European Affairs

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

No! No! Please.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not give way, because others wish to speak. My hon. Friend has already given me extra time just by standing up. [Interruption.] I will finish my speech, because I do not wish to abuse the procedures of the House.

On a final note, there is a world out there. Let us grasp it; let us trust the people; let us not be afraid and let us regain our freedom.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have 10 speakers and two wind-ups. It works out at six minutes each, and that is without interventions. I ask those who have spoken to think about those who have not to make sure that they also get on the record. If we can help each other, we will all get there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the Minister might begin with an apology for the absence of the Foreign Secretary. It is custom for senior Ministers who have opened debates to return for the end of them. On such an important matter, it is a rather surprising discourtesy to the House that the normal convention has not been observed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I would say is that it is the choice of the Foreign Secretary, and who knows, we may hear something yet, as the Minister for Europe has so far only managed to get three words out.

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is meticulous in his courtesies to this House, but sometimes Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have to deal with extremely urgent matters to do with this country’s national security.

I want to single out the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), as anybody who heard it, whichever side of this argument they stand on, will remember it as one of the great parliamentary set pieces of their years in this place.

I do not want to dwell at length on the arguments about renegotiation, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went into them in great detail and answered questions about the subject for three hours on Monday. I simply say that I have sat through a fair number of these debates in the last six years, and I will be the first to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that they are models of consistency in their opposition to British membership of the European Union. If the Prime Minister had come back from Brussels brandishing the severed heads of the members of the European Commission and proceeded to conduct an auto-da-fé in Downing Street of copies of the Lisbon treaty, they would still be saying, “This is feeble, insufficient, not enough.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister for Europe is desperate to answer.

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to respond. The Prime Minister responded to this point in answer to questions on Monday. The Government have a very clear position, which is to recommend to the country that people vote to remain members of a reformed European Union. Quite exceptionally, Ministers are being allowed to depart from the normal rules on collective responsibility in order to dissent from the official Government position on that referendum question, but the civil service exists to serve and support the policy agreed by the Government of the day. The letter published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, subsequently extended by formal guidance from the Cabinet secretary to civil servants, does no more than give effect to that policy.

[Mr Jenkin]

Further to that point of order, I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that does not answer a great many of the questions. How can I raise this very urgent matter?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The simple answer is that I have had no notification that anybody is going to make a statement. I can do no more than allow the Minister for Europe to reply.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the Minister accept that the position that he has just explained comes to an end when the purdah period starts?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let me help everybody. We are not going into a debate. That is the end of it. We need to move on.

Yemen

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. She is illustrating the horrors of war, which largely occur in populated areas when one adversary chooses to hide within such populated areas. Unfortunately, that leads to casualties. We are not in any way saying that when a civilian area or facility is attacked or destroyed that is somehow acceptable; it absolutely is not. When there is collateral damage of that form, it is important for whichever side has done it to put its hand up and say that it will conduct an investigation. We are not saying it is right, but we are making it clear—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. In fairness to the Minister, he cannot take advantage of the situation. We are struggling to get everybody in, and interventions are meant to be very short. He cannot make a speech now, given that he will be making a speech later. That is unfair to everybody.

[Alison Thewliss]

The point is that such bombings have now happened three times, and those involved in the conflict are not taking responsibility for their actions. Médecins sans Frontières is struggling to get the support it needs when it says that such a situation is unacceptable. People being taken to hospital in ambulances have been hit in this conflict, so it is clear that huge errors have been made in the conduct of the conflict. We could say that such hospitals are not being targeted, but what is worse is that bombs are being dropped in crowded areas, which is where the danger arises for many of the people living there. Cluster bombs, which are illegal, are being used in the conflict, as we can see from the pictures that appear on Twitter and other media sources. Who would bomb a hospital? It is completely wrong, and it is completely against all the rules of warfare. We should challenge that on every possible occasion.

If we have troops embedded with the Saudis, they should be making that clear and not allowing such attacks to happen. The Saudis are getting their bombs from us, so we could stop this happening. We could suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia today, and we could be an honest broker in bringing peace to the people of Yemen. I ask the Government to act, and to act now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have to bring the time limit down to four minutes. I call Mike Wood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for organising, because Yemen is an important country to many of us.

Yemen is important to me personally because I studied my Arabic there some 20 years ago. Though I was not born in Khormaksar, as some of my hon. Friends were, and though I did not grow up overlooking Crater lake, as so many did, the country has marked itself on me. It has done so because it is a country of such wonderful contrasts. It is a very rich, green and beautiful land. It grows some of the world’s finest coffee, as well as khat, which, although banned in this country, is very popular in certain parts of the world. It is extraordinary in its richness. It is the place where the Arabic language was formalised and the domestication of the camel happened and therefore the place from which the colonisation of the deserts of Arabia and the rest of al-Jazeera al-Arabiya began.

Yemen is, then, at the heart of Arabia, and that is one reason why the conflict matters so much. For the Saudis, it is not some minor adjunct to their territory or some neighbouring state that they can ignore. It is a country with which they have such close relationships of blood and history that they cannot cut it off. Many tribes that now live happily in Saudi Arabia have cousins and links across the border. I remember as a soldier watching as convoys of donkeys crossed the Saudi border—forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for taking a slight diversion. They would load up donkeys with hay and take them on the route five or six times, and when the donkeys knew where they were going, they would remove the hay, take away the donkey driver and load them up with heroin, and the donkeys would follow the same route. And so these self-propelled donkey caravans of drugs would come straight out of Yemen.

The Saudis have a real and personal interest in Yemen, and we should recognise, therefore, that they are defending their own interests. I will not argue, however, that they are doing so in the most humane way; they are not. They are behaving in ways that frankly call into question the training they have received from some of the finest pilots and servicemen in the world. I would urge them, therefore, to remember the lessons and doctrines they learned at Shrivenham and Cranwell and to remember that civilians are not a target.

This is an extremely important moment for Saudi Arabia. It is just beginning again to assert its presence in the region, as it has the right to do, being an important country. It is also right to do so given the expansion of the Iranian empire into traditionally Arab areas, such as Iraq, the eastern seaboard of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, where the Iranian influence is growing. The Iranian encirclement of Saudi Arabia is certainly a threat. I welcome the fact, therefore, that the Saudis are reacting and that Britain is playing her role, as a good ally, in supporting her, but I urge them to think hard about how it conducts this campaign.

The campaign, in the heart of Arabia, is being played out perhaps not in our broadsheets, but in the broadsheets of the cafés of Cairo, Algiers and Baghdad. People are watching the leadership of Riyadh and its conduct, and they are thinking, “Are these the allies we want? Is this the example for Arabia and the post-Arab spring generation?” I ask the Saudi Government to think hard about the human rights and lives of the people they are affecting, not just in Yemen, but around the Arab world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I suggest that the Front Benchers take eight minutes each.

Central and East Africa

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing this debate. On my visit to Burundi in 2009, I visited a Save the Children hospital that was helping women who needed Caesarean sections to deliver their babies safely. That was one of the many projects that we funded in country, and it made a real difference in a country where one in five under-fives did not make it to their fifth birthday. I agree that by withdrawing from the country, we have a lesser voice and less influence. I gently say to all hon. Members that what Chad and the Central African Republic have in common is their abject poverty and the fact that they are so-called aid orphans. There are ways to channel aid into those countries through the UN and perhaps through partnering with other Governments. We need to be a bit more flexible in the future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is intended that the opening speech lasts between 10 and 15 minutes. We are running over already and many Members wish to speak. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will want to conclude his speech shortly.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady makes a strong point. There is a balance to be struck between deciding whether aid will be displaced and the influence for good that British aid can have.

With your injunction in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me move on to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has similar problems. The constitution says that President Joseph Kabila must stand down this year, but many doubt that he will. He has been in charge since his father was assassinated in 2001. DRC has itself been the subject of an appalling civil war in the past and the worry must be that if he does not stand down, and instead seeks to circumvent the constitutional time limits, that will lead to violence and instability in the region.

There is also concern about the ongoing elections in the Central African Republic. Ongoing violence between rival Christian and Muslim armed groups since 2012 has displaced about 1 million people, and countless different militias control various parts of the country. Although the first round of presidential elections last month seems to have gone well and, thankfully, to have passed off peacefully, no winner has emerged yet and it is not entirely clear what is going on in the CAR and what the state of its Government is. It might be suggested that it is something of a tinderbox—some in the print media have said that—and if there is not a smooth run-off vote, that could spark a new round of violence.

The important point is about political stability. Constitutions are there to be observed, and if they are not—if people treat themselves as having a right to govern and to govern for as long as they want—that is detrimental to fragile democracies and is likely to lead to political violence, and runs the risk of leading to civil war. Such civil war is what Rwanda went through in 1994. One of my earliest political memories is of the appalling pictures we saw on our televisions of the genocide, in which approximately 1 million were killed during a period of several months. We must keep those images in mind, because we must try to avoid such a genocide and the political instability that leads to appalling acts of violence against the people of countries in the region, which in turn leads to our having to go into the region and spend British taxpayers’ money to try and restore order and stability, and can lead to problems on these shores in terms of economic migration and terrorism.

I said I would speak about eight countries, but with your injunction in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I have spoken only about four or five I will conclude, as I know many Members wish to contribute. I look forward to hearing those contributions and the Minister’s position and that of the Opposition in due course.

Middle East

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday I warmly commended the Prime Minister for the way in which he had treated the House in relation to the matter of Syria. He was forthright in coming to this House and giving a lengthy statement and then answering questions for two hours. I also said last Thursday that it would be a big mistake for the Prime Minister to attempt to bounce this House into a decision early and without proper debate.

I understand that the Prime Minister has just announced on television—not to this House—that the debate and vote on Syria are to take place this Wednesday. First, can you confirm, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there could perfectly easily be a business statement at 10 o’clock tonight—that would be perfectly in order—so that that could be made clear for the convenience of the whole House? Secondly, will you confirm that if the Government do not table their motion until tomorrow, which I understand will be the case, the only amendments that can be considered on Wednesday—if the debate is still on Wednesday—are manuscript amendments? In 2013, we could only consider manuscript amendments, but that was because the House had been summoned back from recess. In these circumstances, there is no excuse for us to be proceeding in this way when making such important decisions.

Will you also confirm, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is no reason why the debate should not be a two-day debate, as we have been requesting for the past two weeks, so that we do not have two-minute, three-minute or four-minute limits to speeches, but can properly consider the very serious issues that many Members on both sides of the House want to raise with the Government?

Finally, I hope you can confirm that if the debate is to end at 10 pm on Wednesday, rather than at the moment of interruption at 7 pm, another motion also needs to be tabled. It would surely be for the convenience of the House if it was tabled today, again so that Members can table amendments to it that do not have to be manuscript amendments.

I just say to the Government that there are many Members on both sides of the House who want to listen to proper debate on a matter that is not straightforward and simple, and any shenanigans or attempts to bounce the House into a decision would be wholly regrettable.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. To run through his questions, he is absolutely right that the motion could be tabled tonight. He is correct that if it is tabled later any amendments would have to be manuscript amendments. It would also take a business of the House motion in order to change the hours of the sitting on Wednesday to take us through to 10 pm. As ever, the shadow Leader of the House is absolutely correct on everything he asked—because he knew the answers before he asked—but I confirm that he is correct. Of course, that is now on the record. Obviously, it is not for the Chair, but for the Government to decide the business of the House. I am sure the usual channels will be in discussions to try to come to an early agreement that will benefit all Members of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I suggest that hon. Members now speak for six minutes, as I want to bring the shadow Minister in at quarter to 10.

Iran: Nuclear Issues

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Not me.

[Jim Shannon]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I meant the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), although I know you share our interest.

Everyone in this House wants to see change in Iran—how could we not?—but I have to see evidence of changes on human rights. Under article 13 of the constitution of Iran, it is impossible for those of the Baha’i faith and other religious beliefs to enjoy such rights The Minister says that he wants “smooth implementation of the agreement.” I am a friend and supporter of Israel, for many reasons. I am a Christian and believe that Israel is the land of God’s chosen people. That is my opinion and belief. At the same time, I understand that that does not give them the right to do everything they want. I think of Israelis trying to protect themselves. Some of those in Iran who are part of the process of changing the sanctions have said that they want to see the destruction of the state of Israel. That does not mean firing a couple of bombs—it means no Israel. Given such statements, where is the “smooth implementation of the agreement” when it comes to Israel? Last Saturday I attended an event in support of Israel at the Parliament buildings at Stormont in Belfast, and the speakers there were very aware of what we were trying to say. When it comes to agreed steps to reduce the nuclear programme, where is the evidence of change among the Iranians we are talking to?

Many see Iran as part of the axis of evil in the middle east. Sometimes we have to jump into bed with people we are not terribly happy to jump into bed with, but it happens. Sometimes we have to make agreements with people who are a wee bit unpalatable. I understand that, but I would love to see the evidence that the issues of human rights and religious belief are being addressed. I want an agreement as much as anybody else in this House, including the Minister and the right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this debate, but I want an agreement that safeguards religious beliefs for all in Iran and that addresses the situation of those who are persecuted because of their beliefs, those whose human rights are abused and those who are under threat.

I respect the Minister greatly and know that he is genuinely trying to achieve something we can all get behind and support, but I want to know what is happening with human rights and religious beliefs. What is happening with regard to those who need help? They do not have a voice in Iran, so let us in this House be their voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I say in all politeness and courtesy to my hon. Friend that we are now spending a lot of time discussing when the debate should happen. It is happening now. With respect to the European Scrutiny Committee, we have made it very clear that this is the earliest I have been requested to come to the House. I would have been delighted to come earlier. I make it clear that we have had other debates. Now that we are here, I suggest that we focus on the issues.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to get into a debate about when we should have the debate. I know that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) wants to get back to the issue and is going to bring us back to it now.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must finish my point on this crucial issue because it is appalling of the Government to take this high-handed line with scrutiny in the House of Commons. It may be that the Minister did not know that this debate was asked for, but if he cared to read, daily, the daily agenda and the requirements for debates, he would have seen that this debate appeared day in, day out. If the Minister has not heard that from his officials, or read it for himself or been told it by the Whips, that is not the fault of the European Scrutiny Committee; it is that the Government are deliberately obstructing debate in this House. They always have time.

I will finish on this point shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is so important because we need to have these debates scheduled properly and quickly. The time that we have now is outside the normal sitting hours, so the argument that there was no day previously when it could have been held is false. We could have an extra 90-minute debate on any day since the request was made by the European Scrutiny Committee two months ago. And that is not the worst of the Government’s treatment of debate in the House. It is quite wrong that the Government should shy away from democratic accountability. I shall say no more on that today, but it is a subject that I will come back to if the Government do not treat the Chamber of the House of Commons properly.

To come on to the documents, I am afraid that I am going to change tack because the Government find me in support of what they are trying to do and, indeed, accepting of the override of scrutiny. When it comes to sanctions on individuals and the lifting of those sanctions, they cannot necessarily go through the full scrutiny process prior to the decision being reported to the House because, particularly when sanctions are being imposed, people would have the opportunity to avoid them in advance. There is a natural understanding of the confidentiality in relation to imposing and lifting sanctions and of the sensitivity with which this was being discussed with Iran. That is completely reasonable.

The second point that is worth making is that most of this was agreed under article 29 of the treaties on the European Union, which operates under unanimity. That is relevant because it shows that the European Union can work on a unanimous basis without any sacrifice of sovereignty by the individual member states. That is a model for future European activity—that we should take action when everybody is agreed because it is then much more powerful.

That is the next point: what has been done has succeeded and what was being aimed for was of the greatest importance. Trying to ensure that Iran did not become a nuclear state in the broad perspective of global security must have been a pre-eminent interest. It is worth noting that the most rogue of rogue states, which I think is North Korea, is secure in its wrongdoing and its internal oppression and is cocking a snook at the rest of the world because Kim Jong-un has a nuclear weapon. Those of us who wish to see a sensible world order want a limit on the number of states with nuclear weapons, and want to try to stop states that are on the margins of the international order getting hold of nuclear weapons. This is a successful policy that has had great advantages for security, but in the process that the Government have undertaken with other states and with the United Nations an important step has been taken in bringing Iran back into the global community. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think it is a great advantage that Iran is back in the community of nations.

It has long been the case that the best way of achieving international security is dealing with nation states, but all nation states have an inherent interest in their own stability. They wish to maintain law and order within their own nation because it threatens their rule if they do not do so. That makes most nation states in most circumstances the enemy of the terrorist. The terrorist is a greater threat to the United Kingdom than the rogue nation state is likely to be. Equally, the rogue nation state is easier to deal with, because it has a structure that can be attacked from outside if fundamental national interests are offended. Terrorists cannot be attacked in that way, because they are harder to pin down.

We have come to the point in British foreign policy—and, perhaps more importantly, US foreign policy—at which Iran is being brought back into the family of nations. That could be a significant boost to our ability to ensure security in the middle east but also more broadly because it goes back to a fundamental principle that has generally been accepted by most countries since the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648: the principle that it is the nation state that underpins that security. It is what went wrong from the late 1990s onwards, when it was thought better to interfere in the internal activities of nation states to make them better nation states. That policy turned out to be fundamentally wrong-headed.

We have gained three very good things from the suspension of sanctions. First, it has been shown that the EU can work on the basis of unanimity. Secondly, it has reduced the likelihood of Iran having a nuclear bomb, and, thirdly—this is overwhelmingly the most important—there has been a change of attitude back to treating the nation state as the building block of global security. I very much hope that the Government will apply that in other cases.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Manuscript amendment (a) to Government new clause 10, after subsection 5 insert—

‘(5A) Any regulations under subsection (2) must be made not less than four months before the date of the referendum.’.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity are made at least four months before the date of the referendum.

New clause 5—Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.—

‘(1) This section applies to any material which—

(a) provides general information about the referendum;

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

(c) puts any arguments for or against the proposition that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union; or

(d) is designed to encourage voting at the referendum.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), no material to which this section applies shall be published during the relevant period by or on behalf of—

(a) any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority; or

(b) any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to—

(a) material made available to persons in response to specific requests for information or to persons specifically seeking access to it;

(b) anything done by or on behalf of the Electoral Commission or a person or body designated under section 108 (designation of organisations to whom assistance is available) of the 2000 Act;

(c) the publication of information relating to the holding of the poll; or

(d) the issue of press notices;

and subsection (2)(b) shall not be taken as applying to the British Broadcasting Corporation or Sianel Pedwar Cymru.

(4) In this section—

(a) publish” means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means (and “publication” shall be construed accordingly);

(b) “the relevant period”, in relation to the referendum, means the period of 28 days ending with the date of the poll.’.

This new clause replicates section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and applies it directly to the EU Referendum. It is supplemented by New Clause 6 on Exemptions to prohibition on publication of promotional material by central and local government etc. (No.2). Amendment 4 removes from the Bill the disapplication of section 125 of the 2000 Act.

New clause 6—Exemptions to prohibition on publication of promotional material by central and local government etc. (No. 2)—

‘(1) For the purposes of the referendum the Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify materials that he or she intends or expects to publish in the relevant period to be exempted from the prohibitions on the publication of materials under section (Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.).

(2) Any materials listed in regulations made under this section will not be subject to the prohibitions on publication under section 125 of the 2000 Act.

(3) In this section “the relevant period”, in relation to the referendum, means the period of 28 days ending with the date of the poll.’.

This gender-neutral new clause permits the Government to specify material that they intend or expect to publish in the “purdah” period for the referendum that would be exempted from the prohibition on publication of promotional material contained in section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which Amendment 4 would apply to the EU Referendum. The material would have to be specified in regulations exercisable by statutory instrument, which under clause 6 of this bill must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

Amendment (a) to new clause 6, at end add—

‘(4) Before laying any regulations under subsection (1) the Government shall seek the advice of the Electoral Commission on the subject of the proposed regulation.

(5) Any advice given by the Electoral Commission under this section shall be published by the time the regulation is laid.

(6) Any regulations under subsection (1) must be made not less than four months before the date of the referendum.’.

The Electoral Commission gives advice to the Government about proposed referendums. The proposed subsections (4) and (5) would reinforce this role in respect of regulations made under this section. Subsection (6) sets a time limit to ensure stable “purdah” arrangements are in place in advance of the start of referendum campaign.

Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 5, line 28, at end insert—

‘(1A) (a) Section 1 will come into effect after a resolution has been passed by both Houses approving arrangements for a purdah period covering a period of five weeks before the referendum date.

(b) arrangements for a purdah period will include—

(i) restrictions on material that can be published by the government, public bodies and the EU institutions; and

(ii) measures to determine breaches of purdah and penalties for such a breach.’

The referendum provision of the Bill could only come into effect after arrangements for purdah had been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Government amendment 53.

Amendment 78, in schedule 1, page 19, line 23, leave out paragraph 26 and insert—

‘26 (1) Section 125 of the 2000 Act (restriction of publication etc of promotional material by central and local government etc) applies in relation to the referendum during the referendum period with the following modification.

(2) Section 125 (2) (a) of the 2000 Act has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if, after “Crown”, there were inserted “including ministers in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and Her Majesty‘s Government of Gibraltar”.’

The purpose of the amendment is to apply the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity during general elections to the campaign period before the referendum.

Amendment 4, page 19, line 23, leave out paragraph 26.

The purpose of the amendment is to apply the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity during general elections to the campaign period before the referendum. The amendment should be read in conjunction with New Clause 5 (Restriction on publication etc of promotional material by central and local government etc) and New Clause 6 (Exemptions to prohibition on publication of promotional material by central and local government etc (No.2)).

[Mr Lidington]

In Committee, I promised to reflect on the concerns that were raised about the Government’s proposal to disapply, for the purposes of the EU referendum, section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Government accept completely the importance of the referendum being conducted in a way that is both fair and seen to be fair by the partisans on both sides of the debate. In particular, that means that the conduct of both Ministers and civil servants must be beyond reproach. We are therefore bringing to the House today proposals that we believe provide the rigorous safeguards wanted by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I reiterate what the Foreign Secretary and I have both said before, namely that the Government will not undertake activities during the final 28 days of the campaign that would be seen as the province of the lead campaign organisations. In particular, there should be no question of the Government undertaking any paid advertising or promotion, such as billboards, door drops, leafleting, or newspaper or digital advertising during that period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I realise that I should not be interrupting the flow of people to whom the Government are only too anxious to make any concession that is demanded and who are obviously quite clear about what result they want from the referendum—indeed, they are rather more concerned about the result than the process—but will the Minister confirm that, whatever further concessions he is now making, it will still be possible for Ministers to give a clear and authoritative opinion on whether, according to the constitutional Government of the country, it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom in respect of its political future in the world and its economic prospects to be in or out of the European Union, and that little things like being allowed to take advice on the factual accuracy of what they are saying on behalf—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. [Interruption.] Order! The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that interventions have to be short. We cannot have speeches at this stage. [Interruption.] I will make the decision. I am sure that the Minister will want to reply. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to intervene again, he may do so, but we cannot have speeches or long interventions.

[Mr Clarke]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I sense, looking around, that I am grossly outnumbered in the Conservative party, given my views, by a certain section of my hon. and right hon. colleagues. They wish to silence Ministers. I do realise that I—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to sit down for a moment. He is well known as the big beast and I am certain that he has never worried about the number of people around him who may not be on the same side.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

Basing an outcome purely on a selfish, regional—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Hoyle)]

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

[Mrs Gillan]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am now imposing a seven-minute limit. I call Mr Justin Madders to make a maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he also reflect on the fact that there are many people within the Labour movement who feel much the same as he does? I refer him to the leaflet from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), “The European Union—A View From The Left”, which is well worth reading—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Hoyle)]

Order. I think the message has been received.

[Dr Fox]

Across the political spectrum in this country, many people believe we have been denied a genuine debate about the future of the country. Those people might come from different sides of the debate, but they have in common a profound belief in our democratic process and the right of the people to be heard rather than being involved in a cosy stitch-up by the political establishment of this country, which is what has happened over too many years. As well as needing profound change in the European Union and in Britain’s relationship with Europe —the question of sovereignty—we need to ensure that any of those changes are enshrined in treaty. As for the points that we cannot have that because it is impossible or that we are only demanding it because it makes the process more difficult, which have been made so far in the debate, let me say to the House that any changes or guarantees that are not entrenched in treaty will not be worth the paper they are written on. The European Court will continue to determine any elements according to the concept of and drive towards ever-closer union. That is why the process needs to be followed in that way.

We in this country are different from our European partners in many ways. That does not mean that we are in any sense better, but we are different. We have a very different concept of sovereignty that is deeply entrenched in our history. We have a different concept of what our democracy is and how it operates and we are one of the few countries, perhaps the only country, in the European Union that never felt the need to bury our 20th-century history in a pan-European project. We are different from so many different perspectives and the one thing with the European Union with which I have the greatest problem is those three words: “ever-closer union”. I do not believe in ever-closer union, because for me the logical endpoint of ever-closer union is union and I do not want to lose our status as a sovereign independent nation to be part of a union in which the union comes first and the nation states come second. That is why this is so fundamental.

Some of us still bear the scars of 1992. That is why we must not rush into the referendum. We must ensure that we have adequate debate and that people do not feel that they have been bounced, or the result will not be as binding as we would like it to be. Finally, the behaviour with which we conduct ourselves is crucial, and I say this especially to my own colleagues. We will have to work together after the referendum is over. How we conduct ourselves, the language we use and how we speak of and to one another will be fundamental to our ability to pull ourselves back as a united party after the referendum. We might do this passionately, but we should do it with tolerance and decency and how we treat one another will influence the judgment of the country on us all.