Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend will know, and opinion polling shows, that many people in this country regard the question of migration and access to welfare benefits as the key area, but my right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. All our European Union partners, inside the eurozone and outside, recognise that that issue has to be addressed. As the eurozone integrates, as we believe it will have to do to be a success—and we very much want it to be a success—the interests of those European Union members not inside the eurozone must be protected. Only if we can be confident that those interests will be protected can we welcome the integration of the eurozone countries to protect their interests and the interests of the euro in a way that will not damage ours. So I agree that it is an absolutely vital area.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The thoughts of everyone on these Benches will obviously be with those caught up in the incident in Istanbul.
As I understand it, the Prime Minister has called for a “united, harmonious and mutually respectful” debate within the Conservative party on the issue of Europe. In a united, harmonious and mutually respectful way, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm that a referendum could not be held within six weeks of the date of the Scottish, Northern Irish, London and Welsh elections? If it were, that would be disrespectful to both the decision of this House and the people engaging in those elections.
Mr Hammond
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not what the Bill provides for. But given the timescales involved and the fact that we now expect the conclusion to be reached at the February European Council, I think he can be confident that it will not be possible to hold a referendum before the date of the Scottish elections that he referred to.
Alex Salmond
I put it to the Foreign Secretary that if the referendum were held within six weeks after the date of the elections, the two campaign periods would intersect, with all the complications that would arise. Therefore I ask him again: will the date of the referendum be at least six weeks after the date of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections?
Mr Hammond
What I am trying to convey to the right hon. Gentleman is that that is not what the Bill provides for; the Bill does not place any prohibition on a referendum being held in that period. Ultimately, however, the decision will be made by this House because the date will be decided by a statutory instrument brought before the House.
Daesh: Syria/Iraq
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
On the Jordanian process, and the strand that is attempting to identify who should be considered terrorists, I spoke with my Jordanian counterpart on Monday evening. That work is progressing and all parties have fed in their views on the vast number of different groups. The Jordanians are currently seeking to distinguish those groups that have a significant number of fighters from those that comprise only one or two dozen people, and cross-referencing the views of the different coalition partners. That is work in progress.
On the question of the Turkish-Syrian border, I had a meeting yesterday with the US President’s special envoy, Brett McGurk, the successor to General John Allen, and we talked about this issue. He told me that there were clear signs on the ground that the Turks were moving to close the border along the 60-odd mile gap that remains open. That is very good news. On the question of the Iraqi national guard, the legislation to create a national guard, which we regard as important, is bogged down in the Iraqi Parliament. It is precisely for that reason that the rather pragmatic approach of creating an armed local police as a ground-holding mechanism in the absence of the ability to create a national guard has been taken.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me early sight of his statement. UK forces in theatre carry the admiration and support of those on these Benches.
I would like the Foreign Secretary to tell us more about three aspects of this issue. First, I welcome the new initiatives on finance and on information and propaganda. He said that the Chancellor would be going to the first ever meeting of Finance Ministers in the Security Council to pursue the Security Council resolutions. Does it not speak volumes that that is the first meeting to tackle the flows of finance, the financial institutions and the arms dealers without whom Daesh could not move a muscle or fire a shot? Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, after waiting so long for initiatives in this direction, these will be pursued as vigorously as are other elements of the tactics?
Secondly, the Foreign Secretary announced that a communications cell had been established. Can he tell us how many people—and how much money—have been devoted to intercepting, interrupting and counteracting Daesh propaganda? Given the extraordinary financial cost of military action, it would be of interest to the House to have that comparison between what is spent militarily and what is spent on countering Daesh’s poisonous propaganda.
Finally, on the subject of civilian casualties, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that there had been no reported casualties as a result of UK action in Syria. However, he also knows that the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has reported in the last few days that 26 civilian casualties have resulted from the action of the coalition of which we are part, including the reported deaths of seven children and four women. As the bombing moves into urban areas and city centres such as Raqqa, where I understand there has been no bombing by UK forces as yet, will he tell us by what means we will take forward the NATO protocols on investigating reports of civilian casualties, and how that will be reported timeously to this House and elsewhere?
Mr Hammond
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for his comment on the commitment of UK forces to their task. This will be the first meeting of Finance Ministers in the Security Council, and I think that sends a very clear signal about the importance with which we regard the issue. It does not mean that no steps have been taken; many measures have been taken already. Financial sanctions are in place, and a financial flows working group, led by Bahrain, has been operating for a year now, but the fact that Finance Ministers of the key countries in the world are going to New York tomorrow to sit in the forum of the Security Council to pass further sanctions measures is an important symbol of our commitment to shutting down this channel of Daesh’s lifeblood. We regard it as extremely important. We saw, in relation to sanctions on Iran, that getting the financial sanctions right was at least as important as getting the sanctions on flows of physical goods right.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the communications cell. The operation of the cell necessarily encroaches into the area of the secret intelligence agencies’ work, so I cannot give him details of the resources available to it or of the number of people deployed in it, but I can tell him that it is already having a visible and measurable effect on Daesh’s communication channels. He also asked me about deaths resulting from coalition action. Of course, any civilian death is deeply regrettable. I was referring to deaths attributable to RAF action, and I believe that while the House will obviously be concerned about civilian deaths more widely, it will be on the question of RAF-caused civilian casualties that hon. Members will want to focus, and I intend to ensure that the House remains updated if the situation changes in respect of any reports of any RAF-caused civilian casualties.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about the protocols for investigating civilian casualty reports as the campaign moves on. NATO has well-established protocols for investigating any incidents where CIVCAS are estimated to have occurred or where imagery suggests that there could have been collateral damage to civilian buildings, and it routinely publishes the outcome of those investigations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary clearly has his itchy fingers on the trigger of military intervention, as indeed do the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. With 12 other countries already bombing in Syria, what analysis has been done of what additionality or what further sorties would be flown by RAF Tornadoes, and what possible difference could they make to the military situation?
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has already made it clear—I remember saying the same, when I performed that role, more than a year ago—that the point is one of military efficiency. We are already flying reconnaissance missions over Syria, but our Reapers now have to fly over Syria unarmed looking for situations, which they then relay back to call in other allies to carry out strikes. That is not the most efficient way to carry out operations.
Alex Salmond
We could drop a few bombs from our reconnaissance aircraft, but what difference would that make to the military situation? Why does the Foreign Secretary not listen to his own Back Benchers? As a non-combatant nation, there are certain advantages in being able to make diplomatic initiatives. Given that the Prime Minister is meeting the President of China—another non-combatant nation and a permanent member of the Security Council—why not discuss a joint diplomatic initiative, instead of just thinking that additional bombing is the answer?
Mr Hammond
I have discussed the situation in Syria with my Chinese counterparts on several occasions. At the moment, I judge that the Chinese are not willing to take a diplomatic initiative that would separate them from the Russians. Let me be clear that we are part of coalition activities in Syria. We are not carrying out kinetic actions, but we are flying reconnaissance and surveillance missions and feeding back the output of those missions to the coalition.
European Union Referendum Bill
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend does not understand the extent to which we simply do not know. One member state can control the timing of items on the agenda. The timing depends on which particular illustration one is looking at, but the country holding the rotating presidency of the European Union will decide which items of business appear on the agenda of Council and COREPER meetings. The Commission will decide when to publish new proposals for, or amendments to, legislation. The European Parliament is a law unto itself. Its sessions will continue during our referendum campaign and the British Government are likely to want to circulate published material, under the terms of the 2000 Act, to try to influence decisions of MEPs in a way that favours our national interest.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Can I just get this right? The Minister’s case is that some nefarious other Government will seize the opportunity of the 28-day period to rush something through the European Union. If so, that will be the fastest bout of decision-making in the EU’s history!
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s approach—at some length.
Since the Bill’s publication, there has been a great deal of debate about the purdah provisions, and specifically about the proposal in paragraph 26 of schedule 1 to strike out the purdah regime set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. There has been a great deal of comment about the Government’s motivations. The accusation has been made that they want to load the dice, and to set up a regime for the conduct of the referendum that would stack the odds in favour of one side, or would allow Ministers to abuse the power of their positions.
Having watched the debate unfold, not just this evening but since the Bill’s publication, I suspect that, from the Government’s point of view, this may be something of an accidental fight. This has the feel of a Bill that was drawn up quickly on the back of the election result, with some advice adopted about what purdah might or might not mean, but without that advice being explored and tested as intensely as it might have been in other circumstances. It looks as though the self-imposed imperative of moving immediately after the Queen’s Speech may have taken over from the task of bottoming the Bill out.
I am not sure whether, when Ministers drew up the Bill, they expected the purdah provision to generate this amount of heat. I rather suspect that they did not, but having included the provision in the Bill, they have had to justify it. As we have heard from the Minister this evening, their justification has been twofold. The first justification is that section 125 of the 2000 Act is so widely drawn that it would paralyse much of the Government’s work on the EU referendum, in a way that would not be the case with a referendum on another subject. The second is that the Government want to take a view, express that view, and, in some way, use Government resources—such as civil servants, special advisers or Government websites—to do so.
We listened carefully to the arguments advanced on Second Reading and in Committee. Our proposals are set out in new clauses 5 and 6, and in amendment 4. Taken collectively, those proposals would leave the purdah regime in place, but there would also be a mechanism for seeking exceptions to it through regulations that would have to be approved by Parliament. That would have several effects. It would put Parliament in the driving seat when it came to deciding whether the Government had a case for exceptions to purdah and testing some of the arguments that the Minister has just set out; it would act as a safeguard against the suggestion that the referendum was being run in an unfair way, if Parliament were tasked with approving the regulations; and, as I have said, it would provide a mechanism for testing the proposition that “business as usual” Government announcements—for example, responses to urgent situations or important decisions made at the European Council— would inadvertently be caught by the purdah regime. We believe that this approach—reinstating purdah, but allowing a mechanism via regulations for exceptions to it—is a sensible way to proceed.
Alex Salmond
The Minister suggested that the Opposition had forgotten the devolved Administrations in their amendments and new clauses. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that point?
Mr McFadden
Our intention in all these amendments was to reinstate purdah as set out in section 125, but to set out the mechanism in regulations. If those regulations need to cover the devolved Administrations, they can of course do that.
The Government’s response to the issues raised is set out in new clause 10 and amendment 53, and I would like to spend a few minutes on those. Government new clause 10 accepts our argument about having an exceptions-to-purdah mechanism through regulations approved by Parliament. Indeed, as the Minister set out, there is a great deal of overlap between Government new clause 10 and our new clause 6, but Government new clause 10 has the added dimension of the requirement to consult the Electoral Commission, something asked for by the Public Administration Committee in the correspondence from July. We believe this is a sensible addition and therefore have no objection to new clause 10; nor do we object to the amendment, which the Government have accepted, tabled by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) about the timescale for this.
However, as with much of this debate, amendments and new clauses need to be seen in conjunction with other amendments, in this case Government amendment 53, which makes alterations to the definition of purdah. We do not believe the Government have made a convincing case for those alterations. It is unclear whether the amendment is intended to deal with the business-as-usual issues that the Government have spoken of as being a particular problem, or whether it goes much further in the alteration of the purdah regime. Perhaps more importantly, given the wide redrawing of the purdah rules in this amendment, if it is passed it is not clear whether there will be any need at all for the kind of exceptions regime set out in new clauses 10 and 6. We feel that would give the Government too much scope to act without further parliamentary debate and approval, and we will therefore not support Government amendment 53. To complete the picture of our attitude on these amendments, I should say that we intend to press our amendment 4 to a vote. We will support Government new clause 10, we will oppose amendment 53, and we will support our amendment 4.
Mr Jenkin
I will certainly undertake to put that in front of my Committee. It depends on the Government: if they table amendments 35 minutes before the deadline and a recess period and are then determined to discuss them on the first day back, it makes it very difficult to scrutinise matters, as the Electoral Commission has attested. I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to make sure that any regulations he introduces under new clause 10 are published in draft so that we can properly give them pre-legislative scrutiny, take proper advice on them and make objective recommendations to the House without being rushed or bounced into them.
One of the advantages of amendment (a), which my right hon. Friend has kindly accepted, is that the temptation to bounce the country into a referendum has been significantly reduced. If we are to have a sensible referendum debate, there has to be a proper period for discussion of the outcome of the Government’s negotiations and the merits or otherwise of remaining in or leaving the European Union. I am sure that was the Government’s ambition when they originally proposed the idea of a referendum. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in winding up.
Alex Salmond
I wish to speak to amendment 11, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
The Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), had my rapt attention and much of my agreement until he produced the remarkable argument that if purdah was good enough for Tony Blair, it should be good enough for the House now. I am afraid that the alliance of scepticism against the Government’s motives was dissolved as a result of that one phrase, that one single disastrous rhetorical flourish.
The hon. Gentleman made another point with which I disagreed, and I want to put this on record before I come to the points on which I agreed with him. He wandered into a period outside the purdah and asked whether at that point the Government had the right to publish a White Paper giving their point of view, backed as a democratically elected Government by the civil service. Of course they have the right to do that, but the House should be concerned about whether the restrictions should apply during the 28-day purdah period, or perhaps for a week longer were the Electoral Commission to have its way. I think that they should, and I shall illustrate that view with a cautionary and moral tale from the Scottish referendum.
The Scottish referendum was regulated not by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—PPERA—but by the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. The Act made provision for a statutory purdah period in Scotland during the 28 days leading up to the referendum. According to the explanatory notes, part 4 of the Act provided that,
“for the 28 day period ending with the date of the referendum, the Scottish Ministers and certain public authorities in Scotland cannot publish any material providing general information about the referendum, dealing with issues raised by the question to be voted on in the referendum, putting any arguments for or against a particular answer to the question to be voted on, or which is designed to encourage voting in the referendum.”
In other words, acting in their capacity as Ministers, they were not allowed to use the Government machine during the purdah period to advance the yes cause to which they were all committed. I must point out to those on the Government Front Bench today that nobody interpreted that to mean that this First Minister or any other Scottish Minister should not take part in the referendum campaign. The explanatory notes to the Act went on to state:
“However, this rule does not apply to information made available following a specific request; specified material published by or under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; any information from the Electoral Commission, a designated organisation or the Chief Counting Officer or any other counting officer; or to any published information about how the poll is to be held.”
In a situation that was every bit as disputatious in regard to the arguments for and against, those measures in the Act were passed with hardly any dissent, rancour or suspicion of motives. It was accepted that that was the right thing to do. Perhaps the Government should have suggested something similar for this referendum, instead of doing whatever they were doing during the recess, unless they are seriously arguing that the constitution of this country involves a much simpler process for a European referendum. Had they done that, they would not now find themselves in this embarrassing position.
Sir William Cash
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the EU dimension of the Scottish referendum was pretty hot? I seem to remember President Barroso and others making statements about the single currency, for example. I speak now as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arguments about the EU business that have been put forward by the Government are rather specious, given that the EU dimension of the Scottish referendum was really very volatile?
Alex Salmond
Yes, indeed it was, but we are discussing the 28-day purdah period at the moment. It has been suggested to me by a knowledgeable European that President Barroso, as he then was, harboured ambitions to be the Secretary-General of NATO and was hoping for support from Ministers—perhaps not those in the Chamber tonight, but those who are none the less not too far from us. Who knows why President Barroso made those interventions, but they were not made during the 28-day purdah period.
The cautionary aspect of this tale is that that purdah period, enacted in legislation, bound the Scottish Government and their agencies and public bodies in Scotland but it did not bind the United Kingdom Government. The UK Government were bound not by statute but by the Edinburgh agreement of 15 October 2012. That was what we used to call a gentleman’s agreement; it had no statutory basis. Paragraph 29 of that agreement stated:
“The Scottish Government will set out details of restricted behaviour for Scottish Ministers and devolved public bodies in the Referendum Bill to be introduced into the Scottish Parliament. These details will be based on the restrictions set out in PPERA. The UK Government has committed to act according to the same PPERA-based rules during the 28-day period.”
Now, I do not think that they did that. I do not think that most reasonable Members of this House believe that that is what was done. I will give two examples from among the many that I could use.
The first is, I admit, arguable, but it has already been raised on the Conservative Back Benches. It relates to the production of the vow when there were 10 days of campaigning left. The vow was described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 7 September 2014 in this way:
“You will see in the next few days a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland, more tax powers, more spending powers, more powers over the welfare state.”
One of the arguments in favour of purdah is that the arguments should be laid out and set before the campaign period, and that during the campaign the politicians can debate them and the people can participate in the debate—as they did in huge numbers in Scotland—and make up their minds. It is not meant to be a period during which politicians can say, “Here’s a fresh initiative that we forgot to mention earlier.”
A comparison could be made with the European referendum if, for example, what used to be called the no side were to take the lead, unexpectedly perhaps, with 10 days to go and the German Chancellor or the President of the Republic of France were to suspend Question Time in the Bundestag or the National Assembly, get on a plane and rush across to say that the Prime Minister’s renegotiations of our position had suddenly found more favour with them than had previously been the case.
I accept that this point is arguable. Others could argue that the vow was not really a Government announcement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he was just speaking off his own bat as a politician. I am not sure that that is a good argument, but it is certainly a cautionary tale.
Philip Davies
I always enjoy hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, because he speaks so well and is very persuasive. I should like to put on record that I share his view that the vow made during the independence referendum was completely unacceptable. It was a panic measure that was clearly introduced by the Government, and I envisage exactly the same thing happening in an EU referendum, given the same circumstances.
Alex Salmond
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I would have welcomed it even more if he had made it exactly a year ago. I could then have publicised his scepticism about his Government’s motives.
The second example that I shall give the House is, in my view, beyond argument. The purdah period is meant to cover not only Government Ministers but civil servants. Their involvement is arguably defensible throughout the run-up to a referendum. I disagree with the Select Committee on this point; I believe that civil servants should be able to act on behalf of the elected Government of the day. However, during the purdah period, they are not meant to take a position on the matter that has been put in front of the people. I want to make a point about the referendum unit in Her Majesty’s Treasury, which was described by the permanent secretary to the Treasury earlier this year as a “Unionist institution”. The clue is in the name: Her Majesty’s Treasury. This ignores the fact that the monarchy in its present state was formed a century before the treaty of Union, which was under debate. The referendum unit in the Treasury continued its activities throughout the referendum campaign.
I have an email here showing the briefing from Treasury sources that was going on a week before the referendum. The email was sent to the BBC by a civil servant in the referendum unit of Her Majesty’s Treasury—that Unionist institution—and it was designed to influence the conduct of the referendum, one week before the vote. That seems to be a glaring example of what would have been a breach of the purdah regulations, had they been placed in statute rather than simply in the terms of the Edinburgh agreement.
That is why I turn to our amendment 11. The Minister told us earlier that he did not want to be in a position where legal challenges were flying here, there and everywhere, as that would be an impossible position for the Government to be in. The way to avoid that is not by dismissing the regulations, but by having a system for enforcing the regulations—one that does not rely on injunctions, interdicts or legal cases, but one within the regulations that is properly respected. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made the point in an earlier intervention about the Electoral Commission. The way to avoid a recurrence of what happened in the Scottish referendum and to dispel the notion that the Government over these past four months have been trying to pull a fast one on purdah, which is the overwhelming view across this Chamber at this moment, is by having an enforcement mechanism within the regulations on purdah. That could be done via the Electoral Commission, as the hon. Lady suggested, or via a committee of Privy Counsellors—ever since I became one I have become much friendlier to the idea of a committee of Privy Counsellors. There needs to be some respected body to which possible breaches of purdah can be reported, and these can be investigated and then enforced.
Mr Jenkin
I think the right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement about the role of civil servants—obeying the Government of the day but not carrying out instructions that would put their Ministers in breach of purdah. There should be something in the civil service code that makes it clear that the yes and no campaigns of a referendum are the equivalent of political parties in an election, but the code contains nothing about referendums. I have great sympathy with the point he is making about the enforcement of purdah, because the north-east referendum had exactly the same problem as he is describing; John Prescott announced new proposals in the last few days before the referendum and we could not get anybody in government interested—they said it was a matter for Ministers.
Alex Salmond
The Chair of the Select Committee cited Tony Blair approvingly, presumably to encourage Labour Members’ support, but attacked John Prescott to move them away. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the bar is so low for a breach, as he puts it, of purdah that even talking on “The Andrew Marr Show” about proposals amounts to such a breach? Is that not a contraindication to the other aspect of his argument and other arguments that have been heard in this Chamber today, in that Ministers and MPs can talk about matters without things being a breach of purdah?
Alex Salmond
That question was some time in the gestation, and I had moved on from what I described as the “arguable” case of the vow. The vow was not a single appearance on “The Andrew Marr Show”, and I used the quote from that show just to demonstrate to the House that the vow was presented as a new initiative, something different, a last-minute offer. The argument about whether the vow breached purdah has been made well by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the analogy in a European referendum would be a re-presentation. Presumably, the idea in the European referendum is meant to be that the Prime Minister renegotiates this country’s relationships with the EU and then presents that to the people for consideration of whether they want to be in or out on that basis. The equivalent idea here, therefore, would be that he finishes that renegotiation but things are going badly in the campaign and so there is a further renegotiation and re-presentation. I certainly do not believe that is within the spirit of a purdah regulation, although people might argue that it meets the letter of it.
I accept that that point is debatable—I am pretty clear which side I am on—but there is no debate whatsoever about the behaviour of officials in Her Majesty’s Treasury in the referendum unit who were actively briefing and intervening during the campaign. The reason that was allowed to happen is that, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, the civil service code does not specify referendums in the way that it does elections and there was no statutory basis for the enforcement of purdah in the UK Government as there was for the Scottish Government.
Sir William Cash
In the light of the interesting argument and the factual information that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the House, I wondered whether he had had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the Opposition and what the outcome of those discussions might be as to whether they would support the kind of enforcement arrangements he has in mind.
Alex Salmond
I have had some chats through informal channels, but I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman’s warm reception to my point might convince those in all parts of the House that there was something sensible in not just talking about purdah but actually having an organised enforcement mechanism and putting in place my amendment’s suggestion of
“measures to determine breaches of purdah and penalties for such a breach”.
As I say, I am open to the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Down about involving the Electoral Commission or about its involving a committee of Privy Counsellors—just so long as there is an enforcement mechanism. The evidence from last year, when there was no statutory basis or enforcement mechanism, was that there are people who will drive a coach and horses through a purdah period.
I am pro-European to my fingertips. I am more pro-European than I suspect most Conservative Members will ever be and certainly more than the Prime Minister will ever be, but I want to see this referendum conducted on a fair and proper basis. That includes a purdah period and, when it has been agreed, everybody sticking by the rules and there being an enforcement mechanism to make sure that they do so.
Sir William Cash
I would just like to take up the point that the right hon. Gentleman ended on. For all the reasons that I gave in Committee, when I put the case for going back to section 125 in its complete integrity, in order to have fairness it is essential that we have something by which people abide. A lot of this debate tends, from time to time, to move between what the Conservative party says or what Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish National party say. First, it was decided that we were going to have a European Union referendum Bill, and now the Electoral Commission has changed the nature of the question, with the consent of the Government. The question now is, “Do you, the voters of this country, want to remain in or do you want to leave?” This has cut completely across all political parties. Therefore, although this debate is taking place in this Chamber, the nature of this debate involving the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP must not be allowed to distort the fact that this is a vote about the real future of the individual people of this country. It is about the voters deciding for the first time since 1975 whether they are going to stay in what I regard now as a dysfunctional European Union—the immigration issue has recently made that even more obvious—or whether we are going to continue to argue that we should leave, because we can make that case. That is to come and the bottom line is that this Bill is not about “Conservative versus Labour”; it should be about the positions adopted across the Floor of the House. I know for a fact that many Labour Back Benchers agree with those who share my view on the Conservative Back Benches—and there are some on the Front Benches, too. It may well turn out that we will need to address the question later of whether or not Ministers should be allowed to participate on either side of the debate in the national interest.
I was particularly taken by and interested in the recent article the Minister wrote on “ConservativeHome”, in which he rather gave the game away. He and I have been discussing this since 1990, when he was special adviser to no less than the Foreign Secretary and other people in No. 10 were desk officers for the Government position at that time under John Major. Let me read what he said right at the end of his article, because I want to concentrate on the reasons for purdah. We have heard so many arguments in relation to the process. I have made my position quite clear, which is that amendment 78 is more comprehensive than amendment 4. Let me bypass that argument for the moment in the interests of trying to achieve the best result, but without prejudice to coming back to the matter at a later date.
In the final paragraph, the Europe Minister said:
“Ultimately, this is about the EU’s effectiveness as a whole. We want”—
whoever we may be—
“a dynamic, competitive, outwardly focused Europe, delivering prosperity and security for all of the people in the EU, not just for those in Britain.”
Actually, that is not what this debate on the referendum will be about. Elements of the argument will demonstrate that there are certain advantages in having a degree of alliance and co-operation in Europe, which I am in favour of, but not on the basis of the status quo of the treaties, or of the tweaking of negotiations that do not make any substantial difference to the basis on which those treaties are conducted. That is why I have firmly concluded that we must leave the European Union. I have just come back from Luxembourg—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary can ask me any question from the Dispatch Box. I have just come back from Luxembourg where the national chairmen of a whole raft of EU committees were debating questions relating to migration. I can only say that the trend of the arguments was not at all in line with many of the things that we in this House would have expected had those arguments been put forward by our own Ministers.
Basically, I am cynical, to say the least, about the outcome of this debate. The trouble is that we are being invited to cut across the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has said, that there have been four referendums without any legal problems. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission has backed amendment 78—it did not mention amendment 4 because it knows that my amendment deals with the devolved territories as well—and we have Speaker’s Counsel on our side. We are told by the Minister that, as far as he is concerned, there are a number of legal opinions, including from two leading counsels, that have indicated that there could be legal problems. Well, that is not what the Speaker’s Counsel says. His advice relating to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is on the website for anyone to see. He has reinforced his view in the light of the remarks made by the Europe Minister on “ConservativeHome”. I expressly sent the Speaker’s Counsel a copy of that article and asked him whether he would revise his legal view. He is very distinguished and was the legal adviser to the European Scrutiny Committee for many years. He has also been involved in the legal service of the European Commission. He knows what he is talking about, and I take these other legal opinions that we are being offered with a pinch of salt.
Finally, I say to the Foreign Secretary, who is chuntering quite a lot—I say that with great respect because I rather like him—that if those opinions are so important, let us see them. Let us see the basis on which the advice was given, and we will hear the same old arguments that we heard about the Iraq opinion. At the end of the day, however, we did get the Iraq opinion. This issue may not be quite so momentous, but none the less to fall back on the old canard that we should not publish opinions is not actually an answer to the questions that we are asking. We want to know the basis on which the advice was given.
I just do not believe that the Government’s arguments add up. A lack of trust has been generated, which goes deep into the past—right the way back to the White Paper of 1971 when we were promised that we would have a veto, which has now been overridden. We have not been given a referendum since 1975, and it is essential that we have a fair referendum that people can trust. I fear that the outcome of the vote this evening will be that new clause 10 goes through, perhaps with an amendment that might make a marginal difference. A vote against amendment 53 will simply allow a vote on amendment 4, which takes us back to a kind of purdah, but not the complete purdah that I and I think the British people want under amendment 78. We are the representatives of the people, which is why I wish to speak so candidly on this matter.
Iran: Nuclear Deal
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I just gently point out to the House, and for the benefit of Ministers, that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is not an hon. Gentleman, but a right hon. Gentleman and the Father of the House. It is important to get these things right.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I know the Foreign Secretary will be aware that President Rouhani is a distinguished graduate of Glasgow Caledonian University. In his doctoral thesis, he wrote:
“This thesis verifies that no laws in Islam are immutable.”
That is true and it is also true of relationships between nations. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake not to listen to the prophets of doom, wherever they come from, but to see this welcome agreement as a start of a process of engagement that will bring the Government, and above all the people, of this remarkable country back into the community of nations?
Mr Hammond
I confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I was not aware that President Rouhani was a graduate of Glasgow Caledonian University, but I am delighted to hear it. It puts a new spin on my meetings with him where he relied on consecutive English translation; he clearly does understand what we are saying—or perhaps not.
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a huge opportunity to grasp, and it is in our interest and the region’s interest that we do so. We must ensure that we do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
No Minister would actively look forward to a 17-hour, all-night session, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister demonstrated when he led the negotiations to cut the EU’s multi-annual budget that if that is what it takes to get the best deal for the United Kingdom, that is what he and the Government are prepared to do.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Should the Government not have shown a bit more solidarity with the people of Greece over recent weeks? For many of us, the attitude of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and certain European leaders has been arrogant and dismissive—even anti-democratic—but all this Government seem to have done is to discourage tourists from going to Greece. Should they not have shown more solidarity in recent weeks?
Mr Lidington
We have certainly not advised tourists against travel to Greece. I think the lesson that the right hon. Gentleman needs to take on board is that the Greek Government and the Greek people consistently said that they wished to join the euro and remain within it, and that joining that currency union means the sacrifice of a considerable amount of national sovereignty over economic policy.
Alex Salmond
Perhaps the lesson that the Minister should take is that if a little more understanding had been shown to the people and the Government of Greece in their time of extremity, they might show more understanding towards the UK Government’s position in their renegotiations. Why cannot the Government understand that many people in this country have been touched by the plight of people in Greece? Where is the empathy or solidarity from the Government? People reap what they sow, and this Government are going to reap a bitter harvest.
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his statement on Greece last week, but he made very clear both his sympathy and the long-standing friendship between this country and the people of Greece. When this Government were elected in May, the Prime Minister made an offer to the Greek Government of technical support for things such as improving the efficacy of their taxation system. That offer remains open.
European Union Referendum Bill
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but I would argue to the contrary: the right of citizenship in this kingdom is so great that the price of £1,005 is but a small price to pay for the benefit of being British.
Citizenship is not a common law right: there is no common law marriage, common law contract or common law citizenship. It is, therefore, no more the right of this House to bounce people into citizenship than to bounce them into any other form of contract. The proposal seeks to push people into a deal that would change their relationship to this country without their having chosen to do so.
I know that for a fact, because my wife, who could, should she wish, begin the process of citizenship, chooses not to do so. She is—and there is some debate about this—proud to be French. She is—again, there is some debate about this—unwilling to become British. My argument is that becoming British is such a great honour that, even as a French woman, she should appreciate the joys it offers.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Most of the English aristocracy were French at one time in history. The hon. Gentleman’s wife is not going to be bounced into anything. If European nationals get the right to vote because of residency, there is no compulsion on his wife voting.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman may say that he is not bouncing anyone into anything, but he is seeking to change the social contract between citizens who have specifically not chosen to be British and citizens who are British. In changing that contract, he would bounce people who have not made that choice into a relationship with the state that they do not wish to have. If he wishes to do so at a regional level—
John Penrose
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). There is a degree of symmetry here and it would be bizarre indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) pointed out, to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on an issue of such national importance when they cannot vote on their local council and on who collects the bins. This needs to be done on a broader basis, and I shall come on to that point in a minute.
Hon. Members have also said that young people are engaged and politically active. That is absolutely true, but it is also true of many 15-year-olds and not of some 50-year-olds. Political engagement is not a strong enough justification in and of itself for giving or denying the vote. Another argument that we have heard is that people can marry or join the Army at 16, and we have heard of a series of other activities that can or cannot be done at 16, 17, 18 or 21. I think the examples given included driving steam tractors. The important point is that in this country we have always viewed attaining adulthood and majority as a process rather than an event. It is not neat—I do not think it can be—and it varies from person to person and by activity to activity. If we want to compare different activities, the list on the parliamentary website that has been mentioned of things that are allowed at 16, 17, 18 or otherwise includes body piercing and having a tattoo at 18. I do not think that those are necessarily fruitful or relevant comparisons. We need to accept adulthood as a process, not an event, and that it is therefore tricky to deal with.
A number of my colleagues have said that they agree with, or are at least sympathetic to, the principle of votes at 16, but are concerned that it should not be done just for this election. I agree with that point. Many Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for Colchester (Will Quince), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Bath (Ben Howlett), felt the same way and said that this is an important decision that needs to be taken for the franchise as a whole rather than for an individual election. I believe that that is right and I do not believe that this Bill is the right place to make significant changes to the franchise.
Alex Salmond
Is it not reasonable to make the case that if the Scottish Parliament, Government and the then First Minister had not legislated to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the Scottish referendum, the current Scottish Administration would not be in a position to legislate for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in next year’s Scottish election? Is it not time to start the process?
John Penrose
I am coming to the timing in a minute, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.
Although I do not think that this Bill is the right place to make significant changes to the franchise, the debate on the voting age is important. The Prime Minister himself has said that he thinks that it is right that it should take place, but making a change on this scale for a single specific vote will simply invite criticism that we are choosing a franchise that has been deliberately skewed for a low and partisan party political advantage. It is far better to hold the debate when the long-term question of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds at all future elections can be properly and soberly debated, and a moment’s glance at the Conservative party’s election manifesto, something that I am sure is bedtime reading for everybody on the Opposition Benches, will show that there should be opportunities to do just that during the course of this Parliament.
I now come to the amendments proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips)—I am never sure whether that is pronounced “Hickham” or “Hikeham”, and I apologise to his constituents if I have mispronounced it. He asks why the Bill does not enfranchise Irish citizens resident in Gibraltar. It is extremely hard to identify Irish citizens in Gibraltar on the voting register, and it is not something that is done currently. At present, we do not have agreement from the Government of Gibraltar to do that, because it would clearly impose duties and work on them. It is also true that no one is quite sure how many Irish citizens there are in Gibraltar, although most estimates are pretty low. Although I cannot predict the outcome, I promise my hon. and learned Friend that we are already discussing the matter in some depth with the Government of Gibraltar and will continue to do so.
My hon. and learned Friend also asked about the definition of Commonwealth citizens. For the purposes of elections, schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981 sets out the list of relevant countries. Two are not currently members of the Commonwealth, and citizens of those countries would be affected by the amendment. The first is The Gambia, which withdrew from the Commonwealth in October 2013. The Government have not yet removed The Gambia from the list of countries in schedule 3, but will do so at the next suitable opportunity. Once we have made that change, citizens of The Gambia will no longer have Commonwealth voting rights. Crucially, the second is Zimbabwe, which left the Commonwealth in 2003. At the time, the Government decided to maintain Commonwealth rights for Zimbabwean nationals, based on the view that Zimbabwean people should not be punished for the actions of a Government that the UK did not consider democratically elected. Given our serious concerns about the 2013 elections in that country, this view remains.
Amendment 52 deals with votes for life. I think the hon. Member for Ilford South is trying to be helpful by tabling an amendment that is closely in line with my own party’s manifesto, and I thank him for that. I am not sure how his party’s Front Benchers feel about it, but he has not let that stop him and I salute his courage and determination. I am now hoist on my own petard, though, because having made the argument that this is the wrong Bill through which to deal with 16 and 17-year-olds voting, I must abide by my own logic on this point. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman the same assurance as I gave my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who was worried that we were kicking the question of 16 and 17-year-olds voting into the long grass. There will be opportunities in this Session of Parliament to vote on the matter, because we will be introducing our own Bill on votes for life, which will apply to all franchises, to make sure that British citizens who live abroad who are not currently able to vote and exercise their democratic rights, even though they are citizens of this country, are able to do so. I look forward to having the hon. Gentleman’s support, even if not that of those on his Front Bench, on that very important matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
Yes, indeed. The business view is important, and I have no doubt that it will make its view clear during the referendum campaign, but I emphasise again that the British people must make the ultimate decision.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Will the Government’s objectives, which the Foreign Secretary will not tell us about, require a treaty change, no treaty change or a deferred treaty change?
Mr Hammond
The Prime Minister has been clear about the areas in which we need change, and I have referred to one of them this morning: the relationship between the eurozone and the non-eurozone has to be definitive and protected so that we can be confident that our interests will be protected in the future. It is our belief and our understanding, and the legal advice that we are receiving, that the reforms that we want to see around access to welfare benefits, which were set out very specifically in the Conservative party manifesto, will require treaty change in order to proof them against judicial challenge in the European courts.
Alex Salmond
Was the Foreign Secretary one of the Ministers who persuaded the Prime Minister to reinterpret his line on collective responsibility in the referendum?
European Union Referendum Bill
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the EU Referendum Bill because it fails to meet the gold standard set by the Scottish independence referendum in terms of inclusivity and democratic participation, in particular because the Bill does not give the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds or most EU nationals living in the UK, the Bill does not include a double majority provision to ensure that no nation or jurisdiction of the UK can be taken out of the EU against its will, and the legislation does not include provision to ensure that the referendum vote cannot be held on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland elections.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his singular achievement—his 31-day achievement. Thirty one days does not seem like a huge amount of time, but in terms of holding the Conservative party together on Europe, the last 31 days have been a great achievement. Hannibal crossed the Alps in 17 days, but that pales into insignificance compared with the 31 days of calm before the Bavarian blunder of yesterday blew the gasket on the Conservative party’s divisions over Europe.
It said in The Times today that quoting your own speeches is the first sign of political madness. On that basis, the Prime Minister is pretty far gone. I want to share with the House the full bouquet of the absurdity, apparently in all sobriety, of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. What he said, quoted on the front page of The Times today, was:
“That is what I said. I feel that there was a misinterpretation, which is why I woke up and read the newspapers and thought: ‘I will repeat what I said and make that very clear.’”
Well, that puts that one to bed, doesn’t it?
At Question Time today, I lost count of the number of times the Foreign Secretary started to answer a question by saying, “It’s very clear”. I have always had an enormous suspicion that when members of the Treasury Bench start their answer to a question by saying, “It’s very clear,” we can all be sure that it is pretty opaque. Opaque is exactly what the Prime Minister’s position is right now on collective responsibility.
As was said to the Foreign Secretary at Question Time, this is not the hypothetical question of whether the Prime Minister and the Government will recommend a yes or no vote, although most of us, if we could get a bet on that one, would be pretty certain of the outcome. This is the simple question of collective responsibility. When the decision is reached, whatever it may be, will it pertain to all members of the Government? Will collective responsibility apply?
Alex Salmond
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about collective responsibility, if my memory serves me correctly.
John Redwood
The nation would like to hear a debate about the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU; not these silly jibes. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his party is so keen to get powers back from London, but never wants any power back from Brussels?
Alex Salmond
I remember when John Major, as Prime Minister, ironically thanked the right hon. Gentleman for resigning from the Cabinet so that he could consolidate and secure his leadership of the Conservative party.
The SNP’s attitude is that we are a pro-European party. We believe that controlling 99% of our taxation revenue would be genuine independence, as opposed to the sum of 12% that we control at the moment or the 20% or so that we will control under the proposals that we debated yesterday. That is why we are proud to say, as are so many other countries, that we can be independent within the European Union. The idea that the right hon. Gentleman portrays—that a country cannot be independent in the European Union—is not widely shared across the continent. It might just be that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are wrong in being out of step with all other Europeans, as opposed to him and his friends being correct about their idea of independence within the European construct.
The question of whether or not there will be collective responsibility in respect of the referendum is capable of being answered as a matter of principle. I hope that the Foreign Secretary or his colleague will address it in those terms when they wind up the debate this evening.
Alex Salmond
I am in the fortunate position, as Mr Speaker said, of not being bound by the 10-minute rule. I will give way a couple more times, but I understand what Mr Speaker said about allowing other Members to get in.
Mr Jenkin
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the same arguments that were deployed by people like him to say that we should join the euro—thank goodness we did not—are now being used by people like him to say that we cannot possibly consider leaving the EU? Does that not underline that he is Braveheart in Scotland, but slaveheart in Brussels?
Alex Salmond
One wonders how long it took the hon. Gentleman, when he was lying in bed this morning, like the Prime Minister, working out how he would deploy that bon mot in the debate, to come up with that.
The hon. Gentleman mistakes me, incidentally. He should reflect on the speech that I made in this Chamber only last week. I am not one of those people who argues that the UK could not possibly be out of the European Union. In my speech last week, I warned against a parade of establishment figures talking down to people and saying, “You can’t do this. You can’t do that.” I am not one of the people who argues that case. The essence of my case for being in the European Union is a positive case about what Europe should be doing, not about what it should not be doing. I hope that at some point in this debate, we will get to the stage where what is said to be wrong with the European Union is not things like hard-working Polish people being able to repatriate their child benefit to Poland. There must be more to this country’s relationship with the rest of Europe than matters of such smallness.
I will move on to the essential nonsense of this referendum and why my party will oppose it in the Lobbies this evening. When someone proposes a referendum, it should be because they are proposing a significant constitutional change, whether it be the alternative vote, Scottish independence, Scottish devolution or Welsh devolution, and they are looking for democratic sanction—the sovereignty of the people—to back that change. That is not the position of the Prime Minister. Nobody seriously believes that he wants to take this country out of the European Union. The referendum is a tactic that is being deployed as a means of deflecting support from UKIP and as a sop to Back Benchers. Nobody believes that the Prime Minister wants to take the country out of the European Union.
The suspicion, which is already developing in this debate, is a result of that essential contradiction in the Government’s proposition. The suspicion is coming, incidentally, not just from the hardened Eurosceptics—or Europhobes, perhaps—from whom we have heard on the Government Benches, but even from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who questioned why it looks as though the Government are trying to stack the deck in the referendum before the campaign has even begun. The questions about the campaign limits and the purdah period are coming not just from people who are opposed to the European Union, but from Members of great experience who are concerned that the Government are already moving to imbalance the referendum campaign.
Let me tell right hon. and hon. Members who do not share my view on Europe what exactly will happen if we go into the campaign and the polls start to close or perhaps the no side even moves ahead. We will find Sir Nicholas Macpherson parading things in front of Select Committees of this House; we will find civil servants compromising their impartiality; and we will find the Prime Minister suddenly making a promise, a commitment, a pledge or a vow, and saying that he has found some new policy initiative to turn the argument, in total defiance of any idea of a purdah period.
My advice—and it is free advice, honestly given—is that Members should lock things down in the Bill, otherwise all their worst fears will come into being. With great respect to the Foreign Secretary, they should not trust his bona fides in saying that he just wants a fair game and fair play. If we want to secure a proper and decent referendum and avoid the deck being stacked, we should lock it into the Bill through amendments.
We have detailed reasons for opposing the referendum in its current form. I say to the Labour party that I am surprised by its argument, “We lost an election, and we therefore have to change our policy”, as the acting Leader of the Opposition said just the other day. Does that apply to all the policies that Labour fought the election on, or just to the policy on the referendum?
Ian Austin
I have to say, the right hon. Gentleman is doing absolutely nothing to reduce the reputation for self-satisfied smugness that preceded him before he was re-elected.
I speak as someone who has believed for well over a decade that we should have a referendum on our membership of the EU. If it was right for the Scottish people to have the referendums they wanted on establishing the Scottish Parliament and on Scottish independence, why is it not right for the vast majority of people elsewhere in the UK to have the referendum that they definitely want on Britain’s membership of the EU? Why should the right hon. Gentleman’s party troop through the Lobby to try to prevent that? Why should he deny people in Dudley their say on this issue?
Alex Salmond
If it was two or three weeks ago that the hon. Gentleman was campaigning against the referendum, why is he suddenly in favour?
Mr Speaker
I do not think the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said anything disorderly. I think the safest thing that I can conclude is that he was not attending closely to election literature in Dudley, his mind being focused, perhaps, elsewhere.
Alex Salmond
You are correct, Mr Speaker, but the record will show that what I said was that the hon. Gentleman was campaigning on a manifesto. I did not realise that the Labour party had two manifestos, one for Dudley and one for the rest of the country. Perhaps in future elections it will accept the hon. Gentleman’s wisdom, and who knows, it might transform its political prospects if the Dudley manifesto becomes the UK manifesto.
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was trying to point out that the argument that a party should change its position because it loses an election is being used selectively in the Labour party at the moment. Those of us who were in the House yesterday heard Labour’s spokesperson on Scotland put forward a position identical to the Labour party’s position before the election, yet Labour’s catastrophic result in Scotland makes its English result pale into insignificance. If the argument for the Labour party changing its position because it lost the election applies to a referendum on the European issue, why on earth is it not changing its position on the Scottish issue or many others on which it was soundly beaten? We will maintain our position against the referendum in the Lobby this evening.
In particular, we cannot see the argument against 16 and 17-year-olds being allowed to vote in the referendum. In an era when political engagement and turnout has been at its lowest ebb, the inclusion of that age bracket in the Scottish referendum contributed to its being one of the most exciting and engaging political debates of all time. I say to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that in fairness to the Prime Minister, I should record that he was not a deep enthusiast for 16 to 18-year-olds having the vote in Scotland. There was enabling legislation to allow the Scottish Parliament to go ahead with that.
Scotland now has a politicised population of 16 to 18-year-olds. Of course, the notion of education and engaging the young non-elite of the nation is a comparatively recent phenomenon in parts of these islands—we were doing it in Scotland some three centuries before it was applied around here. We have just sent one of the youngest MPs since the 17th century to this very Chamber from Scotland, and we are extremely proud of that.
Let us have a think about 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland. Last September, they were voting in the Scottish referendum. This May, they were excluded from voting in the general election. Next May, they will be included in voting in the Scottish elections, and then they will be excluded again from voting in a European referendum. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central rather amusingly referred to the Conservative party’s hokey-cokey position on the referendum, but what about the in-out position of 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland? Those people have demonstrated that they are much more wise and able to understand politics than when the Foreign Secretary was a callow youth and did not understand what he was voting on in 1975. They have demonstrated their ability to engage in these debates, and it would be deeply insulting to the young people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to exclude them from the upcoming referendum.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I have a letter from a young constituent, Matthew Terras, who got to vote in the referendum and will be old enough to vote on Europe, but who speaks for the young people in his school. He points out that they feel “discarded” by being excluded from the Europe referendum. The referendum in Scotland has engaged our young people, and the Bill could be a chance for the House to engage young people across the UK. Matthew speaks up on behalf of his whole school, and I commend to the House thinking again about excluding young people from the referendum.
Alex Salmond
My hon. Friend puts her point extremely well, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary was paying attention and listening.
Paul Farrelly
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative Government are playing into his hands in alienating 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland from decisions taken in this Parliament?
Alex Salmond
Both the Conservative and Labour parties have played into the Scottish National party’s hands on many occasions, but this issue is so important that I appeal to the Foreign Secretary not to play into our hands but to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum.
Then there is the question of European citizens. Why should they not have a vote in this referendum? We allowed European citizens to vote in the Scottish referendum because our view of nationality has a civic basis. Unlike Conservative Members, with their narrow-minded nationalism and narrow view of people’s interests, we take a broad view of the matter. We believe in civic nationalism—we believe that if someone engages in a country, lives in a country, works in a country and pays tax in a country, they are entitled to vote on the future of the country.
We have a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Christian Allard, who is my MSP—the Member for North East Scotland. I go to Christian whenever I have a difficulty across the north-east of Scotland that requires resolution. He is a fine, distinguished Member of the Scottish Parliament, but he is to be denied a vote in the European referendum. He has been in Scotland for 25 years, contributing to our community. Why on earth should he be denied a vote?
The franchise to be used is not the general election franchise, because Members of the House of Lords are to be empowered to vote. I know that Conservative Members are frightfully worried about the idea of prisoners being accorded the right to vote because of the European convention, but there are six ex-prisoners in the House of Lords who will be enfranchised by the Foreign Secretary’s proposals. The Foreign Secretary says, “Of course Members of the House of Lords should be able to vote. However, this is an advisory, not a binding, referendum. The House of Lords will have its say on whether a proposal is enacted after the referendum.” However, the Government cannot say that it is to be a general election franchise and then start to change the franchise.
What about the position of other Europeans? It is not the case that all other European citizens are to be denied a vote in the referendum. Citizens of the Irish Republic will have a vote. So will citizens of Malta and Cyprus, because of the Commonwealth entitlement. How can it be argued that some European citizens should be able to vote but others should not? [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says it is simple: I suggest—and I say this with some experience of having to conduct a franchise that can be defended in the courts —that the argument that some European citizens but not others should be included will be extremely difficult to sustain if subjected to challenge in the courts. I warn him that he will not find it as easy as just saying to the House that it is obvious that some people should be given the vote and some should be denied it.
On the question of the double majority or quad lock, why should it be the case that Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—or, for that matter, England—should be taken out of the European Union against the will of that nation? [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Foreign Secretary says that it is because we are a United Kingdom, but it was the Prime Minister who said only last September that the essence of the United Kingdom was that it was an equal partnership of nations. He said that we in Scotland should lead the United Kingdom: he did not say that we should leave Europe. Of course, it would be outrageous, disgraceful, undemocratic and unacceptable to drag Scotland out of the European Union against the wishes and will of the Scottish people.
Mike Gapes
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is surely aware that the population of London, which is the powerhouse of our economy and dependent on relations with the European Union, is almost double that of Scotland. Using his argument, should not London have a separate say too?
Alex Salmond
I know that many people in the Labour party find the argument about the difference between a country and a county or city very difficult. I advise the hon. Gentleman that there are many routes to revival for the Labour party in Scotland, but suggesting that Scotland is not a nation, or is equivalent to a city or a county, is not one of the best avenues. All the four component nations of the United Kingdom should be treated with equal respect.
The subject of respect comes to the issue of whether the referendum might be held on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and, possibly, the Northern Irish elections. I am sure that Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard the huge opposition to such a proposal from all those nations, but that does not come only from representatives of those countries or even of London. It also comes from the Electoral Commission, which—last December—not only said that was a bad idea, but gave clear advice to the Government. It said:
“Any government introducing legislation for future referendums, not only in Scotland but also those held across or in other parts of the UK, should also publish at the same time its assessment of the implications of holding other polls on the same day. This will enable legislatures (including the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament) to consider the relative benefits and risks of the proposal as they scrutinise the referendum Bill.”
So the Electoral Commission recommended that should be done “at the same time”. We are now discussing the Bill on the Referendum. I ask the Minister for Europe where the assessment is that the Electoral Commission called for in such unambiguous language.
Mr Grieve
May I take the right hon. Gentleman back a moment to his arguments about the franchise? Is he arguing that prisoners should be empowered to vote in the referendum? If they should be in the parliamentary franchise, which arguably—under the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights—they should, that might be an argument for their inclusion, but I noticed that, when he was First Minister in Scotland and the matter was being debated here, the silence of his Administration on the subject was deafening.
Alex Salmond
The silence was action. The Government that I led defended in court—I am surprised the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not follow the proceedings of the Scottish courts on the matter—an attempt to enfranchise prisoners in the Scottish referendum, and we were right to refuse that. I merely pointed out that ex-prisoners in the House of Lords will be enfranchised by the Government’s proposals while fine, upstanding European citizens who have never done a thing wrong in their lives, such as Christian Allard MSP, are to be denied a vote. I am truly surprised that someone with such a liberal reputation—the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be the last liberal in the House—should make such a point. Perhaps he is campaigning for some Select Committee and trying to garner support from the Tory Benches.
Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to distract me, I was making an important point about the clear injunction—to use an English term—from the Electoral Commission that if a Bill for a referendum left open the possibility of holding elections on the same day, an assessment should be published at the same time. That was what the Electoral Commission said last December. Ministers have said that they are considering that, so where is the assessment that the Electoral Commission required to be published? Where is the Government’s assessment of the pros and cons of holding an election on the same day? It would be unacceptable to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have the European referendum held on the same day as our national elections.
The Bill is badly based on nonsense and a contradiction. The Prime Minister, who is introducing the Bill—although he is not here with us today—does not actually want to withdraw from the European Union. Major constitutional referendums should be held on a proposition honestly held, whether for independence, devolution or proportional representation, and backed up by those proposing it. The Prime Minister proposes to hold the referendum as a political tactic, and that is the contradiction at the heart of the Bill. That is why there is so much suspicion already, not only among opponents of Europe but among proponents of Europe, and that is why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading later today.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, who speaks for Vauxhall. I agree with almost every word she said. I have been sitting next to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and, although he is a much-revered Member and a man I have known for a long time, I am afraid I cannot agree with his remarks on this occasion.
I am very pleased to support and welcome the Second Reading of this Bill. For almost my entire adult life, Europe seems to have dominated the debate: whether it has been de Gaulle’s efforts to keep us out—in some ways it is a shame they did not succeed; the referendum, in which I voted yes originally; or indeed the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty. That was an exhausting process and, as a signatory with many colleagues to the “fresh start” early-day motion, one that is seared on my memory of my first term in the House.
I welcome this opportunity to clarify our relationship with the other 27 members of the EU, to recalibrate it and then to put it to the people of this country in a vote. It is quite right that we should re-examine that relationship, not least because, at a time when we are tightening the purse strings to pay off this country’s overdraft, we should look at the money we pay in subscription to that expensive club, which was about £9.8 billion on the most recent examination. To get a perspective on that, I was looking at what we contribute to the UN regular budget and to the UN peacekeeping budget, and they amount to £85 million and £301 million. I welcome the fact that the Government have got the review of the balance of competences, which has given us the necessary audit information to move forward, and I hope that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister can produce the reforms that this country and the institution of Europe need to make that institution and our membership fit for purpose. After all, 200 million more people have joined the EU since we signed up to membership of that club.
I have some concerns not just about the Bill but about what might happen. I am worried that this debate will dominate our political landscape for the next two years. It must not override and interfere with our domestic agenda so ably set out in the winning manifesto that took us to election victory, and neither should it be used to split our party, as it has done in the past; there has always been a range of opinions about the EU in our party. We should have an objective negotiation and a plan of action set out by the Government, and then I hope that the leadership will allow individual MPs to promote their views without fear or favour, no matter their rank within or without government.
The timing will be crucial. I urge the Government to lay out more clearly their thinking about timetabling. My experience with the Welsh referendum was that the Welsh Government were determined not to have the referendum at the same time as the elections for the Welsh Assembly. I hear what SNP Members are saying, and I believe that there are some valid arguments to be deployed. In fact, I believe that the referendum is so important that perhaps it should be a stand-alone referendum. I hope that the Government will listen to the views laid out by others with whom I do not agree with politically in any way, shape or form, but with whom I am willing to make common cause when I think they are being sensible.
I hope that the Government will resist the call for the triple lock, quadruple lock—or whatever we are going to call it now. I asked the House of Commons Library to look at the disaggregation by UK constituent nation of the EU budget contributions and receipts. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that it clearly shows that although the average cost across the UK in the last year for which figures were available was £48 per head, when that is disaggregated, we see that the real burden falls on England. The cost of membership is £72 per capita in England, whereas in Scotland, it is a mere £2; in Wales minus £74; and in Northern Ireland minus £160. So the devolved nations, which are effectively featherbedded against the real cost of membership, should not be allowed to slant the results of any referendum by demanding an individual country lock on any result.
Alex Salmond
I will not go into featherbedding and 30 years of oil revenues, but I do wonder where this argument is taking the right hon. Lady. If she believes the referendum should be based on financial contribution, by extension her argument would mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get a vote at all. Is she aware that 3.5% of the population, or 13 states, of the United States of America can block a constitutional amendment there?
Mrs Gillan
This is not the United States of America, and the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a vote as members of the UK—and long may they remain so.
We will need clear and straightforward messages, because, as is obvious from the debate so far, there will be myriad voices in the referendum campaign, and the options will not be easy for the man in the street to understand. However, I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) about the purdah. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, I ran a successful referendum on more devolution of powers to Wales, but I remained strictly neutral, because I thought that that was the right way to behave, and indeed it was a successful referendum and nobody felt that I had slanted it from my position as Secretary of State.
It is also important that the necessary intricacies of article 50 of the treaty on European Union be spelt out to people. On both sides of the argument, we need to know what would govern the processes and negotiations of unilateral withdrawal. However, the terms of engagement in and around the referendum period with other European institutions must also be made clear. For example, do the Front-Bench team know what plans any of the devolved Governments within the UK have for spending money on this referendum, or indeed what plans the European Commission or other European institutions have? I think we might find money being spent from other directions that will slant the results of the referendum.
I do not share the views of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) on the franchise for 16-year-olds. I was at a school in my constituency when I expressed that opinion, and I thought I would be out of kilter with what they thought, but—surprisingly—many of those young people told me they would not be confident about making the decisions necessary in a general election or referendum campaign. I would, therefore, like the franchise to remain as it is.
We have been a member of the EU for many years, but for the past couple of decades it has been clear that the British public have fallen out of love with it. It is also clear, however, that we cannot stop being European—and nor do many want to stop. I hear from people that they want to reverse the feeling of impotence that has developed over the increasingly centralised European decision-making process. Specifically, they want a fair deal in Europe without disproportionate and disadvantaging regulatory costs. At a time when we are heralding devolution so widely at home, we need to see this principle applied firmly to our EU relationship.
The Bill is about an internal process and, as such, does not constitute the real substance of this debate, but before we can get on with putting our renegotiated position into a shop window for people to examine, we need to pass the Bill so that people know that the process will be fair and not loaded in favour of our remaining in an institution that has seemed to load so many processes in its own favour over recent years.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election. I also congratulate all hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber who have made their maiden speeches during today’s debate.
I, too, welcome the fact that this new Conservative Government have wasted no time in introducing the Bill. That will have immediately quashed the fears of the people of this country who thought the Conservatives were saying they would give them a say on our membership of the European Union simply to gain votes in the general election.
Some Members from the last Parliament will recall that I moved a motion to provide for the holding of a referendum with an out option in October 2011. Back then, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers were all opposed to the idea. There was a three-line Whip against the proposal; nevertheless, 81 Conservative colleagues supported the motion that day. Today, after the promise of a referendum in the Conservatives’ election manifesto and its inclusion in the first Queen’s Speech in this Parliament, I am pleased that the Bill is having its Second Reading.
Alex Salmond
Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the huge issue of the future of this country in Europe should be entrusted to members of a political party who cannot even organise themselves to doughnut the right speaker?
Mr Nuttall
That is a very interesting point, but my hon. Friends would have difficulty getting behind me here; as the right hon. Gentleman might have noticed, there is a wall. I did think about sitting on the Front Bench, but I always like to speak from this seat on the Back Bench, as he would have known if he had been here in the last Parliament.
It is 40 years since the people of this country last had their say on this issue. Back then, the question was whether or not the United Kingdom should remain part of the Common Market—the European Economic Community. Since then, the nature of the organisation has changed beyond all recognition. The European Economic Community became the European Community and the “Economic” bit was quietly dropped. Then, the European Community changed its name to the European Union. It had its own elected Parliament, its own flag, its own anthem, its own currency, its own courts structure and its own foreign offices. One does not have to be a constitutional expert to realise what is going on: this organisation is turning itself into a united states of Europe—a single European superstate.
I believe that this country would not simply survive, but thrive, outside the European Union. We hear a lot about how important it is that this House reflects the country outside, but on this issue the House does not reflect what is going on outside. The proportion of Members of this House who believe, as I do, that we would be better off out of the European Union in no way reflects the millions of people outside this House who hold that belief.
I realise that the Bill is not about the merits of our membership of the European Union, but about setting up the mechanism to hold the referendum. It is essential that the British public accept and believe that the referendum is being held on a level playing field. There are a number of issues in the Bill about which they will rightly have concerns. First, there is the date on which the referendum is to be held. It is vital that it is held separately from any other form of election.
Perhaps the most contentious point is the precise wording of the question. I have never understood why the Government regard it as essential that we have a question that elicits a yes or no response. When the Electoral Commission looked at the private Member’s Bill on this issue in the last Parliament, it decided that the most neutral question was,
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”,
with the answers being either
“Remain a member of the European Union”
or
“Leave the European Union”.
I believe that that would be a much clearer question.
I do not think that changing the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds just in this Bill would be the right way to proceed. The franchise should be based on the general election franchise. On the issue of purdah, it is essential that the Government, the EU itself and, crucially, EU-funded organisations are precluded from making any statements or from campaigning in the weeks in the run-up to the referendum.
I am delighted that my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington are finally getting their say on this crucial issue, which will determine whether our country has a future as an independent, sovereign nation or merely as a region of a European superstate.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is correct and I believe that is what the Bill provides. The Bill is about delivering on the Government’s pledge to put the decision about the nature of our relationship with the European Union to the people of the United Kingdom so that they can take it on behalf of us all, whatever the differences between the political parties.
Alex Salmond
The Minister has been here throughout the debate. He will have heard, from representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and indeed from across the Chamber and from all points of view, of the unwisdom and unacceptability of holding the referendum on the same day as the national polls next year. Will he now rule that out?
Mr Lidington
What we are providing for in the Bill is a power to set a date by order. The only thing on the face of the Bill is that the referendum must be held, at the latest, by the end of 2017. We are at the start of negotiations and we do not know when they will be concluded, but that is the right approach to take. It is Parliament that will have the right, when the order comes before it, to decide whether the date proposed is the right one or not. I will also say—this is the point the right hon. Gentleman made during his speech earlier—that when the Government come to set a date, if that date were to require combination with other elections of some kind, we would obviously at that point make our views known and provide a full explanation to the House in line with what the Electoral Commission proposed in its report of December last year.
A large number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the importance of securing a fair referendum. I agree with that. Many of the concerns expressed related to matters of campaign funding. The arrangements provided for in the Bill rest upon those provided for in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Campaigners who do not wish to register with the Electoral Commission are allowed to spend up to £10,000. Campaigners who are registered with the Electoral Commission—these have to be permissible campaigners and donors under our electoral law—have other rules that apply to them. The two designated lead campaign groups will have an equal maximum limit available to them of £7 million. Each of those groups will be entitled to receive a Government grant of £600,000. Each will have the right to a free mailshot to all homes and each will have the right to a television broadcast. Other permitted participants in the campaign will be subject to a maximum of £700,000 each. Political parties are, of course, free to campaign. The ceiling on their permitted expenditure will depend on their vote share at the general election, in line with the provisions in the 2000 Act.
Britain in the World
Alex Salmond Excerpts(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is just back today from the Shangri-La dialogue meeting in Singapore, where that has been a major theme. It is a matter of concern when any power, however great, starts to exercise its territorial claims in a way that gives rise to alarm among its neighbours. What we all fear is destabilisation in the South China sea. What we need to see is the many territorial disputes in that area resolved by arbitration and the application of the principles of international law, just as we seek to see those principles applied more widely.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary has already mentioned a list of matters the world over that have within them threats to human rights. Does he therefore support this country’s withdrawal from the European convention on human rights?
Mr Hammond
That is not the proposal on the table. The proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is to ensure that our obligations in respect of compliance with the human rights agenda are overseen by judges in this country, in the context of what is happening in this country. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is looking now at how best to deliver that in a way that is acceptable to the British people and compliant with our obligations under international law.
Hilary Benn
No, I would not change that age, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that, when one thinks that the law allows a 16 or 17-year-old to give full consent to medical treatment, leave school, enter work or training, join a trade union, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, consent to sexual relationships, get married—albeit with the parents’ consent—change their name by deed poll, become a director of a company and indeed join the armed forces, it seems to me that we ought to be able to trust them to participate in that democratic decision.
Ensuring peace and security around the world must be at the heart of our diplomatic and security efforts. We live in a differently dangerous world today, with a multiplicity of threats, military, political, natural and cyber. The ultimate responsibility of Government is to defend the nation, and we remain committed to a minimum credible independent nuclear capability delivered through continuous at-sea deterrence while supporting global, multilateral disarmament negotiations and further reductions in stockpiles and numbers of weapons. We are also committed to upholding the rights of the Falkland islanders to remain British, including by ensuring the defence of the islands.
Alex Salmond
I have just heard what seems to be a support for renewal of the Trident nuclear system. The shadow Foreign Secretary has already disagreed with Kezia Dugdale on the question of the participation of European citizens. Is the shadow Foreign Secretary aware that the sole remaining Labour MP from Scotland does not share his opinion on Trident renewal?
Hilary Benn
I am setting out for the right hon. Gentleman what the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is, and I know he takes a different view, but a decision about the defence of the nation is not a matter for any one part of the United Kingdom: it is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and for this House.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who spoke graciously, as ever, but when he was listing the institutions in this country that are unsettled by our relationship with European Union he should, I think, have included the Conservative party. After all, he and I were both in the 1992 Parliament in which that unsettling looked to have reached extreme proportions. I fully expect to see a huge amount of unsettling of the Conservative party in this Parliament on the European issue.
I am happy to contribute to this debate as the lead spokesperson of the Scottish National party for international and European matters. As you noted last week, Mr Speaker, I have brought a few friends along with me since I last spoke in this House to help me out in case I encounter any difficulty. It may help the House if I introduce some members of the SNP team who hope to catch the Speaker’s eye later in the debate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) have the trade and investment and the international development briefs, respectively. They both bring extensive personal knowledge to those briefs.
The European brief is handled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who has already made a very impressive maiden speech, and the climate change brief by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who has both a constituency and a personal interest in that hugely important issue.
My deputy in these matters will be my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is on his way to join our proceedings by ferry, plane and train. I hope the Hebridean realities of transport will be borne in mind in future by Government Whips when they table Scottish business. I have a great fondness for my hon. Friend. Back in the 2005 election I was convinced that he would romp home in his constituency, so I spent an entire week practising how to pronounce Na h-Eileanan an Iar because I was confident that on election night I would be asked to pronounce it by David Dimbleby or some other interrogator. I went through that entire election night after my hon. Friend romped home and not once was I asked to pronounce the name of the constituency, so hon. Members will forgive me if I mention Na h-Eileanan an Iar a great deal in our coming debates.
The team is completed by my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson). In that 2005 election we had great success. We increased our numbers in this House to six. We now have 56 Members and we intend to make Scotland’s voice heard on international and European affairs across the range of responsibilities.
I shall contribute today mainly on European matters, but first I want to say a word about Iraq and make a contribution on human rights. I heard this morning on Sky News the American commander say that it is important that we learn the lessons from the fall of Ramadi. That American commander did not seem to share the Foreign Secretary’s complacency about the importance of that development. The American commander seemed to think it was a very important reversal and that lessons would immediately have to be learned. I was surprised that not until provoked by the shadow Foreign Secretary did the Foreign Secretary mention what has been happening over the past few days in Ramadi.
These lessons are important to learn and I hope there is no complacency on the part of the Foreign Secretary. If it is important to learn the lessons of what is happening in Ramadi, is it not even more important to learn the lessons of what provoked this nightmare in the first place? It is now 12 years, two months and 13 days since this House voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It is five years, 11 months and 14 days since the announcement of the Chilcot commission. I hope that when summarising this debate, the Front-Bench spokesman will be able to give us some indication, after five years, 11 months and 14 days, when the country and Houses of Parliament are going to be informed of the findings of that commission, and whether there has been a foreclosing of any possible legal consequences for those who may or may not be criticised.
It is important that we make a serious attempt to learn those lessons. It is less than two years since this House almost voted for a ground incursion in Syria. If that had happened, it is entirely possible that right now British forces—
Bob Stewart
I do not think we voted two years ago for a ground incursion in Syria. We voted to keep the military option on the table.
Alex Salmond
I said “almost voted for a ground incursion in Syria.” If the Government had not been defeated, make no mistake, there would be an extreme likelihood of British troops in Syria. If British troops had been in Syria at present, they would perhaps have been simultaneously fighting against President Assad and some of the opponents of President Assad. Keeping that option open can be called many things, but it could not be called a coherent military or foreign policy. I hope that we learn the lessons that Chilcot has to teach and that there is a proper examination of that report, and indeed of those whom it might criticise.
Alex Salmond
If the hon. Gentleman will just—Och, I had not realised that it was my old friend and colleague. Please.
Mike Gapes
I am very grateful. On the question of learning lessons, it is now 15 years since Miloševic was removed from Kosovo. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying in 1999 that it was unpardonable folly to bomb Serbian forces in order to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? Does he now accept that he was wrong and that that is a lesson he has learned?
Alex Salmond
May I just refresh the hon. Gentleman’s memory? It was the Serbian people who removed President Miloševic in an election. The lesson I would learn from that particular episode is the extreme folly of pursing military action without a United Nations mandate. Unfortunately, that lesson was not learned, which is why we have the present nightmare in Iraq.
On the European convention on human rights, those of us who were in the Chamber last Thursday afternoon were treated to a remarkable cock-crowing three times for the Justice Secretary. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) questioned him three times about withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, and she got three different answers. First, he said:
“The right hon. Lady is getting ever so slightly ahead of herself.”
Secondly, in the same column in Hansard, he said that she was
“evasive when asked about immigration numbers”.
Thirdly, when asked,
“One simple question: European convention—in or out?”,
he said:
“We are in the European convention at the moment.”—[Official Report, 28 May 2015; Vol. 596, c. 291-292.]
That lack of clarity from the Justice Secretary contrasts with the statement we heard from the Foreign Secretary earlier today, in which he seemed to suggest that the option of withdrawing from the European convention was not on the table. That makes it all the more puzzling to see the headline on the front page of today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper that I will not cite too often in these debates—it lives in a parallel universe as far as Scotland is concerned, but no one can doubt that it has sources deep in the heart of Conservative party. It suggested today that both the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary were lifting the flag of rebellion and telling the Prime Minister that withdrawal from the European convention was absolutely necessary for fulfilling the objectives of the Conservative party and repatriating the powers of the judiciary. Having heard the Justice Secretary refuse three times to give the answer that the Foreign Secretary gave today, I am interested in how deep these divisions run in the Conservative party.
I have known the Justice Secretary for many years, since he was a striking young journalist on The Press and Journal. I am not talking about his copy; he was literally on strike at the time, on a picket line. I remember the occasion well. It was 1989 and he was clutching a copy of the Socialist Worker, or perhaps is was “Das Kapital”—it could have been any one of a range of publications. What I do remember is that on that occasion he was eloquently in favour of both human and workers’ rights.
I must declare an interest, as I now write a column for The Press and Journal. I have encountered no bullying behaviour by management there in recent years, but that was not the case for the Justice Secretary. I recently came across an article from The Guardian on 5 October 2012, in which the then father of the chapel, Iain Campbell, wrote very favourably about the Justice Secretary. He wrote:
“We knew he was a Tory, and our concern was to have a united front. So we spoke to Michael, and he was happy to come on board. He wasn’t a typical striker by any means, but he was very articulate, so we asked Michael to come to the European parliament in Strasbourg to lobby MEPs.”
I accept that the Justice Secretary was a young man at the time, but it is pretty clear that back then he was asserting for himself human and workers’ rights that as Justice Secretary, as regards the European convention and his attitude to trade union legislation, he now seems intent on denying to others. It is therefore reasonable to ask to have clarified in early course whether the Conservative party and the Government stand behind the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary, or whether the more loyal expression of Europeanism we heard from the Foreign Secretary carries the Cabinet at the present moment.
The implications of withdrawing from the European convention or revoking the Human Rights Act are of course serious. There is no majority in this House for withdrawal and no majority in the House of Lords for withdrawal. There is absolute opposition in the Scottish Parliament, where the European convention—the Human Rights Act—is embedded into the devolution legislation. There is little support for it in Northern Ireland, where the European convention is part and parcel of the Good Friday and St Andrews agreements. With all that clearly impinging on the Government’s abilities, then surely it is time to abandon this nonsense of reneging on these obligations to human rights.
I am not certain that many Members will know this, but there is in the Strasbourg Court a framed copy of the Declaration of Arbroath. There are also, if I remember correctly, plaques to Ernest Bevin and to Winston Churchill in the walkway to the Strasbourg Court. It is at least arguable that many of the justices in the Strasbourg Court know rather more about the Scottish legal system than many Members of this House. There would be huge implications for how our legal system, our Parliament and our society relate to the European convention, even if the rather sleekit option were pursued of revoking the Act as opposed to withdrawing from the convention.
I want to turn to the European issue. In the past few days, the Prime Minister embarked on a grand tour of Europe, although as far as I can make out only four European capitals were visited over the weekend. However, I did see a favourable release on his activities saying that he had breakfasted in one capital, lunched in a second and dined in a third. Never have so many menus been translated for any single Prime Minister in history. It was considered a success that the German Chancellor seemed to indicate that it was not impossible that a treaty change could be effected. Therefore, in fairness, on the conclusion of this debate, we should be told by the Government whether a treaty change is the objective of the negotiations. What is the treaty change that the Government want to see effected? I would rather hope that it is a treaty change to substantially change the common fisheries policy. I would support that treaty change, but I have not seen the Prime Minister mentioning the common fisheries recently in any of his utterances. We should be clear what is the treaty change that the Government seek and the German Chancellor seemed to indicate might, under some circumstances, be possible.
What is the Government’s negotiating position? We are told that negotiations have started, with the whirlwind tour of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of European capitals, but what is the negotiating position? Are we going to be told the negotiating position after the negotiations have taken place? If my memory does not betray me, in the 18th century there was launched in the South sea bubble a company whose purposes were to be hereafter determined. The Prime Minister seems to have launched a negotiation whose purposes will be hereafter determined. The endgame in the South sea bubble was that it burst, and I think that the Prime Minister’s European negotiations will burst as well.
Alex Salmond
Now we have it! Business for Britain is now the European Secretary of the Conservative party in government. When we want to ask questions in the House, we do not ask the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister—we summon Business for Britain to tell us how on earth they are going to effect a European strategy. I know the Conservative party is interested in subcontracting and contracting out, but I have never heard of an entire policy being subcontracted out to Business for Britain. If I may say so, unless we are going to create a new Ministry, I think that instead of Business for Britain, it would be better to have a rather more accountable organisation, if Members of Parliament are to question policy.
Talking of questions, I notice that in the referendum question—we have the question before we know the negotiation strategy, never mind the results of the strategy—there is no actual mention of negotiation. Is that not to be in the question? When the Electoral Commission looks at the question, will that be debated?
I learned earlier, in an interesting exchange, that the Labour party in Westminster, as opposed to the Labour party in Scotland, does not believe that the 100,000-plus European citizens in Scotland should be entitled to vote in a European referendum. Christian Allard is a Member of the Scottish Parliament—he is a regional Member for the north-east of Scotland—and a French citizen. He has been in Scotland for the better part of quarter of a century, paying his taxes and working hard, but he is to be deprived of his vote in a European referendum while Members of the House of Lords are to be given the vote. I know the Conservative party, in terms of its attitude to the European convention, is very wary of prisoners being given the vote, but now ex-prisoners in the House of Lords are to be given the vote in a European referendum while Christian Allard will have his taken away.
I say to Labour Front Benchers that the whole purpose of giving European citizens and citizens of other countries resident in Scotland the vote in the Scottish referendum was to say that such matters should be taken civically—not according to nationality or ethnicity—by communities of the nation.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) managed, in the course of one speech, to disagree with the acting leader of the Labour party in Scotland on the issue of who should vote in the referendum, and with the one remaining Labour MP from Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is opposed—he confirmed this to me by nodding only last Thursday—to the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. I have heard of splits in political parties, but for the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of a single speech, to open up a division between the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, who has not even been elected yet, and his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh South—a member of the shadow Cabinet—on the issue of the renewal of the Trident system is a remarkable achievement by a party that is trying to bind up the wounds of a divided election campaign. On the issue of Europe, there are important questions that require to be answered.
Andrew Bridgen
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently about the need for clear answers to clear questions in this place. I saw him and his SNP colleagues wearing a beautiful buttonhole on the day of the Queen’s Speech. They had all the appearance of a wedding party, so I hope that divorce is now out of the question. Will he confirm that the issue of Scottish independence has been settled for a generation?
Alex Salmond
The white rose worn for the Queen’s Speech was, of course, the white rose of Scotland. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the poem by Hugh MacDiarmid, which I am sure he will find very interesting.
On the question of the Scottish referendum, the First Minister has been very clear. It depends on two things: first, the reaction of the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary to the overwhelming mandate received by the Scottish National party a few weeks ago in the election; and, secondly, the attitude of the Scottish people and how they react to the material change in circumstances that would occur if, for example, Scotland was dragged out of the European Union against the will of the Scottish people.
On the question of the European referendum and how it can be won, the very worst thing that could happen to the yes campaign to stay in Europe would be for a parade of the Chancellor’s establishment flunkies to tell the people of the country that they cannot possibly withdraw from and survive outside of the European Union. I am a European Union supporter to my fingertips, but I would never countenance, or see an argument for, a parade of the establishment saying it would be impossible for the UK not to be in the European Union. That sort of top-down establishment campaign would be a great source of grievance and would be likely to bring about a counter-reaction from any self-respecting person.
Crispin Blunt
Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore think it would be appropriate for the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of both the options—of staying in and of leaving the European Union—so that the House is informed by a Committee that could not possibly come to an agreement unless it properly reflects the balance of opinion in this House, rather than to leave it to the organs of Government, as he warns?
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent proposal, to which the House should pay very close attention. The last thing we need is some cost-benefit analysis carried out by Sir Nicholas Macpherson at the political behest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The benefit of a Select Committee doing so is that it would require an analysis across all shades of opinion on the issue, and such an analysis would therefore carry much more authority than any set analysis, or any following of, the rather poor precedent taken in the Scottish referendum campaign, which, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has quite rightly pointed out, compromised the integrity of the civil service. I hope that the House has listened very closely to the suggestion from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
If people are fighting a yes campaign, it has to be a root-and-branch yes campaign; it cannot be a campaign based not on what Europe should be doing, but on stopping Europe doing other things. It has to be a genuine, positive yes campaign; otherwise the message is hopeless and conflicting.
The SNP Members and party want to see positive things from Europe. We want a Europe that deals with the migrant crisis and the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean. We want a Europe where the living wage is promoted as part of a social Europe, not impeded by competition policy. We want a Europe that acts on climate change, as opposed to losing its credibility by inaction on climate change, as one of the European Parliament’s Committees recently said. It is on that positive Scottish campaign—the Scotland in Europe campaign—that we on these Benches and in this party will found our arguments, which will be vastly and overwhelmingly supported in the referendum by the people of Scotland.