangers think after next Thursday, when they do not even know whether our country will survive at all? The United Kingdom may not persist because Scotland may trigger a second referendum, and see the United Kingdom fall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

My hon. Friend is right, and in Yorkshire alone more than 2,000 EU migrants work in health and social care. Sometimes we must consider the nature of the work going on, and ask why those insecure, poorly paid sectors are using migrant workers. Those workers are being exploited, and that does not do much for the users of those services either.

[James Cartlidge]

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Labour Government introduced tier 3 in 2008, which was for unskilled migration from outside the EU? That has been closed ever since, with the official reason that we get those unskilled workers from the EU. Will she speculate on where we will get unskilled workers from in future, when the Poles, Lithuanians and so on no longer come here to do the jobs that we struggle to fill with UK workers?

[Caroline Flint]

I will not speculate, but we need a future where work in social care is not poorly paid, because we are doing a disservice to social care workers, and to the elderly people and other independent adults who rely on them. That is the challenge, and we as a country must take ownership of that and not blame the EU for all the problems on our doorstep.

There is fraud and people who are paid off the books, but that happens with British people who work illegally too, sometimes with bad employers or organised criminal networks behind them calling the shots. Many more people come here because of the work available and because English is the international language. Change is not as easy for some as for others, and leaving the EU will not solve that. The coalition Government were wrong to abolish the migration impacts fund, and it is right that freedom of movement should mean freedom to work, with people putting in before they take out. It is good news that the much maligned European Court of Justice has ruled that it is right for EU member states to be able to withhold benefits.

Let us be honest. Young Brits today do not queue up to pick crops or work in social care. The greatest deceit by the leave campaign is that the UK can keep all the access to the EU single market, but not allow EU workers to work here. If we restrict EU workers who are allowed to work here, why would the 1.6 million Brits who work or live in Europe not face similar restrictions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s experience echoes my own on the other side of the midlands economy.

The fact is that investment, particularly by Tata in Jaguar Land Rover, has transformed the manufacturing economy in my constituency and the surrounding constituencies. We now have the new i54 development, which is a supreme example of what new investment in modern motor manufacturing can do. As a result of that, the local supply chain has been rejuvenated.

We have problems, however. My constituency has more foundries than any other in the country, and they form a vital part of the supply chain that underpins our ability to produce high quality cars and superb manufacturing exports, but they have skills shortages and an ageing workforce. However, they have been helped by the recruitment of skilled workers from eastern Europe through the EU. The companies involved tell me that without those workers, their ability to meet the demands placed on them by the cutting-edge technology that we are producing to expand our manufacturing exports would be hampered and jeopardised.

[James Cartlidge]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of vote leave is that, when we leave the EU, we will stop all unskilled migration into this country? Does he think that that is even remotely credible?

[Mr Bailey]

No. Unfortunately, however, I do not have time to address all the issues that would arise from the leave campaign’s immigration policy, or lack of it. I need to focus on the relevance of these arguments to my constituency.

The fact is that without those workers, our ability to sustain this country’s cutting-edge manufacturing capacity would be lost. I would be the first to agree that we should be pioneering better skills, apprenticeships and so on, and I am glad that the industry is looking at that, but it does not have the capacity to recruit those workers at the moment. If those in the leave campaign were to carry out the promises they have made on migration, there would be a real prospect that those companies would be starved of the skills they need, and it could well lead to unemployment among the long-standing indigenous population who have worked in those industries.

As I do have a few moments left, I will address some of the wider issues raised by those in the leave campaign’s migration policy. Andrew Neil got out of Nigel Farage eventually the idea that they would try to reduce net migration figures to 50,000. They then deploy a seductive argument that if they stopped migration from Europe, they could have more from the non-EU countries, which I think is a pitch to our ethnic minority population, without it having an impact on our skills base in this country. The fact is that the sort of figures being quoted by the leave campaign, and by Nigel Farage in particular, would mean there would be no way we could recruit the levels of staff needed both for the manufacturing industries, which we have in my constituency, and the service industries, particularly the care industry, which have been highlighted by one or two Members today. Those in the leave campaign are raising a particular issue to try to inflame local public opinion, but then peddling only a bogus solution. We have one week to expose that and demonstrate to people that their interests are within the EU and in sustaining our current economic and manufacturing base.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this historic debate. I will vote remain for one fundamental reason. I am a father of four small children, and the last thing I want is for them to grow up in a country with less opportunity than I have had the great privilege to enjoy. What an opportunity it is. If we vote to leave, this country will not go to the dogs; it will rather be a case of an opportunity cost and an opportunity missed. Alone in the world, we are the only major nation on earth that enjoys unfettered access to the European single market in a currency over which there is no existential doubt.

I was passionately opposed to membership of the exchange rate mechanism and the European Union, but I believe that to be a major nation in the EU but outside the straitjacket of the eurozone is to be in an incredible position; and that position has been strengthened greatly by the Prime Minister’s renegotiation. Some say that it was not a fundamental renegotiation, but the securing of the one key point that the EU cannot discriminate against countries that do not use the euro means that our platform of prosperity is now secure. I believe that, by voting to remain, we can build on that in four vital strategic economic areas.

First and foremost, we will restore our reputation as a safe haven and a sound and stable country in which to invest. This referendum, like the referendum in Scotland, puts that at risk by threatening huge uncertainty. If we vote to remain, while those two constitutional issues will not go away, to the people who matter—

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I should be delighted.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the independence referendum in Scotland. At least he will concede that the Scottish Government provided a 650-page White Paper saying what they would do in the event of an independent Scotland. I have seen squat from the vote leave campaign.

[James Cartlidge]

I do not need to add very much to that, but the point that I am making is in no way intended to incite the Scottish National party. I am simply saying that I believe we will restore our international reputation as a sound and stable nation by putting those two constitutional issues not to bed but to the margins, in the eyes of the investors and the people who matter most.

My second point concerns the terms of trade. Last year I was standing on the platform at Marks Tey station, on the main line into Liverpool Street, with a member of my Conservative association. A goods train passed, travelling from the Felixstowe direction towards London, and therefore its load was obviously from China. There was a container on every single wagon. A few minutes later, a chap looked at me with dismay when another goods train went in the opposite direction, with not a single container on it. I reassured him by saying, “Don’t worry: that’s what we mean by ‘invisible exports.’” [Laughter.] But actually, that is the key point. Because a few minutes later, on the same platform, herds of commuters—including many from my constituency —boarded the train to Liverpool Street, not to go and make widgets to be sent back to China, but to sell the insurance, to negotiate professional services, to do the finance.

That is where our comparative advantage lies. Trade is about comparative advantage—doing what you do best. If we leave, there is no way in which we can have a say in the attempt to complete the single market in services. I believe that if we stay, we will achieve that, and you cannot put a value on what that will add to our economy, given our expertise in the service sector.

My third point is about inward investment. I find it absolutely astonishing that we keep hearing from Brexit campaigners about the deficit in European trade compared with trade with the rest of the world. Only one group of companies is doing all that trade, and most of those—the ones that are making the biggest dent in exports—are foreign companies: Japanese car makers, American banks, and French pharmaceutical firms such as Sanofi, based in Haverhill, which I visited recently. Its biggest export market is, by far, the United States of America, but it is based here in the United Kingdom because we have access to the single market. To pretend that European trade and global trade are somehow separate is complete nonsense.

I believe that if we vote to remain, we will drive inward investment far higher, and therefore drive our exports. Instead of worrying about trade figures as some negotiating stance, let us look at them as we should, and conclude that we need to do better—and one way of doing that is to vote to remain, to show that this country is open again for business from around the world.

My fourth point relates to what is said about the future of the eurozone. Those who want to leave the European Union say, “The glass is half empty: we should leave because the eurozone will collapse,” and so on. Our flexible position means that if the eurozone gets into trouble, that will simply reinforce our unique status in that we alone, as a big country, have unfettered access and are not in the euro. If the eurozone strengthens, that will massively boost our exports and help with our trade deficit. We cannot lose, provided we play our cards right.

I would make one final, fundamental point. There are those who say that in this referendum on neither basis are we voting for the status quo, and they are right. If we vote to remain it will not be the status quo, because we will have made up our mind: after all these years of being held back by this interminable debate about whether to be in or out, if we decide as a country to remain, we are deciding to get stuck in in Europe, representing this country. I believe we will then have to stand tall, proud and prosperous in this great continent on behalf of this great country, and the only way to do that is to do the patriotic thing and vote to remain in the EU.

UK’s Relationship with the EU

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am in no doubt about my position and that of the Prime Minister: we will accept the verdict of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, and we will regard that as binding.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something completely absurd about the Leader of the Opposition using his entire remarks to criticise the absence of a Prime Minister to deliver a statement on a renegotiation that will lead to a referendum, none of which would have taken place had there been a Labour Government?

[Mr Lidington]

I think it was a pity that the questions from the Opposition Dispatch Box were about today’s process rather than about the substance of European matters, but the Opposition will have another chance tomorrow.

Europe: Renegotiation

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made a very clear pledge to the House from this Dispatch Box, and the Government will pursue that.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Part 1 of the letter on economic governance states:

“There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union”—

those in the euro and those outside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the countries currently outside the euro other than ourselves are likely to remain in that position for many, many years to come, and that therefore it is in the wider interests of the whole EU that the European Union accepts that reality and enters into our negotiations on this point with an understanding of that fact?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. For as far ahead as I can see, some EU member states will be part of the single currency and a significant number, not only the United Kingdom, will be outside it. I believe that those in the eurozone will need to integrate their fiscal, economic and, to some extent, political arrangements more closely. The stability of the currency union is in the interests of the United Kingdom, even though we are not going to join it, so getting that relationship right between euro-ins and euro-outs is an important strategic challenge, and it is a central feature of our negotiation for that reason.

European Union Referendum Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I certainly agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the latter point, if I may respond to just one of the points that he made. This is about what is right and what is wrong, but there are some Opposition Members who believe that it is right to give EU citizens the right to vote in the referendum. Clearly, most Members on the Government Benches, if not all of them, do not think that it is.

Most importantly, EU citizens are mobilising and demanding the vote. A former Member of this House, whom I knew quite well as he represented a constituency close to mine, Roger Casale, an Italian by origin, has set up an organisation, New Europeans, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford South, to ensure that EU citizens living in the UK have their voices heard. The organisation is celebrating its second birthday today, so I wish it a happy birthday.

On Tuesday, Roger and fellow members of New Europeans visited the House of Commons during the first Committee day of the EU referendum debate to speak to MPs about the franchise in the EU election. We have already heard the names of many of those who attended and I will not attempt to pronounce them, as that was well done earlier by the hon. Member for Ilford South.

EU citizens in Scotland had the right to vote in the referendum and may have helped to keep Scotland part of the United Kingdom by voting no to its break-up. Many EU citizens living in the UK now demand the right to vote in the EU referendum to keep Britain in Europe. Would we have argued that the independence referendum in Scotland was illegitimate if it had been won by such a narrow margin as to make the votes of EU citizens there decisive in the outcome? If not, why should we deny EU citizens the vote in the EU referendum, fearing that the outcome of the vote might depend on them?

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

As we all know, rightly or wrongly, many of the people who would vote to leave the European Union would do so because of the perceived issue of the number of people coming into the country. If we were to vote to stay in specifically as a result of the votes of European citizens, would that not be inflammatory to many millions of people who voted no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument, which was also made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is no longer in her place, reminds me of the ancient joke, “Make me holy, but not just yet”. I believe that we need to move quickly on the matter.

Over the years, from my experience in my constituency of visiting sixth-formers during what I suppose we would call civics lessons to talk about my work, they are hugely interested in and committed to voting as soon as possible. They want to know what we do here, and they want to get involved. I have often felt humbled by the sincerity of the opinions that they hold, which can sometimes be compared with the insincerity of some of the opinions that their older peers have.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to my experience during the election campaign, when hustings were held at my local secondary schools. It was a tough experience, and we were questioned hard by young people who were totally engaged in the campaign, some of whom were able to vote. Another experience that humbled me was seeing a large group of young people coming down from school to the polling booth at lunchtime to vote together. They were proud to do so, and I was even more proud to see that they were all voting for me. I cannot say how young people would vote in an EU referendum—I suspect I know, but I cannot guarantee it. However, I trust them, and I believe they have a right to be heard.

[James Cartlidge]

I want to make two key points about the amendments on voting age, which are what most Members have been talking about. I agree in principle with reducing the voting age to 16 in general elections, but I do not think that that should happen in the referendum. The most important point for me—there is no nice way of saying this—is that the electorate in the UK are top-heavy. In the election campaign, it was striking how issues affecting older voters had greater resonance simply because of the power of older voters. I have tried to put that as apolitically as possible, even though there are obviously political implications to voters’ ages.

I am trying to be as objective as possible in saying that it is in the interests of public policy to extend the vote to 16-year-olds. We would make better policy as a country, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) said in her fantastic speech, there is a growing intergenerational divide. She talked about the one nation idea, and I worry about the situation. We can look at how difficult it is for us to address older people’s benefits—that is a psephological fact. Once those benefits have been handed out, they are hard to claw back, because people will vote accordingly. It might be easier to do something about benefits, public spending and so on for young people, because they do not have a say to the same degree. That is not a cynical point, just an observation on the polity as it is today, and it is my key reason for wishing to lower the voting age to 16.

I know that points are made about bringing adulthood to a younger age, as was mentioned earlier, and I do worry about that. I have four children—my eldest is eight—and I would worry about anything that made young people less innocent, but I do not think that comes into effect when we are talking about public policy.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. For me, 16 and 17-year-olds have a stronger right to vote in the referendum, because it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Notwithstanding the fact that people sometimes do not like the results of referendums, there might not be another one for 40 years, given that the last one was 40 years ago, whereas a general election is every five years.

[James Cartlidge]

I will come shortly to my reasoning for not extending the franchise for the referendum, but I want to share one particular experience related to the speech by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who is no longer in her place. She talked of her experience on the campaign trail. In my constituency we had a unique interaction with young people. We had a mock election at the biggest secondary school, Thomas Gainsborough school in Great Cornard, including a question time at lunch time that the whole school attended. It was filmed by ITV Anglia, with the result announced live on the 6.30 regional news, giving it extra credence. Interestingly, UKIP won—

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Was the SNP represented?

[James Cartlidge]

No, but nationalism was represented and was victorious on the day. The 16 and 17-year-olds took it incredibly seriously. They did not make fluffy, young person’s points: they talked about Europe, the nuclear deterrent and so on, just like anyone else would. We are in danger of being patronising by saying to young people, “You couldn’t possibly understand these big issues.” They want to talk about the big issues and they are especially interested in the issue of Europe.

I would not lower the age limit at this time because there is no mandate for it, and that is an important point. We have just had a general election, in which the Conservative manifesto won the day.

[Stephen Gethins]

In Scotland, where we were of course in favour of votes at 16, the SNP won an overwhelming mandate, as a look at the Benches behind me will confirm. In the UK as a whole, the Tories got the support of about one in four voters—hardly an overwhelming mandate. Is not this a great opportunity to reach out to the whole of the UK for the benefit of democracy?

[James Cartlidge]

The mandate is based on the manifesto of the governing party. We are not in coalition, so it does not have to be watered down. Our position was that we would hold an in/out referendum on membership of the EU before the end of 2017. The manifesto did not say that the voting age would be lowered, so the clear tacit understanding is that the referendum will be held on the current franchise. More importantly, the general election was held on that franchise—

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

But does the hon. Gentleman agree that the franchise will be changed for the referendum, because the Government are seeking to allow unelected Members of the Lords to participate?

[James Cartlidge]

I am always vulnerable to peer pressure and I must admit that I look forward to the answers from the Minister on the point about extending the franchise to Members of the Lords, but—bar a very small number—the franchise will be the same as in the general election.

[Mike Wood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the strong constitutional reason for excluding serving peers from parliamentary elections is that they serve in the other House? That is not the case for the referendum, so the normal basis for their disqualification should not apply.

[James Cartlidge]

I am indebted to my hon. Friend for answering the question superbly.

I made a point earlier about European citizens, and I tried to do so as objectively as possible, but the reason Europe is so high on the political agenda is because of immigration. There is no doubt about that. People across the country are concerned, rightly or wrongly, about the sheer number of people coming into the UK. On the campaign trail, I always made the point that this country is dependent on large numbers of foreign workers—

[Mark Durkan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I am not going to give way again, as other very fine hon. Members wish to speak.

We have to recognise that many people in Britain are concerned about the sheer number of people coming into this country. If we extended the franchise to people from the rest of the European Union and if their vote were decisive in keeping us in, that would be inflammatory for those who want to leave because they want to control their borders and would leave a lasting feeling of injustice.

To conclude, I believe in votes at 16, but we should refrain from having that now. We should have a full consultation and, if we decide we want to do it, it should be in our manifesto, so that we can achieve a mandate from the British people to have votes at 16 in elections and referendums thereafter.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I rise to support the amendments 18 and 19 and new clause 2, which are in my name and those of my colleagues on the SNP Benches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and commend his excellent opening speech on 16 and 17-year-olds, who demonstrated a supreme ability to participate in the independence referendum.

The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is no longer in her place, made some excellent points about why young people should participate in the EU referendum, but went on to say, “Yes, but not now.” What I would say to her is, “But if not now, when?” The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made the point that Scotland had “made a lot of comments in this debate”. I would like to remind the Committee that we are elected Members of this Parliament, and the House will be hearing a lot from us in this Parliament in the days and weeks to come, because that is why we have been elected. It is also worth reminding the Committee that Scotland did not vote Conservative in the last general election.

Politicians should not pick and choose their electorate. I do not believe that that should happen in the EU referendum either, and the franchise should absolutely be fair. The issues at stake in the referendum are serious and fundamental to the future of the UK and its constituent parts, so it is essential that all those living in the UK who will be affected by these decisions are given an opportunity to vote. With that in mind, we tabled amendment 18, under which EU nationals who live in the UK would be included in this franchise. Foreign nationals from Commonwealth countries who live in the UK will be able to vote, so why not EU nationals?

We have heard that there is already division, unsurprisingly, on the Tory and Labour Benches on this vote. Ruth Davidson, the Tory leader in Scotland, is in favour of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, and a Labour leadership candidate, Kezia Dugdale, is in favour of EU nationals having a vote. I am pleased to see that there has been a slight increase in the number of Labour Members participating in this debate. They were rather thin on the ground—much like the Labour party membership in Scotland, but that is perhaps a debate for another day.

Over and above that, the Bill proposes to extend the franchise to Commonwealth citizens who would be entitled to vote in European elections in Gibraltar. I do not oppose that measure by any means, but surely if the Government agree with the principle of widening the Westminster franchise for the referendum, they should consider including this additional group—EU nationals—who make such an important contribution to our society and economy. By excluding them from the vote, we would be excluding constituents of mine in Ochil and South Perthshire, such as my friend Mireille Pouget, who lives in the village of Glendevon. In a message to me this week, Mireille said:

“I have lived, worked and paid taxes here for nearly 40 years. Staying in the EU is important to me as an EU and French citizen. I should have a voice in this referendum. It’s outrageous that EU citizens cannot vote.”

Hear, hear to that.

It is equally wrong that the Government propose to extend the right to vote to Members of the House of Lords—a place not known for its democratic foundations —without taking measures to ensure that all Members of the Scottish Parliament have the same right. Mention has been made by a number of hon. Members of my colleague Christian Allard, who came to Scotland to open an office in Glasgow for a European seafood logistic group in the 1980s. He subsequently met his wife and moved from Glasgow to the north-east of Scotland, to Aberdeenshire, with his three young daughters 20 years ago. Mr Allard has been chosen—elected—by the people of North East Scotland to represent them in the Scottish Parliament. He has undoubtedly made an enormous contribution to our country and the community that he and his family live in. I believe that he has earned the right to vote in this referendum.

In the Scottish independence referendum last year, the UK Government agreed in principle with the Scottish Government that the franchise for the vote should be as wide as possible. It is clear from the turnout and scale of political engagement across Scotland last year that seeking a wide inclusive franchise was one factor in encouraging a vibrant debate on Scotland’s future. By accepting our amendments, the Government have an opportunity—one that Government Members should not pass up—to use this new referendum to ensure that this wide-ranging inclusive debate is open to all people. It is so important for the UK’s future in Europe.

It would indeed be unfortunate if this Government sought to pick and choose the franchise for this vote, whether for 16 and 17-year-olds or EU nationals, in a way that could be considered as excluding a significant proportion of those who live and work here on the basis of how the Government think they will vote, rather than of taking measures to add depth to the national debate as a whole. I urge the Committee to accept the amendments and to be progressive, if that is what they plan to be.