Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have to say that I generally find it much more fruitful listening to the advice and thoughts of my hon. Friends than to the comments from the Opposition.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

We all noted that the Chancellor brought along the First Lord of the Treasury today for support, solidarity, counselling and hand-holding as he made his abject statement. Who first realised that the Government were in flagrant breach of their manifesto commitment—was it the Chancellor or the Prime Minister? If manifestos are now paramount and all parties must seek to implement them, will the Chancellor confirm, since he intends to go ahead with these changes, that they will appear in the Conservative manifesto at the next election so that the self-employed can vote accordingly?

[Mr Hammond]

I have made a statement today about the Government’s intentions: no national insurance contribution rate increases for the remainder of this Parliament. I am not making a statement about the Conservative party’s manifesto for the next general election; the right hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself for a while on that particular issue. On the question of who first raised the issue of the manifesto, I think, to give credit where credit is due, that it was Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC shortly after my comments in the Budget speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is quite a proud and ambitious boast of the right hon. Gentleman that his point of order will be germane. The first thing to establish is that I will exceptionally take points of order now if they flow directly from the matters with which we have just been dealing. Otherwise, they will have to wait.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, too, have an extremely germane point of order.

[Mr Speaker]

Extremely germane? Well, there is a Dutch auction in relevance taking place here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Two Members are standing, both of whom are distinguished products of the University of St Andrews. They seem to be in some fierce competition with each other as to the respective relevance of their points of order. I call Mr Salmond.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, A wise choice, Sir. My point of order, extremely germanely, is about collective responsibility for the Budget. Traditionally, it was held that a Budget was outwith collective responsibility, but more recently, the practice has been to take the Budget to Cabinet and then bring it to the House, thus ensuring collective responsibility. The Chancellor told us a few seconds ago that this mark 2 Budget could not, by definition, have been subject to that Cabinet responsibility, because he and the Prime Minister decided on it at breakfast this morning.

May I have a ruling, Mr Speaker, on two emergency measures? First, may I suggest that, to ensure that all Ministers are bound to support the Chancellor through collective responsibility, there should be an emergency Cabinet meeting to give the change to the Budget the sanction of that collective responsibility? Secondly, may I suggest that Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC should be brought into the Cabinet so that its members can get it right the first time?

[Mr Speaker]

Far be it from me to have to say this to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has raised a notably political point under the elegant cloak of constitutionalism. He does have some experience and dexterity in these matters, and I am therefore not altogether surprised at his ingenuity on this occasion. However, I do not think that it warrants a response from the Chair beyond that which I have offered. His point is on the record.

Points of Order

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman says he finds it shocking that anyone would suppose otherwise. I thought that this was very well known in the House.

Let me give the hon. Lady a substantive reply. It is a long-standing convention that Members should notify each other before visiting others’ constituencies in a public capacity. Obviously, if one Member is going to another’s constituency for a private dinner party, the obligation does not apply, but we are talking about the conduct of public business. The requirement for Ministers is enshrined in the ministerial code, and Ministers really ought to be familiar with and ready to adhere to it. I agree that it is a most unsatisfactory situation when notice is not given, and I urge Members on both sides, and Ministers in particular, to observe that traditional courtesy. The point has been made, and I know that the Leader of the House, who is extremely assiduous and highly respected in this place for his courtesy—I can say that with some personal knowledge as he has been my constituency neighbour for the best part of two decades—takes these matters very seriously and that he will do all he can to ensure that other Ministers behave with the courtesy that he customarily exhibits.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House was reminded from across the Chamber, not least by yourself, that the overwhelming custom, practice and precedent is that when Bills pass Second Reading, as the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill did, they should be duly certified and go to Committee without undue delay. Today, the Leader of the House expanded on his excuses for that not happening, including reasons that he did not give two weeks ago. Every single one of us knows that this is nothing more than political chicanery. Yesterday, the Leader of the House reached the heights of deputising for the Prime Minister. Today, he is reaching the depths and not fulfilling the proper responsibilities of a Leader of the House. How can we persuade him to mend his ways?

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House is entitled to respond if he wishes. If he does not wish to do so, it is fair to say that it is very much the norm that the Government should come forward with the appropriate resolution. It is not strictly a matter for the Chair if that does not happen, but knowing the right hon. Gentleman as I do and how familiar he is with that long-standing requirement, and knowing his tendency, quite prudently, only to ask a question when he already knows the answer, any member of the Government is taking some risk in persisting in failing to do what is expected. I sense that the right hon. Gentleman will, to put it bluntly, keep banging on about the matter until he gets what he wants.

EU Referendum: Timing

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not about the voters in Northern Ireland, who are quite capable of concentrating on the European championships—we envy them for being in it—and politics but about the devolved Administrations, who, unlike the one closer to here, respect purdah? If the referendum is on 23 June, the three Administrations will be in purdah for 10 out of 13 weeks. I do not know whether Conservative Members have considered that.

[Mr Dodds]

The right hon. Gentleman, from his considerable experience, makes a very salient point.

This debate is not about the substance of the EU referendum argument or the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated, so I will pass over the details of that deal—it is surprisingly easy to do so. Instead, I want both sides of the House to consider whether the result of the referendum will be morally binding or politically conclusive and whether we will settle the debate for a generation. We can do that, of course, but, on the Government’s current timetable, I fear we will not. This is needless folly, not least for the Conservative party, but there is time, even now, for it to reconsider—that would be in its long-term interests—and I believe it should.

To be clear, there is no suggestion that the public cannot choose or that a compressed electoral cycle would, as some have suggested, be too complex for the voters. Of course the people can choose and understand the issues. This is not about their choice, and still less is it about their ability to choose; it is about the Prime Minister’s desire that they choose in a particular way at a particular time in the rushed referendum that I fear he is set upon.

Why hold the referendum on 23 June? No Minister has made the case for an early referendum—quite the reverse; they have extolled and observed the virtues of Electoral Commission guidance and past polls at all levels, be they general elections, local elections, devolved elections and, yes, both the national referendum in the last Parliament on the alternative vote and the recent Scottish referendum. The House and public are entitled to ask, therefore, why they are seemingly intent on kicking over their own precedents. Why is this poll to be so very different from all that have gone before? What explains the rush and the panic?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I am delighted to respond to this important debate, and I commend the long-standing support of the Democratic Unionist party for the principle of holding a referendum on the European Union. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), its members were there earlier than many, and I think that their consistency and constancy in respect of that principle can serve as a model for others.

Before we get too far into the debate, let me say that I think it is important for us all to remember that any debate about the referendum date needs to be undertaken in the conditional mood. In other words—if I may make a statement of the blindingly obvious—the date has not yet been set. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, it is renegotiation and then referendum. As the renegotiation is not yet complete, there is, as yet, no referendum date.

[Alex Salmond]

Given the breadth of the range of interests among the parties in the devolved nations that are asking for the referendum not to be held in June, and given that no date has been set, why are the Government so reluctant to accede to the views of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)?

[John Penrose]

I am coming to that, but I think it would be, at the very least, disrespectful to the principle behind the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which requires the date of the referendum to be set through a debate in the House on a statutory instrument, under the affirmative resolution procedure, in due course. When that point comes, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate the issue. I think that it would be premature to start ruling too many dates in or out, although I will be specifying the dates that we have already ruled out.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on sitting in a different place in order to demonstrate flexibility of mind and his ability to take a different approach once in a while, just to keep us all on our toes? On the specifics of his question, I have to confess that those elements have not been factored into any of my discussions on potential dates so far. Perhaps they should be, however, and I will take that information away if I possibly can.

The motion also notes the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on best practice for referendums. The commission has produced reports on previous referendums and we have taken on board many, if not all, of its recommendations in the European Union Referendum Act, including those on pre-poll reporting of donations and loans. We have also taken on board its views in other areas. For example, we followed its recommendation to change the wording of the referendum question. We also consulted it on the draft conduct regulations, which set out the detailed framework for the administration of the referendum poll. Those are just a few examples of how we have listened to the commission’s thoughts.

[Alex Salmond]

I am slightly puzzled as to why the Minister is praying in aid the fact that the Government have ruled out 5 May—the date of the elections in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. My certain memory of the process last year during the passage of the Bill is that the Government did that only unwillingly when they were facing certain defeat on the legislation, so why is he now presenting this as a great Government concession?

[John Penrose]

I am just referring back to my notes, because I do not think I said that we did anything in that regard. I said that “both those dates are expressly excluded in the primary legislation that we passed last year”—that is, the legislation that this Parliament passed last year. I will leave it to Kremlinologists and others to decide whether that was done under pressure, with grace or in any other way. None the less, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the will of Parliament was expressed and that it was listened to extremely carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention, but those are internal matters and do not really relate to today’s motion.

I believe that the people of the UK are easily capable of absorbing the issues and making a decision after five months of a comprehensive campaign. As has been said, we have six weeks of the campaign in general elections, with three weeks of the short campaign, yet we are still able to come to a decision. If the referendum is held in late June, we will have had at least 16 weeks of the campaign, in which people can listen to both sides of the case, weigh the arguments and the risks, and make a decision.

The motion talks about

“the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on best practice for referendums”.

The Electoral Commission has said that the referendum date should be separate from a day on which other polls are taking place. Labour agreed with that and succeeded in pressuring the Government to amend the European Union Referendum Bill to stop the holding of the referendum on 5 May 2016. However, the Electoral Commission also said that the final Act, following the amendments made,

“provides a good basis for the delivery of a well-run referendum and the effective regulation of referendum campaigners.”

The bottom line is that if the referendum is held on 23 June or 30 June, that would be more than a month and a half after the 5 May elections. I, for one, believe that the people of the UK are perfectly capable of making an important decision in late June, a month and a half after local elections. To suggest otherwise is patronising and disrespectful.

[Alex Salmond]

The legislation also specifies a 10-week campaign period. Therefore, if the referendum was held on 23 June, the campaign period, with all the attendant regulations, would take place in the middle of the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and London elections. How can that possibly be a good thing?

[Pat Glass]

That argument has been well rehearsed in the House and it has been very clearly agreed on all sides that people can do two things at the same time.

I want an early referendum, so that this country’s businesses, workers and people can get on with their lives in a safer, stronger and more prosperous union with our partners in the EU. Labour believes that the UK is better off in Europe and it is campaigning to stay in. The European Union brings us jobs, growth and investment. It protects UK workers, the UK environment and consumers and helps to keep us safe in an increasingly unsafe world; leaving would put all that at risk.

I want to finish by reminding the House why the EU was established in the first place. Up until 1945, we in western Europe committed genocide on one another every 30 years. Families such as mine and those of other Members fought and died in those wars. Although I appreciate that the EU is not the only reason why we settle our differences around a negotiating table rather than on a battlefield, it does remain one of the main reasons. In a world in which we are facing Russian expansionism, global terrorism and global criminality, we in the UK are safer as well as stronger and more prosperous as part of the EU, which is why Labour is campaigning to remain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

You could not be in safer hands, Mr Speaker.

May I say to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) that there was a time when the Conservative party would have been more sure-footed on the designations in Northern Ireland politics? I am not making a particular point about her not knowing the difference between the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists, but that gets to the heart of the debate and to the heart of why I will support the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his Democratic Unionist colleagues.

We are told, and we were told in particular during the Scottish referendum campaign, that there were four equal parts of this United Kingdom. Now, the democratically elected leaders of three of those four parts, backed up by a range of agreement in the political parties in their Parliaments, have written to the Prime Minister saying that they do not think it is a good idea to hold the referendum in late June because it would conflict with the electoral process taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Members on the Government Benches do not seem to think that that is a clinching argument. Of course it is a clinching argument if we have a respect agenda encompassing the four component parts of the United Kingdom.

The Minister said that we were trying to tempt him into naming the day, which he would not do because of career-limiting implications. We are not trying to get him to name the day; we are trying to get him to name the day when the referendum is not going to be held. It is a question of “calculatus eliminatus”. I commend the poem to him:

“When you’ve mislaid a certain something, keep your cool and don’t get hot…

Calculatus eliminatus always helps an awful lot.

The way to find a missing something is to find out where it’s not.”

We are merely trying to get the Government to exclude 23 June because it conflicts with the important elections taking place in three out of the four nations of this United Kingdom.

When I heard the speech of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) from the Labour Front Bench, I was encouraged because I thought an element of flexibility was moving in, as opposed to last week’s rather foolish declaration of 23 June from the Leader of the Opposition. If it was a good idea for the Opposition parties, supported by many on the Conservative Benches, to combine last year to make sure that the Government did not hold the poll on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and London elections, why is it not a good idea similarly to combine now to make sure that the 10-week campaign period, as defined in the legislation, does not overlap with those elections? If there was logic in not having the referendum on the same day as the elections, why is there not logic in making sure that the two campaign periods are different as well?

[Mr Jackson]

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that the people of Scotland—that wonderful country that has played such an enormously positive role in the history of the United Kingdom and produced statesmen, engineers, educators and pioneers across the world—are unable to distinguish between an election for a devolved and unique Parliament and a once-in-a-generation EU referendum? Is he saying that the people of Scotland are too stupid to understand the difference?

[Alex Salmond]

The right hon. Member for Belfast North dealt with that point well in his opening speech, to which I am sure the hon. Gentleman was paying the closest attention. We are saying that it is better to have the two campaigns distinct for all sorts of reasons, including broadcasting and the publicity that goes through people’s doors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out that there were 540 days between designating the date of the Scottish referendum and the poll. Whichever side of that campaign they were part of, people cannot argue with a 98% registration to vote and an 85% turnout in the referendum. In this European referendum, if the date is as specified in a dash to the poll, we suspect, by the Prime Minister, public engagement is unlikely to come anywhere near such a desirable figure.

There is a shabby and sleight aspect to the Government’s argument. I wrote to the Prime Minister at this time last week. I referred to his “junior” Minister, for which I apologise. I said:

“Your junior Minister David Lidington quoted me several times today in the emergency statement as pointing to the necessary 6 week period between the devolved elections and the referendum.

However, while six weeks clearance is a necessary condition it is not a sufficient one.”

I went on to point to the 10-week campaign period, which would start in the middle of the devolved elections. I pointed out the position that the Scottish National party holds on the matter. Despite that, the next day the Prime Minister quoted me and suggested that I had had thumbscrews applied to me by the First Minister of Scotland in order to change my position. The Prime Minister reveals how little he knows that lady. Thumbscrews are not necessary; one glance from the formidable Ms Sturgeon would be more than enough to persuade any politician to see the wisdom of her ways. I have never made the case for a six-week period and I am concerned about the 10-week campaign period.

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend when he is in full flow. Does he recall that shortly after he stood down as First Minister, the media and the Tory press were full of stories that the new First Minister of Scotland would not be her own woman because she would be bullied by the former First Minister of Scotland? Does he agree that there has been a remarkable switch in roles in that short time?

[Alex Salmond]

Another scare story set to rest, as my hon. Friend points out.

[Mr Jenkin]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about how outrageous it would be to have just a six-week referendum period, but if the designation of the two campaigns is delayed some weeks into the 10-week referendum period, that is what we will finish up with. Does he agree that it would be outrageous for the Government to corrupt the process of this referendum by delaying the designation of the in and out campaigns in the way the Minister suggested might be the case?

[Alex Salmond]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We also agree on another aspect: purdah in referendum periods has not previously been properly observed in this place and by this Government, although it has been observed by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations. Having a long purdah period, with a purdah period for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections, and then a further purdah period for a referendum on European issues, would mean that those Administrations had a double purdah period, which cannot be a good thing for governance. I know that that point will not be lost on the hon. Gentleman.

Let me get to the nub of my concern, apart from the patent lack of respect. We have already seen the start of the European referendum campaign, and a thoroughly depressing start it has undoubtedly been. Yesterday’s ludicrous exchange about on which side of the channel there will be a giant refugee camp just about sums up this miserable, irrelevant debate. The truth, of course, is that it does not matter; it will take at least five years to withdraw from the European treaties, and by then we could have 10 times the number of refugees or indeed none at all. No one knows how the bilateral arrangements between Britain and France will be affected. This is a pointless, pathetic, puerile debate, typical of what looks like it will be a depressing campaign—the political equivalent of a no-score draw.

As we anticipated, the lead responsibility for this state of affairs lies with the Prime Minister—this whole mess is of his creation. The time to propose a referendum is when we want to achieve something important, such as Scottish independence, not when we want to achieve nothing at all, as is the case with his sham Euro-negotiations on points of little substance. He has set out the terms for this depressing campaign, which is, to quote the Scottish play,

“full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

The chance of those who are anti-European Union of winning has always been greatest if the campaign is reduced to a competition of scare stories—a war of attrition—to find out who can tell the biggest porkies. That is exactly what is unfolding before our eyes. It is almost as if the Better Together campaign from the Scottish referendum had split in two. We now have two versions of “Project Fear” from opposing sides in the Europe poll. At this rate, the only thing these two campaigns will scare is the voters—away from the polling stations.

The Prime Minister is gambling this country’s entire European future on his sham negotiation and this shame of a campaign—even Jim Hacker would have fought on a more visionary platform on Europe. We need to fight an entirely different campaign in Scotland. People want to hear how we can build a Europe that acts on the environment; faces down multinational power; shows solidarity when faced with a refugee crisis; acts together when faced with austerity; respects the component nations of Europe; co-operates on great projects such as a supergrid across the North sea; and revitalises the concept of a social Europe for all our citizens. That will be a Europe worth voting for, not the Prime Minister’s teeny-weeny vision of nothing much at all.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Common Market, as it was known way back then, was founded on 25 March 1957. It did not come into operation until 1958, long before I was born—I know that is hard to believe. [Interruption.] I wish my own colleagues were supportive of that. The aims and objectives of the Common Market were to emulate what the United States had—open markets and no borders. People were jealous of that. The United Kingdom joined the European Union in 1973, just over 40 years ago. Within this timescale of almost 60 years, the United Kingdom has been part of the European Union for just over 40 years.

So why the rush now? Suspicious minds would think that perhaps the deal that the Government, or the Prime Minister and his officials, have almost negotiated is so thin that it hangs by a thread and would unravel. Or is it the case that we are going to see a large influx of people from other countries over the summer? I ask what is the reason because I have not yet heard a convincing argument from the Government as to why this referendum should be held in June.

[Alex Salmond]

I would not in any way dispute the hon. Gentleman’s chronology regarding age or anything like that. Could this not also be about the internal cohesion of the Conservative party? Could it be that the Prime Minister is so fearful of the lack of unity in his own party that he wants as short a period as possible for that to be understood?

[David Simpson]

Far be it from me to go into the internal frictions, if that is the right word, within the Tory party. All parties have their issues to resolve, so I leave the Tory party to deal with that one.

One area that has not been much mentioned over the past weeks and months is the agri-food sector. Our farming community has gone through very difficult times over the past number of years. I do not speak on behalf of the Ulster Farmers Union—I do not have the authority to do so—the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Farmers Union of Wales, or indeed the National Farmers Union. Whenever they make their decisions, they will advise their members on which way to go. However, when I speak to farmers in my constituency, they are concerned about how things are going to pan out for them in future. Will there be an agri-food industry at all? Do the Government have enough interest in the sector to help and defend it in the years to come, and encourage young farmers into it? A lot of issues across the board need to be addressed.

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 provides for a referendum to be held on the UK’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. This adds up to approximately 15 months following the Assembly elections, yet some within the Government find it appropriate to send the electorate back to the polls within seven weeks. As we have heard, the European championship will be taking place and some 200,000 people might be out of the country. Of course, people from my constituency will be across the water supporting Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that they are at home when the biggest political decision of their day will be taken. That is vital.

During this debate there will no doubt be accusations that we are undermining the voters, as we have already heard, and that we do not trust the British people to make two different decisions within a seven-week period. Those accusations are untrue. Nevertheless, for the good of our nation, let us allow each voter the time and space to study the arguments and the effects that this will have on them and on their families to come. The EU referendum provides one of the biggest political decisions in a generation. Let us ensure that the right final decision is made and that, whatever it is, we embrace the new era and ensure that the livelihoods of our elderly, our young and our employed are changed for the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he would like a roadshow visit from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to entertain his electors over the summer, he is very welcome to it.

The point I am making is that there are a relatively small number of periods when we can sensibly have an election.

[Alex Salmond]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point perfectly, but, as a matter of interest, what are the arguments against an autumn date, as specified by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) in opening the debate and as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)?

[Iain Stewart]

I will happily answer that. First, I am not in charge of selecting the date, and I have no objections to June or September. I am merely saying that there are a number of considerations that we have to bear in mind.

Another consideration, more generally, is that there is a delicate balance to be struck between allowing a sufficient period of time for all the arguments made by both sides of the campaign to be properly explored and challenged, and not having so elongated a campaign that we bore the electorate to death or create such a long period of uncertainty that it is unhelpful to our economy. I am not arguing that it should be 23 June, or 18 September or whatever it would be at that time of year, because that is not my job; I am saying that it is about a balance of different considerations.

[Iain Stewart]

That neatly leads me on to the point I was about to make.

In relation to purdah, we have heard about the potential overlap between the Scottish Parliament campaign and the referendum campaign, if the date were to be 23 June; that is hypothetical. I will make two observations on that. First, whenever purdah is, it will be disruptive to the usual governance of the UK Government, the Scottish Government, and the Governments of Wales and Northern Ireland. If it were to be in September, it would cause disruption to the legislative programme of whoever forms the Scottish Government after May. There is a case to be made that it would be less disruptive for one period to immediately follow the other. The Scottish and other Governments could then get on with their full programmes without interruption, rather than being blocked in the autumn. I would also point out that, to avoid future election clashes, the length of the next Scottish Parliament has been extended by a year, so the Scottish Government have more time than was originally envisaged.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Iain Stewart]

If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have taken a few interventions and have a limited amount of time left.

I am not an expert on what Governments can and cannot do during purdah, but I hope we can have a sensible debate so that if a purely domestic Scottish matter that would have no impact on the EU referendum needs to be introduced during purdah, a way could be found for that administrative work to continue.

There is a precedent on this matter, namely the alternative vote referendum, which was held on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections in 2011.

[Alex Salmond]

That was a success?

[Iain Stewart]

I am not arguing that the elections should be held on the same day—we have accepted that they should be held on a separate day and that there should be a minimum of six weeks between them and the referendum—but there are lessons that we can extrapolate from that campaign. The Electoral Commission report on the 2011 AV referendum specifically addresses the issue of media coverage, which a number of Members have raised, and it concludes that it was not an issue. Paragraph 3.60 states that there was

“no inherent disinclination on the part of the media from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland…to cover the referendum; rather, the elections were considered to be a greater priority than the referendum.”

The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should not be worried about the capacity of the Scottish media to cover both the Holyrood elections and the referendum over the same period.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for securing it and bringing forward this subject. It is a very important subject—hon. Members from all parts of the House are passionate in their views on Europe—and the timing issue is clearly of concern to him and his colleagues.

I tend to find that my views agree with those of DUP Members most of the time. We clearly agree on one very important thing, which is that this is the time—this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to give the public a referendum so that they can have their say. However, I disagree with them today and I will not support them on the timing issue. I think that there will be enough time. The Prime Minister has clearly set out in legislation that there will be time for people to think and there will be enough information for them to make up their minds.

Let me explain why I will not support the motion. As colleagues have already mentioned, the aim of the Conservative party to hold a referendum on this subject has not exactly been the best-kept secret on the planet. Indeed, during the last election, many Conservative Members, and probably many Members on the Opposition Benches, talked about the referendum in their election literature. It was in our manifesto, and it was certainly in my election materials. I was very proud to talk about it, because I think it is time for this subject to be put to the British public so that they can express their views.

In fact, I distinctly remember that we were able to debate the issue extensively during the last Parliament, even though we were part of a coalition Government at the time. Government Members, particularly me and my Conservative party colleagues, found a mechanism to have such a debate on private Members’ Bills, particularly those introduced by our hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (James Wharton) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). They put forward those Bills continually to seek a debate on this subject, even though we were constrained within the coalition. As parliamentary private secretary to the Minister for Europe during 2014 and 2015, I know that the issue was much debated as a matter of clear concern that agitated many of our colleagues. They wanted to talk about Europe, and they did, and they wanted the referendum. During all the parliamentary discussions, it was also clear that a wider debate was taking place. News reports and TV programmes went on about it, and I did detect one or two tweets on the subject as well. This was not a surprise—it has been well trailed—and it is therefore important to address head-on the concerns expressed in the motion, because we need such a debate more quickly than not.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Belfast North. I believe that his concerns, and indeed those of other Members on the Opposition Benches, are sincere, but that they are overstated. That brings me back to an experience I had in a Leeds shopping centre, not far from Pudsey, several years ago. I was in a rush—I needed to get to a meeting, and I had to move very quickly—and I had to make a quick decision about which escalator to go up to get to the meeting. I ran up it as fast as I could, and it became pretty obvious that I had chosen the wrong escalator: I was running up the down escalator. An older lady, who was mesmerised by the spectacle, looked me in the eye and said, “That’s what comes from rushing.” I have never forgotten that. Rushing is having to deal with decisions within split seconds. I can assure the House that this is not about rushing, but about having a conversation and a debate over weeks and, indeed, months.

[Alex Salmond]

I am still grappling with which side of the argument the escalator analogy supports, but if six weeks were enough, why does the legislation specify a 10-week period for the European referendum campaign? Does that not conflict with the argument the hon. Gentleman is making?

[David Rutley]

No. We know that if the Prime Minister is successful in securing the negotiation and is minded to put it forward in the referendum, there will be challenges in terms of the multiple debates that will be going on. Like the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who talked about there being multiple choice questions, I do not think that is a problem. This is about putting two separate questions: who will the electorate vote for in local elections, or indeed the Assembly elections or the parliamentary elections in Scotland; and how will they vote in the referendum. Those two things are separate and clearly set out, and I do not think there will be a conflict. In the minute I have left, I will explain why.

If the Prime Minister chooses the timescales I have set out, there will be seven weeks between the May elections and the referendum. Indeed, there will be more than 17 weeks between the decision being made to progress with the referendum and the referendum being held, so there will be 17 weeks in which to have such a discussion. If we compare that with what happened in previous referendums, we can see that in 1975 there was just one month between the completion of the legislation and the referendum, and that in the alternative vote referendum, which some hon. Members have talked about, there were three months—it felt like an eternity—but the Prime Minister has promised more time. There is therefore enough time and I believe that the electorate will be able to separate their thoughts about whatever the issues are in Northern Ireland or Scotland from their thoughts about the referendum. For those reasons, I support those on both sides of the debate—whether they are ins or outs on this subject—who say we need to take the earliest opportunity to have the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), with his extreme optimism that Northern Ireland will reach the final 16. I, too, shall be cheering on Northern Ireland. I wish them all the best.

It is always a pleasure to participate in a DUP debate, because I know that the wording of the motion will challenge me quite a lot. I am often minded to support DUP motions because they are often very sensible, and this one is no exception. This is a very important debate. At the same time, we must recognise that this is a debate about a date that has not been set. No one has announced this date. Those of us in the Chamber are engaging in pure speculation about possible dates and possible outcomes, and about the implications of any of those dates.

I welcome the optimism among colleagues on the Opposition Benches that the Prime Minister will secure what he wants from the European Council in February, that that will be enough for him to fire the starting gun and that we will all be able to crack on with the referendum.

The motion says that Government are “set to rush” the referendum. My constituents would disagree with that. It has been 40 years in the making. I was three when the decision was made to join the Common Market. To suggest that we are rushing towards a referendum would frankly be viewed as laughable in Sherwood. My constituents are bouncing off the walls with delight that the referendum will finally be put in front of them, whichever way they are minded to vote, so that we can once again put to bed our relationship with the European Union for a generation.

[Alex Salmond]

The fundamental point that is being made by Members from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is that of the four parts of the United Kingdom, three are clearly asking for it not to be a June date. What is the hon. Gentleman’s response to that?

[Mark Spencer]

I think we should consider the views of colleagues, but it is worth recognising that there are elections in England in May as well, including in London. It is not just colleagues from the devolved Administrations who need to be given that consideration. I have confidence in the ability of my constituents and the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents to separate the issues and decide whether they are voting in a Scottish election or an EU referendum. That is a bit of a red herring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on securing this debate. The Minister referred to Alan Greenspan, and said that he was not going to give any clues, and that certainly was the case with his remarks. I quote back to him Henry Kissinger who, when facing a very excited press conference, scanned the excited news hounds and said, “Do any of you boys have questions for the answers I’ve already prepared for you?” That is rather how it felt this afternoon.

Plaid Cymru is in favour of staying in the Union—we believe there is a strong positive case to be made for that, and that another EU is possible. Among other things, developing the Union has strengthened protection measures for the environment, farming and rural life, increased social protection for the workforce, improved the protection, wellbeing and prosperity of minorities—including linguistic minorities—and strengthened progressive cohesion and regional policies. We will campaign on those issues. I certainly regret the rather tetchy tone of the campaign so far, but that is quite separate from our concern about the date of the referendum—a concern that is shared by people on both sides of the argument.

The First Ministers of the three devolved Governments have written a joint letter to the Prime Minister to insist on a later date for the referendum, and, as others have said, that is important for the respect agenda. There is a risk that the May elections could become proxy votes for the referendum, and I agree with the Electoral Commission’s concern about the proximity of the proposed referendum date to the elections, which could lead not to confusion but to voter fatigue.

The DUP will campaign for a power-sharing set up in Northern Ireland, and—from my reading at least—it is unlikely that an early EU referendum could influence the consequence of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in the same way and to the same degree as might be the case in Wales, Scotland or London. The result in Northern Ireland will be a power-sharing Executive, but the result in Wales, I am glad to say, is much more open—indeed, it is possibly wide open. That is why I was particularly disappointed with the response of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), because there is a question for us in Wales about the position of the Labour party—I note the vast green acres of empty Labour Benches.

[Alex Salmond]

And on the other side.

[Hywel Williams]

And on the Conservative Benches.

Carwyn Jones, our First Minister, has written to the Prime Minister and made his views abundantly clear. However, the Labour party at Westminster does not oppose a June referendum—in fact, it seems very much in favour of that as it wants a quick referendum. Either the Labour party headquarters does not listen to Carwyn Jones, or possibly it is part of a less laudable plan to frame the National Assembly election as a fight between Labour and UKIP. There is no doubt that there will be a strong UKIP campaign in Wales, and it might even achieve some membership of the National Assembly. It is in the Labour party’s interest to frame the debate in that way, thus avoiding scrutiny of its dismal record in government for the past 17 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

It is difficult to see how the Government or the Labour party can pursue a respect agenda to the devolved nations if none of their Members is in the Chamber to hear the arguments being articulated from those countries.

[Hywel Williams]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Some Welsh Members were here earlier in the debate, but it is regrettable in the extreme that they are not here now to contribute. I assume, however, that they will be trooping through the Lobby if the Labour party decides to take part in a vote.

The media campaign has already started, and it feels almost as if every news broadcast and every newspaper is running stories on the latest developments in the referendum campaign. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is no longer in his place, said that it was quite easy for people to make up their minds, and mentioned the press in their respective countries. However, 85% of people in Wales get their newspapers not from Cardiff or Llandudno Junction, but from London, and the so-called national debates in England and Wales, or the UK, often influence their voting behaviour. Few media outlets will pay proper attention to the Welsh general election, and anything that detracts from that is to be regretted.

Few media outlets will cover crucial issues such as the state of the Welsh NHS, the proposed 32% cuts to Welsh universities by the Welsh Labour Government, or election pledges from other parties. The Welsh NHS is no less important to the people of Wales than the English NHS is to the people of England. Given the constitutional significance of the result of the referendum, particularly if people in Wales and Scotland vote in contrast to the people of England, the Government would be well advised to pause before setting an early referendum date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh). I rise to speak in support of the motion and I would like to take the opportunity to commend the right hon. and hon. Members responsible for it. We may not agree at all times, and perhaps not even on the very issue on which the referendum will be held, but I none the less hope that the debate so far has motivated a desire for a fair and open debate on the EU referendum.

As other hon. Members have said, we should be worried about electoral fatigue setting in among the voting public this year. I know, however, that people will still want to register their votes. What I am more concerned about is the issue of purdah, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). We will have two periods of purdah running from the end of March to 23 June—if that is the date. Many of us have been led to believe that that is the date in the Prime Minister’s head, subject, of course, to his getting agreement in Brussels on 18 February. Notwithstanding that, to me and to my party colleagues it is undemocratic to have such a period of purdah, because it prevents Ministers, MPs and members of devolved Administrations from properly representing their constituents.

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Lady will have heard earlier one of the “speeches for England,” to quote the Daily Mail, in which it was suggested that an Administration being elected and then going into an immediate period of purdah was somehow a good thing. Can the hon. Lady explain that extraordinary argument any better than the hon. Member who made it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Let me begin by saying that following the frequent speeches and wise words of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is never boring.

We should not forget that we are having this debate partly because the Government have delivered a referendum on our membership of Europe. While for many of us that may be cause for celebration, whatever our views on Europe, we should perhaps reflect on the fact that one or two people may have helped to cause our victory at the last election, which enabled us to deliver the referendum, and which may have resulted not just from our great manifesto, but from the wise words of the Scottish National party, which, at the time, said “Vote SNP to keep the Tories out of Downing Street.”

Much of the debate has been interesting, and I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on initiating it. It is important for us to hear people’s views on whether there should be a long or a short campaign, and whether it should be close to or far away from other elections in the United Kingdom. It is absolutely true that there is no date for the referendum, although some Members spoke as if they knew the date on which the Prime Minister had decided, and the basis on which we would consequently proceed.

[Alex Salmond]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Wallace]

I must get on, because I have only a few minutes in which to speak. I shall be dealing with what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in any event.

It is important that we remember what this is really about. It is about trusting the people; it is about trusting the voters. No one in the Chamber has challenged the fact that members of the public will be able to distinguish between two elections. There is also the central allegation, coming predominantly from the Scottish National party, that we are not listening to the devolved institutions and that we do not trust or respect them. Let us remember that we have ruled out the dates of the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland and Welsh Assembly elections this year and in 2017. Not only that, we have respected the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Wallace]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. He said on 12 January 2016 that it would not be right to hold the referendum unless it was at least six weeks after the date of the Scottish elections. He said that in Foreign Office questions, and we have absolutely listened to that point about the six-week period—[Interruption.] Of course it is not a big issue. Speaking from the Labour Front-Bench, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said that it was correct—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The Minister has said that he will not give way.

[Mr Wallace]

It is absolutely right, as the hon. Member for North West Durham said—

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is summing up from the Front Bench and he has made a direct reference to another Member. Is it not a matter of courtesy and respect in those circumstances to give way to that Member? Is not this typical of the lack of respect, not just to Members—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I could say that if the right hon. Member for Gordon had not made such a long speech, we might all have had more time to contribute to the debate and I might have had time to give way.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made some true points about the views of the public—

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

This had better be a point of order.

[Alex Salmond]

It is. It is a matter of record that I conformed exactly to the Speaker’s advice during my speech. Would the Minister like to withdraw his no doubt inadvertent misleading of the House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is also not a point of order. This has been a good debate and people have had plenty of time to make their speeches, but the Minister has only one minute left. He has said that he will sit down at that point in order not to talk out the debate.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to restate my support for the Javelin travelling to Hastings and supporting my hon. Friend’s constituents in Bexhill and Battle. We are also investing in the roads in his area, because it is a particularly congested part of the south-east. There are lots of exciting things happening on the south coast at the moment, as businesses come in and the university in Hastings—where some of the people he represents work—grows. I am very happy to look at anything more we can do to boost businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

When the Chancellor sat down after his summer Budget, he had a 50% chance of becoming the next Prime Minister. This morning it was estimated to be 25%. Mike Smithson, a former Liberal Democrat councillor who runs the Political Betting website, has invented a surefooted money making scheme: he buys the Chancellor on the day of his statement and sells his stock as the Chancellor’s plans unravel in the following weeks and months. What guarantees can the Chancellor give the House that he is not back in bed with the Liberal Democrats and involved in the same sort of nefarious scheme to buy himself short and sell out the rest of us long?

[Mr Osborne]

To be honest, I am not going to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman about political projects that do not come to anything. He tried to make his country independent, but the people of Scotland had the good sense to say no.

Finance Bill

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way, and I hope it will be a short intervention.

[Alex Salmond]

It will be a very short intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is well enough versed in the procedure of this House to know that this is a debate on a Finance Bill and could potentially go until any hour, if he wanted to extend his interventions or speeches.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is a very worrying intervention for those of us who wish to get to the airport and go back to our constituencies, and I hope it will not be followed up on later in the debate.

Another issue I want to raise is corporation tax. I welcome the reduction in the rate of corporation tax and also the allowances. This has an impact on Northern Ireland, because as the rate set centrally is reduced, the cost of devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland is reduced as well. That probably reduces Northern Ireland’s competitiveness vis-à-vis other parts of the United Kingdom. However, as the real target of the reduction in corporation tax is our competitiveness vis-à-vis the Irish Republic, a reduction in the cost of devolution—which can affect either what money we have available in the block grant or, indeed, how far we can reduce the level of corporation tax—is welcome.

We recognise the importance of corporation tax in attracting inward investment. Even though there might be lots of capital allowances and so on, the importance of the headline rate has been shown in the Irish Republic. This is something that we in Northern Ireland wish to implement as soon as possible, although given the way that some of the parties in Northern Ireland, including the Social Democratic and Labour party, have behaved in recent times in respect of the Stormont House agreement, the prospect of devolving corporation tax, with the advantages that it might bring, is being pushed further and further down the line. I hope we will not find ourselves hitting even more problems.

The other thing I wish to raise is the whole issue of taxes on energy. The reasoned amendment talks about the removal of the exemption from the climate change levy on the onshore wind. I accept the argument that the Government have given. Given that many of the companies involved are owned abroad, the tax concession given to them was not benefitting people here in the United Kingdom. We also need to bear in mind not only that there is huge opposition to many of the renewable sources, on the grounds of aesthetics and environmental impact, but that people are becoming increasingly aware of the cost of switching from cheap fossil fuels to expensive renewable energy, in terms of fuel poverty and the impact on industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Perhaps the hon. Lady takes a different view of what is small and what is large from what I do, but the £13.6 billion of subsidies that go to renewables do not simply come from the Government. They come from households, who pay for it in their electricity bills. That is why I support the Government’s attempts to remove some of the subsidies that consumers have to pay; £13.6 billion, or £190 per household, is hardly to be regarded as a small sum. My only worry is that environmental levies such as the climate change levy and the EU carbon trading scheme will rise from £5.6 billion this year to £16.1 billion by the end of this Parliament, which will add to energy costs and have an impact on industry and on household bills.

[Alex Salmond]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that on a sunny day in East Antrim, one gets a magnificent view of some of our magnificent onshore wind farms on the west coast of Scotland, and will he concede that the contract for difference on wind energy on shore is lower than that for new nuclear energy?

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman compares nuclear energy with renewable energy, but of course we have the option of gas, oil and coal. Before the hon. Member from the Green party becomes apoplectic about the impact of those energy sources, let me point out that some of the drivers in Europe who want to push us towards renewables, especially the Germans, are building coal-fired power stations because they are concerned about their industry and their economy. I welcome those aspects of the Finance Bill, and that is one reason why I will not support the reasoned amendment. I think that the Government are right and we have to redress the balance. We have to ask what is important for the UK economy and for UK consumers.

Finally, I turn to the employment allowance, which is important in drawing people into work and encouraging employers to take on new workers. The uptake in Northern Ireland has been very poor. I do not know whether that is because employers have not had sufficient information or because the scheme has not been widely publicised, but when we are trying to find ways of encouraging further employment, the Government should take that on board.

As I said, we will not support the reasoned amendment. We have concerns about many aspects of the Bill, but we believe that parts of it will be good for the economy generally and in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I assume that Opposition Members will support the wage increase for the lowest earners. I am pleased to see the hon. Lady nod in agreement.

However, we are doing more than just increasing the national living wage. We are also reducing the tax that people pay, not only by raising tax thresholds but by freezing national insurance, VAT and fuel duty levels for this year, to ensure that they have more money in their pockets.

Let me now say something about housing. It is, again, the Conservatives who are helping those on low incomes to reduce their outgoings by lowering social housing rents by 1% a year for the next four years. Opposition Members feel that they cannot support that move, and will either oppose it or abstain. That, I think, shows their true measure. However, the Bill goes a step further by ensuring that social housing occupied by people who have done well, and are earning more than £30,000 a year outside London or £40,000 inside London, will no longer be subsidised by hard-working taxpayers who may be earning less than that themselves. Instead, those people will pay market rents—the same market rents that others in the same position pay in the private housing sector.

In addition, to increase the supply of affordable housing, the Chancellor has announced an increase in the rent-a-room relief, which will enable people to rent rooms without having to pay tax that acts as a penalty. The tax relief for buy-to-let landlords will be reduced, too. That will level the playing field for ordinary families trying to get on the housing ladder, who have been in competition with buy-to-let landlords who have previously been at a significant advantage.

[Alex Salmond]

I represent what is on paper one of the most prosperous constituencies in Scotland, yet more than 3,000 children in Gordon are in working families who will be worse off as a result of the Budget, and I doubt whether there will be fewer children in Lewes similarly affected. What does the hon. Lady say to the children of working families in her constituency who will be worse off as a result of this Budget?

[Maria Caulfield]

There are lots of hard-working families in my constituency and if the right hon. Gentleman visits us he can see for himself that they are fed up with having to go out and work long hours often on low pay to subsidise a benefit system that historically has not been there to help such people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for that intervention. But clearly it is the time, because the SNP has tabled an amendment, and so have the Greens.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Lucy Frazer]

So I come to the points raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that the Government seem to have run out of speakers on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Might that be because of the reality that thousands of families with children in every single constituency in this country are going to be worse off as a result of the Budget? Is that why the Tory party seems so unenthusiastic about supporting the Budget?

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think many people will wonder about the paucity of attendance on the Benches at such an important debate today. We have been served notice that there will be various amendments in later stages of the Bill, but I think people would have expected a bigger attendance here today. Given the impact it will have on many people with marginal incomes and the consternation that many people feel about MPs’ pay increases and other matters, they will be wondering where everybody is.

[Mark Durkan]

Maybe they are away celebrating other people’s birthdays. [Laughter.] Maybe the hon. Gentleman, having had so many interventions, can now safely go and celebrate his. We all know he was here and not somewhere else.

In the provisions on the national living wage and some of the other early clauses, the Chancellor seems to be doing exactly what he decried his predecessors for doing: passing legislation to put restraints or constraints on himself. He is advertising in legislation his own behavioural discipline. It is the ultimate political selfie to put oneself into legislation. Some only last for the life of the Parliament, yet are being put into legislation. How gratuitous a political exercise is that? Perhaps that is why other hon. Members cannot see fit to indulge the Bill too much.

Government Members have said that the charter for budget responsibility is a key issue, which it is, but a key aspect of the charter is the welfare cap. In yesterday’s debate, we heard references to the benefits cap—there has been much discussion about the benefits cap, which affects households—but less attention has been paid to the overall implications of the welfare cap, which was first introduced as part of the charter last year. If we look at what the summer Budget, as opposed to the March Budget, does for the welfare cap over the next four years, we find some revealing figures. In the March Budget, the overall welfare cap for the UK for 2016-17 was £122.3 billion; in this Budget, it is £115.2 billion. For 2017-18, it was £124.8 billion in the March Budget; it is £114.6 billion in this Budget. It was £127 billion for 2018-19 in the March Budget, ahead of the election; it is £114 billion in the summer Budget, after the election. For 2019-20, it was £129.8 billion in the March Budget; in this summer Budget, it is £113.5 billion. Over those four spending years, that is a cumulative cut of £46.5 billion, as a result of the charter for budget responsibility and the welfare cap.

Many Opposition Members—or perhaps not many of us, as I think only 20-odd of us voted against the welfare cap when it was introduced—said that what the Treasury was bubble-wrapping as a neutral budgetary tool would turn into a vicious cuts weapon, and now we see it, in the name of the welfare cap. When there is so much discussion about the benefits cap, people forget that the real story is the welfare cap, and that will bear down on people in my constituency and lead to more conflict around the next wave of welfare reform when it comes to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

We heard earlier from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and we heard yesterday what he thinks the implications of the cap will be. If he was still here, I would be saying to him directly that on this issue he and his party need to catch on; they have been wrong in the past, and it is a bit late to be scrambling now, when they have invited this very situation. Many of us told them that their support for the welfare cap, on top of their support for the last wave of welfare reform in the Assembly, would lead to this very situation, but they told us to forget about those concerns because there was nothing we could do about it.

[Alex Salmond]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that Members from eight political parties last night voted against the welfare Bill, so perhaps it is a case of “better one sinner that repenteth”?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I certainly have no problem with that, and I welcome the breadth of opposition. I also welcome the depth of opposition I heard from some hon. Members who, because of their party’s Whips situation, did not vote but whom I know care passionately about a number of issues and have served notice that they will vote in the amendment stages. I hope, therefore, that we can go further in this Bill and yesterday’s Bill to build on that.

However, let us be clear: this Bill purports to cover more than just the issues that we discussed yesterday. Hon. Members have referred to the questions around corporation tax, and of course the Government have served notice that they are going to reduce it. I am someone who has supported the measures to give Northern Ireland the devolved capacity to vary the rate of corporation tax, and I have no issue or argument against that. Indeed, I predicted that one of the reasons why the Conservatives were so keen to devolve corporation tax was that they wanted to create an excuse or cover to do so in England and Wales as well.

However, although that can be welcome in Northern Ireland at one level, because it means that the cost of any variation in corporation tax for us will be less in time, let us be clear that, contrary to what the hon. Member for East Antrim said yesterday, it will not be parties such as mine holding these issues up; it will be the tactics and policies of the Government, who are trying to create a budgetary arm-lock on the devolved Executive. They are basically saying, “Unless you get your Assembly to pass the legislation that we want in respect of welfare reform, we are going to create budget stress”—which in turn will lead to a budget crisis, which in turn will become a political crisis—“as the price of your failure to do so.”

When we are locked in that budget crisis—which will be contrived and the result of the Government bullying us on welfare reform—they will then say, “You don’t have a balanced and sustainable budget; therefore, you’re not getting your corporation tax powers.” Just as the Government said they would not introduce the corporation tax Bill until they were satisfied with what it looked like the Assembly was going to do on welfare reform, so they have built in a clause for Northern Ireland in the Bill that says that, come 2017, they will not switch on the power unless they are satisfied that there is a balanced and sustainable budget.

When it comes to the outstanding measures in the Scotland Bill, I hope that hon. Members present in the Chamber will be mindful of the possible need for a clause to prevent the Treasury from adopting any such tactic on the dual exercise of welfare powers between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, because the “twilight zone” difficulty that Northern Ireland has got into offers a very salient warning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) puts me in something of a dilemma, because he appears to be indicating that he wishes to take part in the debate, but I do not recall that he was here for the opening speeches. I do not think he was, was he? If he wishes to contradict me with evidence, I will of course accept his point. I will allow him to explain.

[Alex Salmond]

I am grateful for the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here for some substantial time in this debate—not for the opening speeches, but longer than just about any Labour or Conservative Member, apart from those on the two Front Benches. Indeed, I was here when the total number of Labour and Conservative Members present was in single figures. I am well aware of the rules of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is not for anyone else to judge who will speak and not speak in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is, indeed, well aware of the rules of the House, as a seasoned performer in this Chamber. I know that he will appreciate that I also am aware that he was here for much of the debate, but not for the opening speeches. There are other people whom I have prevented from speaking earlier this afternoon because they were not here for the opening speeches. It is, however, obviously open to the right hon. Gentleman to intervene during the winding-up speeches that are about to begin from the Front Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Normally, speeches from the Treasury Front Bench and the Official Opposition Front Bench count as the opening speeches. But I have to say that that is a very narrow way of looking at the issue. If a Member wishes to take part in a debate—[Interruption.] Order. If a Member wishes to take part in a debate, it would be courteous and proper to be here for the whole of the debate. I am making no criticism of the right hon. Member for Gordon, who was here for much of yesterday’s debate and for much of today’s debate. I am just not allowing him to make a speech; it is not that I am not allowing him to say anything.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just point out that it is not immediately obvious to Members that a Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill will not be able to fulfil its time slot—they are not aware of that at the start of a debate? But, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that, as ever, your ruling has been most gracefully made, and therefore will be most gracefully accepted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his graceful point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not believe that is the case. We have been through the whole of the last Parliament being the official Opposition and we are still in that position again after the election, much to our chagrin. I know there are a lot of new Members in the House, but I must say that a Bill does not pass through the Commons in one sitting—it does not pass through the Commons in one day—because it goes to Committee. When we come back in September we will have a Committee of the whole House, and we have started to table amendments for debate on those days. There are also Public Bill Committee sittings, Report and Third Reading, so there are many occasions when speeches can be made.

[Alex Salmond]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out, the Labour Opposition have divided the House on the Finance Bill for every Budget since 2010. What is it about this Budget—this extraordinary, regressive Budget—that makes it such that the Labour party does not want to support our opposition to it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

It is a pleasure to close this wide-ranging and lively debate. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) reminded us, in a timely intervention, that it could have gone to any hour, but in the event it was not to be. We were helped in our timeliness by the Labour party. It has only been a short week so far, but it has not been a great week for Labour unity. Nevertheless, it has discovered a new answer to the question of how not to show disunity, which is preferably not to show up at all.

This Government have set out a bold plan for the next stage of Britain’s economic recovery and this Finance Bill helps us to deliver it. The Bill will help move our economy from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare economy to a higher-wage, lower-tax, less welfare-reliant economy. It rewards work and ensures that hard-working families can keep more of the money they earn. It cuts taxes for businesses, helping them to create jobs and deliver the growth we need to secure the future prosperity of our nation. And it tackles avoidance.

[Alex Salmond]

Let us get to the nub of this. Is it not the case, confirmed by a number of analysts, that in every single constituency in this country, thousands of families with children will be worse off as a result of the Budget? What does he say to those low-paid families who will be substantially worse off as a result of this Budget?

[Damian Hinds]

What “he” says is that eight out of 10 families will be better off as a result of the blend—the complete set—of measures in the summer Budget.

Scotland Bill

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

I do not oppose the devolution of APD to the Scottish Parliament, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, it will have a dramatic effect on regional airports within the UK. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned the attractions of Edinburgh to north-east businesses that want international flights, but I have to say that they would sooner fly directly from Newcastle. As for the notion that people would fly to Edinburgh and then get on a train to travel south to our region, that would not be an alternative to flying directly to the north-east via Newcastle. Newcastle airport has been a success story for the north-east.

We hear much from this Government about rebalancing the economy. The north-east has taken the brunt when it comes to the loss of public sector jobs and it also has the highest levels of unemployment in the UK. There have also been knock-on effects from the Government’s decisions deliberately to divert funds from poorer regions such as the north-east to the Tory heartlands.

We have heard the Government’s rhetoric about growing the private sector. Newcastle airport has, I think, been a great example. A few years ago, I had the privilege of being a director of the airport, which is a great partnership between the local authorities in the region and the private sector. In 2012, the airport added value of some £640 million to the north-east economy, and under its master plan by 2030 it will generate some £1.3 billion for the north-east economy. It is currently sustaining 7,800 jobs, rising to over 10,000 by 2030.

The team at Newcastle airport now provides direct flights to Dubai and to New York, and those international flights will be put at risk if the Scottish Government go ahead with their plans. I understand that this is a devolved matter, and I understand the reasons why the Scottish Government want to reduce APD. Clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said, the tax was brought in for environmental reasons that now make little sense when it comes to growing the country’s economy.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

I could be reading the amendment paper wrongly, but am I wrong to interpret the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 36, which has not been called for debate, as designed to delete the clause that would devolve air passenger duty? Several times, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not opposed to the devolution of APD, but I thought his amendment was supposed to delete the provisions that made APD a devolved matter.

[Mr Jones]

The reason for that is that I was advised to do so to get my probing amendment on the amendment paper. There is no intention to delete the provisions, and the amendment has not been selected. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in the House would make him au fait with the procedures for ensuring that Members can get a subject debated.

The Scottish Government’s proposals on APD do not make economic sense. Reducing and abolishing APD will clearly grow airport traffic into airports in Scotland as well as grow jobs, yet that will be to the detriment of airports such as Newcastle’s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

On this very rare occasion, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would abolish APD altogether; it is a tax that, as the Scottish Government have recognised, stifles economic development. A PwC report says that the number of overseas visitors would grow by 7% if we abolished it altogether and that more money would come in from other taxes.

Scotland, for her own, sensible reasons, could halve and then abolish APD, leaving Newcastle at a great disadvantage. That would cost jobs; it has been anticipated that up to 1,000 jobs could be lost by 2025 if the situation remained the same, along with £400 million gross value to the economy of the north-east. One of the poorest regions in the UK cannot afford to be at such a disadvantage.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the Government’s approach. He read out the Chancellor’s comment at the Treasury Committee sitting. The Chancellor seemed to be sanguine, giving the impression that if Scotland reduced its APD, airports such as Newcastle could happily soak up a 10% loss in traffic. I am sorry, but I have been a director of the airport and I know the management team well—I know how hard they have to work to attract every single flight and new route to Newcastle. A clear 10% loss would not be acceptable. My hon. Friend mentioned another point. The Chancellor also said that his personal view was that tax competition should be allowable. If that means putting the north-east at a disadvantage, the Government have to address that.

There has been some confusion. During the general election, the Prime Minister was asked by a local newspaper about unfair competition affecting Newcastle airport and—we should not forget the other airport in the north-east —Durham Tees Valley airport. He was questioned about reducing rates of APD for north-east airports to match the reduction in Scotland, as the Labour party in the region had been arguing. He said that that could be a positive suggestion.

What we need now is clear action. We have a new Minister for the northern powerhouse, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). I understand that his constituency includes Durham Tees Valley, so whether he can persuade the Treasury to do something about the effect of the clause on the north-east economy will be an interesting test of his power. We hear a lot about the northern powerhouse. Those of us in the north-east think that it ends in Manchester.

It is important that the effect of the clause is addressed. If it is not, this unfair tax will not only cost jobs in one of the poorest regions of the UK, but stifle one of the few economic drivers in the north-east in Newcastle airport, which can grow not only business, but competition. As I said in an earlier intervention, Newcastle airport is important not only for passengers, but for cargo revenues. It enables companies in the north-east to export around the world. The direct flight to Dubai has meant that a lot of local businesses have been able to export products there directly and to grow.

I am interested to know the Government’s approach to this issue. If the clause is passed, we cannot have a lag that leaves regions such as the north-east being hit by the tax competition which the Chancellor seems to think is acceptable, but which the Prime Minister clearly wants to do something about. The ball is firmly in the Government’s court to ensure that this anomaly is put right.

[Alex Salmond]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) for the way that they have spoken about this issue. I am unconvinced by the argument that they had to table an amendment to delete the devolution of air passenger duty in order to make speeches. Speeches could be made on clause stand part. None the less, whatever the flow of logic, I am delighted that they have confirmed that they support the devolution of APD. I will be very supportive, in return, of some of the arguments that they have made.

As I have been through this issue in one guise or another over the past few years, I thought that it might be useful to remind the Committee of a little bit of history. The devolution of APD was proposed by the Calman commission. For Members who were not in the House at that time or who are not fully up on these matters, the Calman commission was the response of the Unionist parties to the SNP’s breakthrough in the 2007 election. We are still debating the devolution of APD because it disappeared from the legislative programme arising from Calman that was enacted in the last Parliament. It was proposed again by the Smith commission, which was the response of the Unionist parties, through the vow, to try to deflect the yes campaign in the final days of last year’s referendum.

Both those events, incidentally, have been overtaken by the fact that 56 Members of Parliament now adorn these Benches for the Scottish National party. No doubt, at some occasion in the not too distant future, we will be back debating the Government’s response to that latest political development. Surely history tells us—the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton referred to this—that it would have been far better to have been more extensive and generous with devolution in the first place, and that we should not repeat the mistakes that the Government and the Unionist parties made in the past.

I had a meeting with Howard Davies a few years back when he was asked to chair the Airports Commission. I will be generous and say that it was set up to address the under-capacity and congestion at airports in the south-east of England—or perhaps it was to bash Boris’s proposal for an island airport. The point was to reconcile between Heathrow and Gatwick. We can be absolutely certain about two things in respect of the proposals that will come from the Howard Davies commission. First, we can be certain that, whatever the final adjudication, it will be some considerable time before either Heathrow or Gatwick emerges as the winner from the process. Secondly, we can be certain that, whatever emerges from the process, considerable amounts of public money, running into many billions of pounds, will be devoted, by one means or another, to expanding the capacity of those airports, which are severely congested at the moment.

The reason I mention this is that when I had my meeting, as First Minister, with Mr Davies—it might be Sir Howard Davies now, for all I know—[Interruption.] I am told that he is soon to be ennobled—other people have more information on these things than I do. Anyway, when I had my meeting with Sir Howard, I said, “Given that, whatever happens, your proposals will take some time to be enacted, would it not be a grand idea for you to propose, in the meantime, measures to relieve some of the congestion in the south of England airports? Perhaps reducing air passenger duty in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England and, pro tem at least, diverting some of the business from those airports would relieve some of the extraordinary pressure on them.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland and the north-east, for instance, are losing business not just to London but to parts of mainland Europe? At Schiphol, for instance, air passenger duty has been abolished.

[Alex Salmond]

I do agree with that, but I also think that we must consider the motivation for the introduction of what appears to be a remarkably foolish tax. Any Chancellor looking at Heathrow, for example, would see a fully congested airport and an air passenger duty with an effective collection rate of 100%, whereas any Chancellor looking at the north of England, Northern Ireland or Scotland would see airports with substantial capacity where a reduction in APD could increase business, and, given increased revenues from VAT and other taxation, would see the magic formula for a Laffer curve emerging. I was going to turn to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) at that point, but when I mentioned the Laffer curve, he was busy having a conversation, just when he could have reached a peak of excitement.I think that it would be possible to achieve that Laffer curve, reducing the tax and increasing the revenue, and it seems that my view is shared on both sides of the Committee.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that, whether the Davies commission decides on Heathrow or on Gatwick, the vast majority of the investment will come from the private sector? It will not be billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Does he not also recognise that there has been a campaign in the aviation industry to abolish APD altogether, and that the Treasury is hooked on the tax because it is worth £2.3 billion a year?

[Alex Salmond]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point only to the extent that there are people who argue that nuclear power does not require the investment of public money. I think he will find that, as the implementation of these proposals proceeds, substantial amounts of public money will be invested in the infrastructure to make it viable and credible. According to a recent study of transport infrastructure spending per head in various parts of England, the figure for the south-east of England was over £2,000 per head, the figure for the north-east was £26 per head, and the figure for the north-west was £200 per head. I do not have the exact figures, but I think that I have the relative parameters just about right—

[Graham Stringer]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman can please inform me otherwise.

[Graham Stringer]

The figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given are moving in the right direction, but the distortion is actually even greater. The capital expenditure figure is over 90% in London and the south-east, compared with single-figure percentages in Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-east.

[Alex Salmond]

I am never knowingly undersold. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was trying to moderate the figures slightly, in case the Committee found them incredible. However, they do tell us where we should be turning in the context of “distortion of competition”.

I am delighted that Members from the north of England have accepted that this tax should be devolved, and I am delighted that they have accepted the economic argument behind the direction in which the Scottish Government are moving. I think that the tax should be reduced at airports in the north of England as well, because they have substantial capacity that would increase revenue for us all. I am glad that their amendment did not become the basis of this conversation, because if the Scottish Government had opposed the devolution of part of APD to Northern Ireland, no progress would have been made. We are now on the verge of having APD devolved to Scotland, and I say to Members representing north of England constituencies that they should take the attitude that this should be the example for further devolution of a sensible policy which not only benefits one part of the country but looks at the economic opportunities in all parts of the country.

Unfortunately, I arrived for this debate at the end of the VAT fiddle discussion. I hope when the Minister replies on APD that, instead of his wholly disappointing and negative attitude to the embezzlement of VAT from the Scottish police service, he will return to the style of grace and imagination with which he usually so adorns the Dispatch Box, and this time recognise the opportunity for Scotland, and indeed the north of England, of making sure that this disgraceful tax is reduced and economic activity is increased.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

I do not share this cosy consensus. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made it very clear in his usual honourable way—I have sparred with him many times—that if APD is devolved, the Scottish Government, if controlled by the SNP, will cut it markedly and have the goal of abolishing it. He helped the Committee by quoting the Prime Minister to the effect that there would be—these are my words, not the Prime Minister’s—a “beggar my neighbour” attitude downwards on APD. Call me old-fashioned, but I think environmental laws should be state-wide and international, and I consider APD to be an environmental law, which is why I voted for it years ago.

As ever, the SNP has been totally open with the House: it wants to see the number of airline passengers increase throughout the UK. That is an environmental step backwards. Fortunately, we have environmental laws internationally through the EU, for example on waste disposal and air quality, something on which the UK is, to coin a phrase, falling foul at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

Yes, I would increase the rate of APD.

I was a Member of the House when the Climate Change Act 2008 was debated—there are several other such Members present, although we are a minority. There is in that Act a target which I think is UK-wide—I stand to be corrected on that—for an 80% cut in the UK’s CO₂ emissions by 2050. I did not vote for that because I thought it was, to coin a phrase, hot air and, sadly, in the years since that Act has been passed, I have been proved right, as we see tonight.

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. Climate change legislation is devolved and the Scottish Parliament has its own Act in which the targets are even more ambitious and well on the way to being met.

[Rob Marris]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. Can he inform the Committee how on earth Scotland and the Scotland Parliament are going to meet those figures if they are intent on increasing the number of airline passengers?

[Alex Salmond]

Because, as one of the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends alluded to, one direct flight is better than two indirect flights.

[Rob Marris]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the whole history of airline travel hitherto has been that it increases exponentially. It has done so, and if allowed to do so, will continue.

So I do not share this cosy consensus. I am not part of the airline and airport love-ins. As Members will know, airlines and their passengers already get a huge subsidy because of the low price they pay for airline fuel—kerosene. Members ought to bear this in mind when debating APD: no doubt the figures are lower in Scotland, but across the UK in any given year half the population do not fly. I believe that hon. Members have a completely distorted view of this matter. I suspect that I am one of the very few Members of this House who does not fly; I have not flown for years. I suspect that every other Member has a distorted view, based on self-interest. [Interruption.] It is not me who is causing a huge amount of environmental degradation through flying. The greenhouse gases emitted by aeroplanes at high altitude are far more damaging than the same amount of greenhouse gases emitted at sea level. Air travel is the most polluting form of mass travel.

In that context, I regret that the Government are devolving air passenger duty. Yes, I would increase it. The UK Government will live to regret this measure, because we are clearly heading towards the abolition of air passenger duty in Scotland and, eventually, through a process of “beggar my neighbour” downwards, across the rest of the United Kingdom. That will be another nail in the coffin of the doomed and uneconomic HS2 railway line. People will continue to fly south from Scotland and the north of England, and vice versa, rather than using the HS2 line. It is already uneconomic and, with the abolition of air passenger duty, it will become even more so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The new clause is quite clear. I do not think it would be appropriate for Members of the House of Lords to serve on the commission—[Interruption.] Will SNP Members let me finish the sentence before they start braying from the Back Benches again?

The commission would specifically be designed to have no politicians on it from either Parliament, as well as no employees of the Scottish Government or the UK Government or of any agency related to them. It should be a commission of impartial experts in the field and if the Secretary of State wants to agree to the new clause, I am happy to take on board the suggestion that “no Member of the House of Lords” should appear in it, too.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Ms Engel. I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but he seems to be redrafting his clause during his speech. Would it be in order for him to redraft his new clause to include the House of Lords during his speech? Can he be that uncertain of his arguments?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter of debate, so let us continue with that debate.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The various agreements have been described as a considerable achievement. Under pillar two and the rural development payments, Scotland’s payments will work out at about €12 per hectare. The EU average is €76 per hectare. Would the Minister care to define “considerable achievement” in that light?

[Mr Gauke]

I would certainly make it very clear that there was a considerable achievement in the 2013 negotiations that were implemented in 2014. For example, there were calls for changes to the financing system and to introduce new types of member state contributions, but the UK resisted that successfully. There were calls to introduce new EU-wide taxes, including a financial transactions tax, and the UK resisted that successfully. Finally, there were calls to reform the rebate and the Government protected that. That is a considerable achievement.

On the subject of the regional distribution of common agricultural policy receipts, it is only fair to point out that payments per hectare are only part of the story. Although Scotland receives the lowest payments per hectare, Scottish farmers also receive one of the highest payments per farm in the European Union. On average, Scottish farmers receive just under £26,000 compared with England’s £17,000, Wales’s £16,000 and Northern Ireland’s £7,000. I hope that that provides some clarity for the right hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who drew attention to the fact that our net contributions are forecast to be lower in 2019-20 compared with 2013-14. In fact, our net contribution in 2019-20 will be £9.3 billion compared with £10.2 billion in 2013-14, which is clearly lower in cash terms but also lower in real terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) raises the issue that we should make a strong case for budget discipline. He wants to ensure that we appreciate that we are dealing with taxpayers’ money. Whether UK taxpayers’ money or taxpayers’ money from the wider EU, that money has to be spent wisely. That is a good point, and I will return to it later when we deal with the Labour new clauses and amendment.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I see he has made more contributions in this Parliament than anyone bar a handful of senior Ministers.

[Alex Salmond]

I am pleased to say that I have drawn level with the Chancellor on this morning’s assessment.

I admire the dead bat that the Minister is showing to his Back Benchers, but can he answer this point: is it the Prime Minister’s objective in the European renegotiations to lower the UK’s budget contribution, and if so by how much?

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to my dead bat, but I thought I had played a flourishing cover drive. The Prime Minister has set out objectives for a renegotiation, which will then be taken to the British people, who will decide our future as members of the European Union. We believe we should do a wide range of things to ensure that Europe works better for its members. We have consistently argued the case for fiscal discipline and we are not alone in making that case. Indeed, the Bill itself demonstrates that there is strong support for a fiscal disciplinarian approach within the European Union—the fact that we were able to negotiate a reduction in the multi-annual financial framework was a considerable achievement. In those negotiations, we had the support of member states such as Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Will he clarify at which point in 2016? [Interruption.] No, it is just some time in 2016.

[Alex Salmond]

Will it be before or after the referendum?

[Peter Grant]

During.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister can hear the comments being made by Members from sedentary positions. Clearly, we are working through a crucial time in the run-up to the referendum, and the budgetary information, with all the decisions that have to be made, will be crucial for the people out there.

In our amendments, we have expressed the wish to have these reviews and the reports. We want to send out the message that this House is serious about scrutinising the EU budget.

At the end of our debate on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary talked about the need for scrutiny on the payment gap. She told us that the European Commission has committed to publish more frequently its analysis on payment forecasts. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming an enhanced level of information on the EU budget, but believe that much more needs to be done on that. Does the Minister agree now—after both of us have spoken on the matter—that it is time that the EU moved away from a system in which it can make commitments of billions of euros more than it can pay, creating pressure on member states to ever-increasing budgets?

New clause 2 calls for a reform of the priorities in the EU budget, and specifically requests a review by the Council of Ministers of budget priorities and waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The Minister has mentioned reviews that are already taking place, but I do not think that he mentioned a review of priorities of the kind that our new clause invites.

On Second Reading, I raised the need for further reform of budget priorities. Labour believes that expenditure on growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that overall spending on the common agricultural policy will fall by 13%, compared with the last financial period, and that spending on research and development will increase by 4%. As welcome as that fall in agriculture spending is, we believe that the level of spending is still too high compared with spending to support growth and jobs. The Minister has responded to points made by his own side today, but he has not really got to the nub of the point.

As I said on Second Reading, agriculture accounts for only 1.6% of the European Union’s total output. If that is the case—I think that we will keep returning to this point—is it still appropriate that it accounts for 30% to 40% of the budget?

[Alex Salmond]

Is the hon. Lady saying that, in the opinion of the Labour party, agricultural support and spending are too low in Wales?

[Barbara Keeley]

I am not making that point in particular. What we are asking for in this clause is a review of budget priorities. We can see from the percentages that competitiveness for jobs and growth is the most important. I am not making specific points about specific countries. Under the new method of agricultural spending, I think that there is a great deal of flexibility for allocating the funding between countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. We have focused a great deal on agricultural spending and the CAP, but I do not think any of us would say that there has been a fair deal for people in the fishing industry. Fisheries policy, in many places, has been a disaster and has caused great problems for our fishing industry. It is a shame and a pity if, as I think is the case, young people no longer believe that they can have a career in fisheries.

[Alex Salmond]

Given that many people who represent fishing constituencies would agree with the hon. Lady on that point, does she not find it passing strange that in all of the possible treaty amendments that have been listed as possibilities for the Prime Minister’s soon-to-be-considered renegotiation stance, not once have I heard from the Government Front Bench that a treaty renegotiation on the common fisheries policy is any part of the Conservative party’s priorities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will not mind my mentioning the fact that she is sitting in glorious isolation on the Opposition Front Bench, and with nobody behind her, other than my friend the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not known to be enthusiastic about all matters European. Perhaps the relentless scrutiny to which she refers could be improved by having a few more Labour Members here to support her.

[Alex Salmond]

It is a great pleasure to follow what must be the briefest speech I have ever heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on this subject—it is wonderful to see him able once again to stand in his place today.

Let me turn to the question of EU finance and agriculture. I know that agriculture is not a subject that much concerns the Conservative party; the Tory party these days is much more likely to be concerned with asset stripping, rather than agricultural production, and with financial derivatives, rather than agricultural crops—that is what gets its pulse moving.

I was concerned when the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said that far too much of the European Union budget was consumed by the common agricultural policy. The fundamental reason for that—we did not hear this simple point from the Government Benches—is that the common agricultural policy is one of the few policies that financially is effectively under the competence of the European Union. If the European Union had competence over health, for example—I doubt that there is much support for that, from me or anyone else in the House—its agricultural budget would be totally dwarfed by what it spent on health. The dominance of the agricultural budget is a factor of its being one of the European Union’s relatively few common policies.

Of course, it is possible to argue that there should not be direct farm payments. Indeed, that was the argument that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) took into the CAP negotiations. He started from the position that the UK Government, without much opposition from Members from rural constituencies in the Conservative interest, thought that there should not be direct farm payments, and he found himself in a minority of one in the negotiations; his position was not supported by any other member state. It was therefore decided that we were to continue with farm payments. Therefore, if we have a common agricultural policy, and it is a substantial part of the European Union’s budget, it is reasonably important to ensure that our share of the agricultural budget as component nations in these islands is fair and competitive, because our agricultural production has to compete in that common market with that in other member states.

Does the Minister really think that the share allocated to UK agriculture, and to Scottish agriculture in particular, can be counted as a considerable achievement, as he claimed in his opening remarks? Let us remind ourselves of some of the facts. Under pillar one of the CAP budget, it was agreed that the lowest that any member state should receive in support was €196 per hectare. It was agreed in negotiations that each country in the original 15 would work to that minimum. Scotland receives substantially less than that—just over half of that payment per hectare. That is going to cost Scottish agriculture about £1 billion in the period to 2019.

[Mark Garnier]

The right hon. Gentleman said from a sedentary position during the Minister’s speech that that was because Scottish farms are the biggest in the UK. It would be helpful if he could give a little flavour of the size of Scottish farms compared with English, Welsh and Irish farms, and how the numbers break down.

[Alex Salmond]

I was going to move on to that very point, because the Minister’s reply to my intervention inspired me to go to the Library in search of some figures. I will answer that point in a moment.

Let me move on to pillar two, the second major aspect of agricultural support. I have been doing some comparisons and looked at what would have happened if in negotiations Scotland had achieved from pillar two the same amount of agricultural support as the Republic of Ireland, which in many ways is a comparable country with regard to land area and agriculture as a share of the overall economy. The answer is that Ireland has achieved a budget four times the size of Scotland’s budget under pillar two—€2.19 billion compared with €478 million—in the years to 2019.

Given that it has been decided that the common agricultural policy should continue and that farm payments should continue to be made, how will it be possible for Scottish agriculture to compete effectively when it gets such a dramatically lower share than the minimum allocated to any other EU country? Far from getting an excellent deal on pillar two to compensate for the poor deal on pillar one, Scotland gets a miserable share in comparison with comparable countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I have been listening with interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s points about funding for Scotland. How does he think this support would be getting on without the benefit of the UK’s rebate?

[Alex Salmond]

One of the reasons we do so incredibly badly in many European programmes as regards funding is that the Treasury’s interest, when looking at additionality, as it calls it, is always to minimise EU expenditure. Although it is perfectly acceptable for the Government to defend the rebate, it is less acceptable to look at every European programme and try to minimise expenditure on it, because in doing so, we lose some of the alternative opportunities that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South talked about. If the Treasury looks at every European programme and says, “How do we minimise spending?”, what follows as a natural consequence is that our share of that spending is also diminished. In the case of the common agricultural policy, it is possible to make a direct connection with the negotiating stance of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was trying to abolish farm payments altogether and got the miserable, unfair and inequitable distribution of support that has been the end result of the CAP negotiations.

The Minister—I am not sure if it was a dead bat, a glorious drive through covers, or a catch at slips—rather evaded the direct question of what is the Prime Minister’s negotiating stance on the budget. The Minister said, after being passed a note, that the Prime Minister’s stance was to cut the whole budget and to protect the UK rebate. Let me point out that that has been the Government’s stance and policy since they took office in 2010; it is not a particular stance for these renegotiations. What the Minister is being asked—we really would like an answer—is whether the Prime Minister has a specific target in mind in renegotiations for changes in the EU budget or the UK contribution to it, and if so, what it is. Failure to answer that question throughout the debate adds to the no doubt unworthy, but considerable, suspicion shared across this Chamber that the Prime Minister is adopting this nebulous approach to what are his negotiating aims so that whatever he comes back with can be announced as a fundamental achievement. That does not stand scrutiny in this Committee, but even more importantly, it is a particularly poor campaigning argument in favour of the European cause.

I hope that the Minister—the last man in—will rise to the occasion by confirming that he is in favour of more equitable distribution of land ownership in Scotland and by giving us an insight into the Prime Minister’s true negotiating hand in the coming arguments and discussions in the European Union.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The speech by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is tremendously important and gets to the heart of one of the issues we have with the common agricultural policy, although, not surprisingly, I look at it in a different way from the question of socialism and land holdings that the SNP is going for.

The issue, as has been discussed in the European Scrutiny Committee, is that over the years our farmers have increasingly become so efficient and large that there has been a good deal of consolidation. That applies very much in my constituency among dairy farmers. The number of dairy farms has reduced significantly and they are bigger farms proportionately, but European subsidies tend to go to smaller farms disproportionately. Therefore, we find that British farmers are disadvantaged. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if, under a system of farming subsidies and a competitive framework, that means that people are getting handouts from the European Union, British farmers—farmers in the United Kingdom—do not get the equivalent subsidies to farmers on the continent, they are disadvantaged because their cost base is automatically higher and their profitability is reduced. Therefore, when we are arguing for careful consideration, overview and oversight of expenditure in the European Union, and reductions in the common agricultural policy, we have to ensure that the cuts are made in a way that is fair to the UK farmer. Even if our end objective is the entire elimination of agricultural subsidies, it must be done in a way—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very sympathetic to farmers and I ought to declare an interest as I have a little land in Somerset, although sadly not a great deal and I do not farm directly. If I did, I would certainly count as a very, very small farmer. In the past a slice has been taken from the biggest receivers of European subsidies, so the farms that have been the most consolidated and efficient lose subsidies at a faster rate than other farms. I think that protection is already in place—

[Alex Salmond]

That is why the protection built into the agricultural settlement of €196 per hectare is so important, and why it is so disadvantageous that it is almost half that figure in Scotland. That is why the minimum per hectare is so important.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Being more traditional, I prefer a minimum per acre, but otherwise I am broadly in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is not right to look at the issue purely in terms of the landowner, because that discourages consolidation. As Conservatives, we are in favour of efficiency in all industries, but the subsidy system across Europe not only disadvantages our farmers, but discourages consolidation and efficiency. That cannot be the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman’s point tempts me to talk at greater length about a broader, more socialist approach to running the world, with which I strongly agree. If I did so, however, I think I would set too many hares running and Mr Williams would call me to order very quickly.

The CAP is nonsense. We ought to abolish it and repatriate agricultural policy to member states. We can decide in our own country which parts of agriculture should be subsidised and to what extent, and we can decide where and when we buy food. We might choose to subsidise to keep agriculture sustained in this country for strategic reasons. During the second world war we needed to produce food for ourselves, and all countries have to bear those sorts of factors in mind when deciding what they produce.

Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) obviously does not like the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy very much. I am surprised that the SNP is in favour of the European Union at all.

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I think that the CAP is a failure of UK Government negotiation, as I have tried to explain. On the CFP, however, he is on much stronger ground: I would support a treaty amendment to change it substantially and remove it from central control.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We are in strong agreement on that point. I have said many times in this Chamber that we ought to give notice of withdrawal from the CFP if it is not abolished in total. Countries could then manage their own fisheries with a 200-mile or 50/50 limit. In that way, fish stocks could be recovered, because they would be managed at a national level and we would license fishing for our own fishermen. In addition, if any other fishing boats came from outside, they would have to be licensed and managed properly.

[Alex Salmond]

To pursue my point, is it not strange that the Government never mention treaty amendment to the common fisheries policy as an objective, even though it would certainly be within the competence of this financial Bill? Everything else is mentioned as an objective in the renegotiation, but to my knowledge the Prime Minister has never identified the common fisheries policy as something that he is even trying to get change on, far less a treaty amendment.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. That is one of my red lines, and I shall put that case to the Prime Minister when I have an opportunity. I have said that many times before in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not the great danger that the high priest of the austerity cult, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would drive austerity further and we would not see the spending that we currently see in areas of Wales and in the highlands and islands of Scotland?

[Alex Salmond]

He’d keep it all for himself.

[Mr MacNeil]

He would keep it all in London. If that were to happen, we would need full fiscal autonomy, or indeed independence, to ensure that areas of Scotland were well protected.

--- Later in debate ---

A Conservative Member asked about the SNP’s position on Europe. I would love to see what deal Scotland could get out of Europe if we had a voice in Europe. At the moment every representation that we make to Europe has to go through the Westminster filter, and I do not blame that filter for changing them to act in the interests of the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom. We are outnumbered by 10, 11, or 12-1 in population terms, so the representations that the UK Government make to Europe will always be loaded towards what they see to be in the best interest of the major nation.

[Alex Salmond]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the likely outcome of Scottish negotiations in Europe, but it is highly unlikely that any Scottish negotiator would come back with less agriculture support than the minimum awarded to every other European nation.

[Peter Grant]

I do not know whether that is a bid to be the first independent Scottish ambassador to the European Union, but if I am in a position to put anybody’s name forward I shall certainly bear in mind my right hon. Friend. He makes a valid point, which is related to the question he has asked repeatedly and on which he has still not had an answer: what the Prime Minister’s negotiating position and priorities are going to be. The fishing industry is not a massively important part of the United Kingdom’s economy; it is a massively important part of the economies of some nations that make up the United Kingdom. The negotiations are, however, always carried out through the Westminster lens, and it is seen as a major achievement when all we come back with is, “Not too many things have got worse.” We talk about aspiration. I think aspiration means we want things to get better, not to think we have achieved a lot when we come back from negotiations and have not had to lose too much.

The European Union does not mange its finances very well at all. We do not need to be accountants to work that out. Most companies would not be allowed to continue if they went 20 years without having their accounts signed off. Sometimes we need to look, however, at how we manage the part of it for which we are responsible. Some questions today, particularly those from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on the Labour Front Bench, about scrutiny of the European budget and the performance and financial management of the European Union, were pointing to weaknesses in the way this House holds Europe to account. That points either to a lack of involvement of members of the European Scrutiny Committee, or to the fact that it has not been given sufficient powers. There are many weaknesses in the way European finances affect the responsibilities of this Chamber, and changes could be made to the way this House holds Europe to account, but their delivery does not necessarily mean having to threaten to walk away from Europe altogether.

As I said in an earlier intervention, I do not see why the amendment needs to be put to a vote. It does not contain anything that the Government should be reluctant to do. I defer to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has left the Chamber, and his expertise on the procedures of the House and the position of the EU Scrutiny Committee, but it is time to put on a statutory basis a process whereby the Government ask things of Europe on our behalf—and which no Government in their right mind should be reluctant to do. How could any Government not want to ask Europe to be more accountable, or to think a wee bit more carefully about its spending priorities before it sets them? I hope that we see an outbreak of common sense among Government Members.

The United Kingdom’s position in whatever negotiations the Prime Minister has would be strengthened if we could find a way for this Bill to be amended and approved unopposed. If the proposed changes are put to a vote, I am minded to go with them. It would be sad if it were a matter of public record that this Committee had divided on such an important matter—on the crucial question of whether we wanted the Secretary of State to write a letter to Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I was going to turn directly to the common agricultural policy, for which the right hon. Gentleman is such an enthusiast, subject to his complaint that he would like Scotland to have a greater share of the money that comes to the United Kingdom.

During the renegotiation, we faced the fact that the UK’s CAP receipts would fall over the next budgetary period in real terms. The conclusion was that the fairest way of allocating that cut was through an equal, proportionate reduction in both pillars across the United Kingdom. To have allocated more funding to Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom would have meant deeper cuts across the rest of the United Kingdom. That was why the Government took the steps we did.

[Alex Salmond]

Rather than bemoaning the £2 billion the Labour party lost in respect of the budget rebate, will the Minister revisit the €220 million of convergence money that the Government chose not to distribute by hectare, which is the basis on which we got it in the first place? Does he realise how much bitterness that decision caused in the rural communities of Scotland? It no doubt contributed to the Conservative party’s worst election result in Scotland for a century last month.

[Mr Gauke]

I will briefly make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no additional money for the United Kingdom. Over the next funding period, the UK’s direct payments will fall by about €500 million compared with 2013. The most appropriate way of allocating that cut, as I said earlier, is to share it equally between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To have given more money to Scotland would have meant a greater reduction across the rest of the UK.

If the right hon. Gentleman objects to that approach, let me put it in context. Regions are allocated structural funds according to a Commission formula that was agreed as part of the MFF deal, which takes into account, among other factors, regional wealth relative to the EU average. As a result of the new EU formula for allocating structural funds, there would not have been a fair distribution across the UK, with each of the devolved Administrations set to lose out significantly. In 2013, the Government decided to correct that. As a result, Northern Ireland’s allocation was increased by €181 million, Scotland’s by €228 million and Wales’s by €375 million. That meant that all parts of the UK were subject to an equal cut. We believe that that delivered the fairest deal for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, the right hon. Gentleman chose not to draw the Committee’s attention to that example of equal treatment, which benefited Scotland.

[Alex Salmond]

The Minister would probably get more information from The Scottish Farmer than he is getting from his civil service briefs. There was €220 million of convergence money to take account of the fact that per hectare, particularly in Scotland, we were receiving so much less than the minimum that was allocated to other countries. The question is quite a simple one. The vast majority of people think that it would have been fair to distribute that convergence funding per hectare, because that was why we were getting it. Why was that not done, and will he revisit that bad decision?

[Mr Gauke]

I say again that the right hon. Gentleman really must look at the overall treatment. When we look at agriculture spending and the structural funds, we see that there has been fair treatment of each part of the United Kingdom to ensure that no one part suffers as a result of changes to the EU budget. I say to him that if we can find savings in the common agricultural policy, we should do so.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. When it comes down to it, I believe that there is support for the clauses in the Bill, but it appears that the Opposition wish to press their new clauses that call on us to write letters calling for action, ignoring the fact that action is already being taken and that there is already going to be a review of the MFF by the Council of Ministers. The Commission is already following the Prime Minister’s historic deal by focusing on prioritising expenditure. I am afraid that the letters that the Opposition propose will achieve nothing of substance and do not belong in a Bill that is focused on revenue, rather than expenditure. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) not to press her amendment and new clauses, and urge hon. Members to support the clauses of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Repeal, extent, commencement and short title

Amendment proposed: 1, page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—(Barbara Keeley.)

This amendment removes the automatic coming into force of the Act two months after it is passed, which would be incompatible with any of the new Clauses.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

Thinking back to all the Committee sittings, I recall that the Minister did not feel able to give an effective answer to questions about the Prime Minister’s negotiating stance in relation to the forthcoming European question and, particularly, European finances. He was asked a number of times—by me and by other Members, including Labour Front Benchers—what would be distinctive about that stance, and what the Prime Minister’s precise objectives were. The Minister responded by telling us that the Government’s objective was to minimise the EU budget, to ensure that it was efficient, and to protect the rebate, but that has been Government policy for a number of years. What really interested Members was whether the Prime Minister had a specific intent and negotiating stance, and what his objectives were. We were interested in those questions in the context of European finances, so that we could judge his success or failure after the negotiations.

If the Minister does not feel able to provide an answer to what strikes me as a very reasonable and fair question, he will add to and fuel suspicions among both pro- and anti-Europeans in the House that it is not just a question of the Prime Minister’s having a stance, but of the Prime Minister and the Government deliberately concealing the nature of that stance from the House and the country, so that it will not be possible for them to be judged effectively when the negotiations are over. That seems to me to be a fundamentally unsatisfactory way to proceed in regard to any financial issue, let alone an issue as important as European finance.

The Minister shakes his head. I hope that, if he disagrees, he will intervene and reveal what the Prime Minister’s stance actually is, because we are all mystified by what the targets are in the negotiations that are at this moment taking place in various European capitals. The Prime Minister, on our behalf and at our expense, is moving from capital to capital, and the only people who are not to be informed of his actual negotiating posture are the Members of this House and the people of this country. That is a remarkable position.

I am familiar with the Minister’s steady hand at the Dispatch Box, and with his wonderful cover drive. I know that he would not want, at the very last minute of the Bill’s progress in the House of Commons, to be caught at slip in not answering a simple question: what are the Prime Minister’s negotiating targets, and how will we be able to judge whether he has achieved them?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of the motion in the name of Secretary Patrick McLoughlin relating to High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3) not later than 90 minutes after the start of proceedings on this motion; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Goodwill.)

European Union Referendum Bill

Alex Salmond Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We begin with amendment 16.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I could not help noticing in your excellent selection of amendments that you have selected in the second group Government amendment 55, which, as I see from my amendment paper, is a starred amendment. That is not surprising, since it was tabled, I understand, at 9.35 pm last evening in a disorganised, spatchcock, humiliating climbdown. I accept the Government’s humiliating climbdown with good grace, but how usual is it for a starred amendment to be called and, presumably, divided on in Committee of the whole House?

[The Chairman]

The good news is that I was in charge of selection, and it is well within order. It is unusual, but that is where we are at. We will now continue, because I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to get us under way.

Clause 1

The referendum

[Alex Salmond]

I beg to move amendment 16, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

‘(2) The Chief Counting Officer shall declare whether the result of the referendum is that a majority wish the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

(3) The Chief Counting Officer may declare that a majority wish the United Kingdom to leave the European Union only if—

(a) a majority of total votes cast in the referendum in the United Kingdom are against the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union, and

(b) a majority of the votes cast in the referendum in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are against the United Kingdom remaining a member of the European Union.”

This amendment imposes a double majority requirement for withdrawal, which would have to be supported by a majority the whole of the UK and by majorities in each of its four constituent parts.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 49, page 1, line 7, leave out “31 December” and insert “1 July”.

The amendment would require the referendum to take place before 1 July 2017.

Amendment 50, page 1, line 8, leave out “2017” and insert “2016”.

The amendment would require the referendum to take place before 31 December 2016.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3A) No later than ten weeks before the date on which the referendum is to be held the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an independent report by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the implications for the sustainability of the public finances of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.”.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish, ten weeks before the referendum, a report by the OBR on the consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3A) No later than ten weeks before the date on which the referendum is to be held the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union for each ministerial departments’ responsibilities.”.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish, ten weeks before the referendum, a report by each Secretary of State on the consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union for their areas of ministerial responsibility.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3A) No later than ten weeks before the date on which the referendum is to be held the Secretary of State must ask for and lay before both Houses of Parliament any assessment made by the Bank of England on the consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.”.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish, ten weeks before the referendum, any assessment by the Bank of England on the consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

Amendment 46, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3A) No later than ten weeks before the date on which the referendum is to be held the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the consequences for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership of the United Kingdom leaving or remaining a member of the European Union.”

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish, ten weeks before the referendum, a report by the OBR on the consequences for TTIP of leaving or remaining a member of the European Union.

Amendment 47, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3A) No later than ten weeks before the date on which the referendum is to be held the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the consequences for negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership of the United Kingdom leaving or remaining a member of the European Union.”

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish, ten weeks before the referendum, a report on the consequences for negotiations on TTIP of leaving or remaining a member of the European Union.

Amendment 54, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3A) Before appointing a day under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses a report on materials which any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority or any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority intend or expect to publish in the period of 28 days ending with the date of the referendum that—

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

(b) puts any argument for or against any particular answer to any such question; or

(c) is designed to encourage voting at the referendum.”

This amendment requires the Government, prior to setting a date for the Referendum by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, to publish a report on what publications which would normally be prohibited by Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 the Government intends or expects to publish in the four weeks before the referendum.

Amendment 11, page 17, line 37, in schedule 1, leave out paragraph 25 and insert—

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

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

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

Amendment (a) to Schedule 1, leave out “modification” and insert “modifications”.

Amendment (b),  at end add—

‘(3) Section 125(2) of the 2000 Act has effect for the purposes of the referendum with the addition of subsection—

“(e) advocacy on any issue having a bearing on the outcome of the referendum””

New clause 3—Restriction on publications etc—

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

(a) provides general information about the referendum,

(b) deals with any of the issues raised by the referendum question,

(c) puts any arguments for or against any outcome, or

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

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

(a) the UK government,

(b) the House of Commons or House of Lords,

(c) the devolved administrations,

(d) any local authority,

(e) public bodies, or

(f) the European Commission and European Parliament.

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to—

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

(b) anything done by or on behalf of—

(i) a designated organisation,

(ii) the Electoral Commission, or

(c) the Chief Counting Officer or any other counting officer, or

(d) the publication of information relating to the holding of the poll.

(4) In this paragraph—

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

“the relevant period” means the period of 28 days ending with the date of the referendum.

(a) A breach of the rules set out in this section, will be an offence.

(b) A person guilty of an offence under this section, is liable—

(i) on conviction on indictment, to a fine;

(ii) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;

(iii) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(iv) on summary conviction in Gibraltar, to a fine note exceeding level 5 on the Gibraltar standard scale.’

The New Clause prescribes a period of “purdah” in the four weeks before the referendum.

New clause 4—Referendum Fairness Board—

‘(1) There shall be a committee of privy counsellors, to be called the Referendum Fairness Board, whose duty is to consider any alleged breach of section (Restriction on publications etc) which comes attention of any of its members.

(2) Each of the following presiding officers for the time being may appoint any privy counsellor as a member of the board—

(a) the Speaker of the House of Commons,

(b) the Lord Speaker,

(c) the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament,

(d) the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or

(e) the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) The Board shall prescribe its own rules of procedure, which must include procedures for—

(a) instituting legal action to interdict or injunct any further breach or repetition of an alleged breach, and

(b) drawing to the attention of the relevant prosecuting authority any serious or continuing breach of section (Restriction on publications etc).’

The New Clause provides for swift enforcement of the “purdah” rules which would apply under the linked New Clause in the four weeks leading up to the referendum.

[Alex Salmond]

There is a link of continuity between amendment 16 and the point of order that I made—that the theme should be one of respect. There has been a great deal of talk about respect by the Prime Minister in recent years, but particularly since the result of the election of last month. He said, for example:

“Governing with respect means recognising that the different nations of our United Kingdom have their own governments, as well as the UK government.”

The amendment is about giving acknowledgment to that respect in relation to the European referendum. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) want to intervene? If so, then of course I will gladly allow him.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Salmond]

He was just stretching his legs, I suspect.

On the subject of respect for all nations of the United Kingdom, the amendment puts forward the view that a simple majority across the UK would not be enough to have the UK exit the European Union but that we would have to pay attention to the voting in the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. It is not unusual, in international terms, even in federal and confederal states, for there to be a so-called double majority—in this case, a quad lock between Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. In America, 14 states can block a constitutional amendment, even if they could comprise only 5% of the population. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) will go through some of the other international examples where even in federal and confederal states there is a double lock or a blocking minority with regard to the constitution, recognising the component parts of those states.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that matters such as this are determined at the UK level, so the reason Scotland is voting with the rest of the UK as one is that the Scottish people themselves voted last year to remain part of the United Kingdom, and therefore, on matters of foreign affairs and the European Union, we speak as a nation with one voice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

I think that even the Prime Minister and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends would concede that Scotland is a nation and that the United Kingdom is a multi-national state. I suspect that terminology is not the key problem with the Conservative party in Scotland and why it reached the nadir of 14%, its lowest result for over a century, in last month’s general election. If the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the nationality and nationhood of Scotland, which is a theme running through the ranks of the Conservative party, then the road back to having two MPs as the summit of the Tory party’s ambition, as opposed to the current lonely one, will be a long, hard road indeed.

It is exactly because the United Kingdom is a multi-national state that we should recognise that respect, as evinced by the Prime Minister, is about more than a simple majority across the UK; it must also give reference to the component nations of the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to this House. Is not the analogy with the United States a little tenuous, because we are talking about international relations and treaty relations, and in the United States treaties will be determined by the Executive with confirmation by the Senate of the whole of the United States and with no veto for the constituent states?

[Alex Salmond]

I was merely pointing out that there are a number of international examples. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire will go through some of those in some great detail. This is not unusual in matters of constitutional import.

There is no doubt that a constitutional referendum on whether the United Kingdom should be part of the European Union carries constitutional implications. It is not unusual internationally, even in a federal or confederal state, to have more than a simple majority on such matters, and also reference to the various component parts of that state. If that is the case for a confederal or federal state, surely it should be so much more the case for a United Kingdom of four component nations.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Will he confirm my suspicion that his secret wish—the perfect result, from his point of view—is for Scotland to vote yes and England to vote no? Personally, I would regard that as a disaster. Does he agree that if Scotland voted to stay in the European Union and England voted to leave, the end of the United Kingdom would probably be quite imminent?

[Alex Salmond]

I am always dubious about accepting a Conservative interpretation of the secret wishes of the Scottish National party. The sole Liberal Democrat Member with a Scottish constituency is in considerable trouble for trying to publicise what he thought were the secret wishes of the First Minister of Scotland, in a manner that no doubt will be fully investigated. No, the secret and public wish of the Scottish National party is for us to secure a yes vote in the referendum.

However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman does have a point, and the First Minister of Scotland has put her finger on it in her usual adroit fashion. If, across the United Kingdom, there was a majority vote against staying in the EU but Scotland had voted in favour, that could very well provide the material change in circumstances that the First Minister would indicate made another constitutional referendum on Scottish independence well nigh inevitable. With his usual insight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put his finger on an important point.

[Mr Grieve]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

I see that this right hon. and learned Gentleman has stopped stretching his legs and now wants to intervene.

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that he, too, has put his finger on the issue, which is essentially a political one. Although he might wish to change the current structure of the United Kingdom and there might be arguments in favour of a federal or other solution, that structure currently clearly provides that the decision should be taken in common. In those circumstances, although there might be terrible fallout from a result that produced separate outcomes in Scotland and England, that fallout would be political and would not justify the amendment.

[Alex Salmond]

Let us continue the point exactly on that question. It was as a solution to the scenario painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that the First Minister put forward the idea of having the quad lock or double lock system for the referendum. It is up to the Committee, of course, whether it accepts the amendment or not. If it were accepted, the scenario painted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not come to pass because it would be provided for in the terms of the referendum itself. If, on the other hand, the Committee chooses to reject the amendment, the possibility of that scenario remains open.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

I will make a wee bit of progress and then give way.

The amendment is phrased so that it would protect any of the four component nations of the United Kingdom. However, given the arithmetic, it would be unlikely for the numerically dominant nation, England, to be outvoted by any of the smaller nations. However, it is entirely possible and credible that things might happen the other way round.

The amendment is fair to all four component nations, and the theme underlying it is one of respect. It is up to the Committee to decide whether the national statuses of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom are important enough to be given that respect.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

I am spoilt for choice. Given that we are on a theme, I give way again to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield.

[Mr Grieve]

It seems to me that the question is about not lack of respect, but what decisions are taken in common and in relation to what decisions we give a veto to the different component parts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argues—it is a perfectly persuasive argument—that there should be an effective veto in each component part. However, there is an equally perfectly valid argument that the decision is ultimately a political one for the Government and that the Government would be entitled to take a view that, in the interests of the community in its widest sense—all the component parts—they should come to a decision one way or the other, irrespective of the fact that one component part did not want that decision.

[Alex Salmond]

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on intervening at such length without attracting the ire of the Chair. That was adroitly done. The question of whether there is respect will be judged on whether amendment 16 is considered as a valid and interesting point for debate. I was taking the Prime Minister at his word when he said:

“Governing with respect means recognising that the different nations of our United Kingdom have their own governments”.

If the Prime Minister wants to recognise respect, the Government will take the amendment seriously. I will listen to what those on the Treasury Bench say, when they make their contributions, about whether Scotland is a country or a county—let us put it that way—and about whether it is a serious matter of import or just something to be swept aside. That is a matter for the Government’s reaction.

There should be some sort of lesson in the spatchcock, humiliating climbdown, to which I referred earlier. It is true that the Government did not say over the past few weeks that they would not have the referendum on the same day as the national elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—they could have said that at any point over the past two weeks, but they chose not to because they wanted to keep that option open—and then found last evening that they were likely to secure a humiliating defeat in Committee and, in a desperate scramble, they had to produce a last-minute amendment. My contention is that if they had shown a bit more respect over the past two weeks, they would not have had to engage in the humiliating climbdown last evening.

[Sammy Wilson]

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying if, for example, a majority of people in England, Scotland and Wales voted to stay in the European Union and 51% of people in Northern Ireland voted to leave, with 49% of them voting to stay, that that 2% in Northern Ireland could hold the rest of the United Kingdom to ransom? That is the import of his amendment 16.

[Alex Salmond]

Far be it from me to be the one who stands up for the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, but that is the consequence of being in a multi-national state. Nations within a multi-national state should be recognised as more than regions, counties or areas and should not be counted by population; they are national entities in their own right, and that confers a relationship of respect.

Although the hon. Gentleman and I may disagree on amendment 16, I know we were at one in insisting that this Government show respect to our respective nations in not having the referendum on the same day as our national elections. Our success on that matter indicates the advantage of working together, and I hope we are able to do that on a number of aspects of the Bill.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Salmond]

I am very tempted to do so, but I can see that the Chairman is encouraging me to move on to our other amendments in this group, new clauses 3 and 4, on the whole question of how the Government should behave in a referendum campaign.

The members of this group of 56 speak from the standpoint of being totally united in our support for the European Union—we are pro-European to our fingertips —but that does not mean we would be willing to accept a referendum that was in any way biased or rigged by the Government. Just because they are pro-European, and the suspicion is that the Government may wish to bias the referendum in the pro-European direction, does not mean that that would be right and proper. It does seem to SNP Members that if the rules of purdah about the behaviour of a Government during an election campaign are correct, as recommended in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 all those years ago, that must pertain during a referendum campaign as well. In new clauses 3 and 4, we have set out in some detail what a referendum code of conduct for the Government should be.

It is astonishing that the Government should think that the exclusion of any such restrictions from the Bill would be meekly accepted by a majority of Members in Committee. It is entirely wrong for the Government to do so. We have a very recent example of why it would be very foolish for the Committee to take the Government at their word in saying that they would not engage in behaviour that breached the normal standards of purdah in the upcoming referendum campaign.

Let us take the scenario or possibility that, at some point in the course of the referendum campaign next year or the year after, the no side moves to the front. In that scenario, let us just assume that, to try to get the yes result that the Prime Minister wishes, he needed a last-minute initiative. With no rules or restrictions saying that new political initiatives should not be made at governmental level during the last 28 days of the campaign, what would stop the Prime Minister doing a tour of the capitals of each of the Governments across Europe—suspending Question Time in the national Parliament—and stop their flying as one to London to announce a new commitment, a new undertaking, a new pledge, a new vow? A new vow might be made to the people of the United Kingdom saying, “Only if you vote yes will we secure these new terms, which we did not mention before the campaign started, but which we now, as good Europeans, undertake to offer to the people.” Let us just say that, under those circumstances, that vow was influential in persuading enough people, perhaps one in 20, to switch their vote and to vote in favour, and let us just say that, after the dust had settled, all those European leaders did not really want to go forward with the full extent of the vow they had made. How would people in the United Kingdom view that situation? Would it not be rather better for the Bill to state explicitly that during the last 28 days—and only during the last 28 days—of a campaign period, the people must be able to make a judgment on the arguments that are property presented, without the use of the governmental machine to bias the result one way or the other?

When the Government explain why they want to wipe away these rules, I hear them say, “Of course, Government cannot really function in a purdah period. We won’t be able to make representations to the European Council. It will be impossible to do so over a 28-day period.” But that is what happens in each and every general election that we fight. In April and May, I did not notice that the Administration of this country ground to a halt. In fact, a lot of people thought it was better not having a fully activated Government during the campaign period. If it can be done in each and every general election, it can certainly be done in this referendum campaign.

Even more insidious than the role of the Government in making political announcements is the role of the civil service. In normal times, the civil service quite rightly views impartiality as following the policies of the elected Government. That is what the civil service is there to do; it is not meant to be neutral on issues, but to follow Government policy. When it comes to the purdah or quarantine period in an election or in a referendum, however, it is the job of the civil service to be impartial over that 28-day period.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making not a party political point, but an important cross-party point. The Committee on Standards in Public Life made that case in 1998, when it reported—this relates to section 125 of the 2000 Act—that

“just as in general election campaigns, neither taxpayers’ money nor the permanent government machine—civil servants, official cars, the Government Information Service, and so forth—should be used to promote the interests of the Government side of the argument.”

The then Government accepted that point.

[Alex Salmond]

And the point has been broadly accepted since. It is not just a question of the Government accepting that point, however, but of having them live by it. In the Scottish referendum, which is what I was clearly alluding to, the UK Government accepted the principle of a purdah period and all that, but despite that, they went ahead with what I would argue was the governmental, political initiative of the vow in the last few days of the campaign.

Despite the fact that the UK civil service should have been neutral in that 28-day period, that was not the case, particularly of Sir Nicholas Macpherson. I notice that his knighthood has recently been enhanced in the recent honours list—let us all congratulate Sir Nicholas on his extra honour for services rendered. In particular, the Treasury had a referendum unit working through the purdah period to place in the press stories hostile to the yes side of the argument. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who were on the no side of the Scottish referendum campaign did not feel that that was particularly objectionable at the time, but I ask them to imagine how they would feel if they were arguing on the no side of the European referendum debate and Her Majesty’s Treasury and its civil servants under Sir Nicholas Macpherson did the same thing. That is exactly what will happen unless the House sets rules that have to be abided by.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it does not matter which side one is on? Even people on the yes side should not want their victory to be tainted by the perception of a fix.

[Alex Salmond]

Absolutely; that is why I am making this argument from the yes side of the campaign.

I am suggesting not only that the rules should be written back into the Bill, but that there should be an enforcement mechanism. I commend new clause 4 to the Committee. It suggests that there should be a fairness committee of Privy Councillors, of which I am one. Who knows? I might be favoured in such a recommendation. The committee of Privy Councillors, selected by the Speaker of this House and the Presiding Officers of the Assemblies of Northern Ireland and Wales and the Parliament of Scotland, would have the job of making sure that the rules were abided by. It would have the power of injunction in England and interdict in Scotland to prevent the publication of anything that it believed may breach the rules of purdah, and the right to refer matters to the prosecuting authorities. New clause 3 sets out the appropriate penalties for Ministers who have the audacity to breach the rules of purdah and for civil servants who forget that they are there to serve the public, not their political point of view.

I commend those proposals to the Committee. I will listen closely to the debate. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have similar concerns. I say to those on the Treasury Bench that, just as they were mistaken not to understand the resentment at the lack of respect that was shown by floating the idea of holding a referendum on the same day as our national elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they would make a grave mistake if they did not understand the cross-party concern about a potential breach of purdah by Ministers and the civil service. I hope that our proposals are given proper and due consideration.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I rise to support amendment 11.

I congratulate the Government on having the good sense not to press ahead with their proposal to hold the referendum on the date that they had set out. That shows that they were listening and I urge them to continue in that mindset.

I will be very brief because I want to make only three points in this debate. First, it is unseemly at best for the Executive to exempt themselves from the legal, electoral and constitutional arrangements that they find inconvenient during any electoral process. We had the period of purdah during the Scottish referendum. The arguments that have been made sound like the arguments of civil servants and lawyers that Ministers have been too keen to listen to. Under the full glare of scrutiny in this House and in the media, those arguments have sounded increasingly self-serving.

Secondly, there is a reason why we have purdah: it is to prevent the Government of the day from affecting the independence or fairness of any electoral process and from using the machinery of government to do so by spending taxpayers money, using the press or using other resources that are available to them. The fear is that the Government at all levels—central and local—could use taxpayers’ money to support one side of the debate, potentially changing its course. The precedent that that would set in this country would be extremely unfortunate. We require the independence of the civil service and the government machine to ensure that our electoral process is not interfered with unduly.

My third point is about the perception or optics of this matter. After any referendum, particularly one that, as we know from previous debates on Europe, will arouse great passions on both sides, we require the result to be regarded as fair, reasonable and legitimate if there is to be any chance of the country coming together on the issue once the voters have spoken. If people believe that they have been bounced or that the result is the consequence of a rigged process, it will be extremely difficult for the country to come together, and the political consequences will be intense. It must be seen that the legitimacy of the process is related to the fairness of the process. That is what is being put at risk by the Government’s proposals.

It is clear from the letter that came from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe earlier today that the Government recognise that they will have to make changes to their proposals in the Bill. There are two ways of doing that. The Government can either remove the current restrictions, as they have in the Bill, and set out their own code of conduct on Report—in other words, tell the House what they will be able to do—or accept amendment 11, return to the legal status quo and ask the House on Report what exemptions they should be permitted to have. There are crucial differences between those two processes. The first suits the Executive and allows them to dictate the terms to Parliament in respect of what they want; the second asks that Parliament be given due respect and be allowed to set out the exemptions that it believes are acceptable.

I have not once, in 23 years in the House of Commons, voted against my party on a whipped vote. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe not to force those of us who are in that position to take an alternative course tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

The point is that right across the piece— whether trade, university research or farming and agriculture —there is a strong case for each Department producing a report on the implications of exit, as amendment 5 calls for.

Amendment 6 deals with the Bank of England assessment. As we know, the Bank is independent, but we also know, thanks to a stray finger that sent an email to a journalist rather than a Bank staff member, that the Bank has begun work on Project Bookend, its own internal assessment of the consequences of a British exit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), the shadow Chancellor, said a few weeks ago, we would expect the Bank to carry out an assessment, but there would be significant public interest in it, so the amendment asks that the Government publish it if they receive it from the Bank.

[Alex Salmond]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the Bank of England is independent—in my estimation, it is one of the relatively few public authorities in the UK that keeps to that independence—but that creates a difficulty. If the Bank were to make an assessment coming down heavily in favour of the UK remaining part of the EU and warning of alarming consequences if it left, but the electorate voted the other way, the Bank would be left trying to deny its own previous warnings about the credibility of the currency and a range of other things. Its independence gives it a difficulty in making predictions.

[Mr McFadden]

I am afraid I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not surprising that the Bank is carrying out an assessment, but now that that is known, it will be difficult for the Bank to keep it quiet, and the demands for it to be published will grow.

Amendment 54 deals with purdah. Since the Bill’s publication, there has been a great deal of debate about this issue and its application to the referendum. As has been said, the history goes back to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Purdah applied during the referendum on the alternative vote in 2011 and the referendum on Scottish independence last year. The Bill proposes to suspend this provision, which means there would be no purdah period and no restriction on what Ministers can produce or say during the referendum period. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) questioned the Prime Minister about this last week, he said there were two justifications for taking the course proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said on Second Reading, we do not object to the Government’s taking a view, but we want to see a fair referendum.

Will the Government agree to publish a report, a document or a code of conduct, or to provide the clarity that we seek in some other way? If so, what form will that information take? Will it set out clearly what kind of reports or statements the Government think they may need to make? What assurances will the Minister be able to give us about the use of taxpayer funds, beyond the funds that are channelled to the official yes and no campaigns in the normal way, through the Electoral Commission?

[Alex Salmond]

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not propose to support an amendment that would reintroduce the very protections that his own party introduced back in the year 2000?

[Mr McFadden]

I am speaking to my own amendment, which calls for clarity on the Government’s intentions.

There is an important relationship between the issue of purdah and the amendments relating to whether the referendum can be combined with other elections. The Government have tabled amendment 55, which rules out a referendum in May next year but leaves open the possibility of combining it with other polls in the future. If that were to happen, would purdah not operate in the case of both the referendum and the other elections, or would it be suspended for the European referendum while operating for the purpose of other elections taking place on the same day? I believe that, when Members start to think about those questions, they will realise that the Government did not think them out fully, and that the issues of purdah and the date on which the referendum is held—and, specifically, the issue of whether it will be held as a stand-alone poll—are linked.

Let me now say a few words about amendment 16, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). As the right hon. Gentleman said, the amendment requires a majority vote for a British exit from the European Union not only in the United Kingdom as a whole, but in each of its constituent nations.

The United Kingdom joined the European Community, as it then was, as a single member state. Of course there will be different votes in different parts of the country, but we believe that we remain one member state, and that we should make this decision as one member state. Elections and referendums in this country are based on the principle of a majority of one. The Bill proposes not four separate referendums, but one referendum throughout the UK. For that reason, we will not support amendment 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I will sit down then. I am sorry to have to make my speech in this way, but I have been in hospital for the last four days.

Our problem is this: the situation in which we now find ourselves is not necessary. I speak more in sorrow than in anger, because I have spoken to the Minister for Europe, and we had a good discussion, as we always do. I was also grateful to him for saying in a letter that he was himself grateful for the constructive way in which concerns had been raised. It must be said, however, that the Government have not allayed those concerns, and that is the real point. I shall try to explain why, but let me first congratulate the Government on having listened. They listened over the question of having a referendum at all, they listened over the question of whether we should veto the fiscal compact, and they listened over the reduction in the budget. Those are all positive steps.

Having given the matter as much thought as I could—admittedly, I had an opportunity to do so from my hospital bed—I have to say that, in this instance, I am convinced that the Government are taking a step in the wrong direction. However—I ask Ministers to listen, if they would be kind enough to do so—it is possible for them to retrieve the situation so that there need not be a vote against.

Ultimately, what is raised is a question of trust. There are extremely strong reasons for the provisions in section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but we have heard very little about those provisions. Let me briefly explain them, so that people will know what we are about to repeal. Most might assume that, given the momentous and historic nature of the EU referendum, what is good enough for a Scottish referendum, a referendum on the alternative vote, and a Welsh referendum—all of which have taken place under Conservative-led Governments in the last few years—ought to be applicable to a referendum that goes to the heart of how we are governed and who governs us.

However, it is not just about trust. We do not know what the outcome of the promised discussions and consultations will be, but we do know that conducting a referendum in a manner that is unfair on the voters is an extremely retrograde step in the kind of democracy that we uphold. The provisions in the 2000 Act were introduced for very sound reasons. I applaud the then Government for that, and, even at this late stage, I appeal to the present Government to think again.

Incidentally, this has absolutely nothing to do with Maastricht or anything like that. There was a rebellion then because we did not have a referendum. On this occasion, we merely wish to ensure that the voters are given a fair choice. That must be one of our prime duties, because we are sent here as representatives of those people. If the Bill is passed, we shall have made a decision to transfer back to those people, by means of an Act of Parliament, the right to make their own decision. Therefore, they will have an absolute right to know that the way the referendum is conducted will in no way be canted or manipulated, whether for yes or no. Taking this out and then asking us to consider on the basis of consultations yet to come seems to me quite bizarre, because if the Government were good enough to accept my amendment 11—I am grateful for the support of many Members on both sides of the House on that—nothing would change in terms of the referendum. It is not going to take place in any immediate future. All we will be doing is re-securing the status quo so that we will then have the restrictions set out in section 125. I will come on to that section in a moment, and demonstrate what we would actually be repealing this evening. This is not just a Eurosceptic argument. This is not about a Eurosceptic position, in essence. It may be that we would prefer to ensure there is a fair vote, but the real question is about our democracy. That, to me, is the main question.

[Alex Salmond]

But does not the experience of the Scottish referendum tell the House that not only should the protections that are in statute not be removed from this Bill and that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 11 should be carried, but that there needs to be an enforcement mechanism to make sure the purdah period is applied and adhered to by Government Ministers and civil servants?

[Sir William Cash]

I very much agree, and it may be of interest to Members, if they have not already noticed, that the Electoral Commission has examined not only the Bill but my amendments, and has stated:

“The Commission is therefore generally supportive of proposals to reinstate restrictions on the publication of promotional material by central and local government in the run-up to the poll.”

Even after Second Reading, the Electoral Commission—which is, after all, charged with these duties—has concluded it would be important to retain these restrictions. Some adjustments may need to be made in due course, but we should secure the status quo, then have the discussions, and then have the vote on Report. That would be the right way round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I was tempted by the interventions, so I apologise to you, Sir Roger, for following the temptation. I will get back to the point.

There is an issue here to do with purdah and how the purdah requirements would apply. There will be great difficulty in holding a referendum at the end of 2017, when we are chairing the Council of Ministers meetings, because of that issue alone. For that reason, I hope that, if we are to have a referendum in 2016, we plan for it now—and that may already be, privately, the Prime Minister’s intention—rather than getting into great difficulties with the way in which it can be conducted, and damaging the United Kingdom’s role and relationship with the other 27 member states of the European Union. Once the referendum is over, assuming that it is won, we must work constructively with our partners to restore the trust and relationships for the future. It is better that we confront the issues early, rather than slipping into some kind of disastrous outcome.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. At various times during this debate, there has been reference to a letter. I was somewhat puzzled because I did not seem to have been sent such a letter. But now, through access to Twitter, it seems I may have found it. What I now have is a letter from the Minister for Europe to various Members on the Conservative Benches—it can be described only as a letter begging for support. I am somewhat disappointed not to have received it, and to have been ruled out of providing such support. If we are debating amendments—this letter specifically gives Government assurances relating to those amendments—should this communications not have been available to all Members, and should it not now been placed immediately in the Library of the House?

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers are responsible for making available their own documentation. It may be a courtesy, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that what Governments do outwith the purdah period is quite different from what they can do within that period. Is he aware that there was referendum unit in the Treasury, which during the 28-day purdah period was briefing in favour of the no campaign in the referendum? Can that possibly be right? Should not that sort of practice be stopped before an upcoming European campaign?

[Mr Jenkin]

There is a serious question about whether civil servants should be closely involved in referendum campaigns over a period much longer than 28 days. There is a serious problem for the civil service if it allows such things to happen. That is why one of the main recommendations of our report is the addition of a paragraph to the civil service code to the effect that what applies to civil servants in general elections should apply to them equally in referendums. That would prevent civil servants who are put in difficult positions, and perhaps asked to do things that they know are not in the spirit of the code, from acting in such a way.

The underpinning of the principle of civil service impartiality during a referendum now rests on section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. If we do not press the amendment, we consent to the removal of that protection from the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister cannot ask us to do that. It is an issue of principle, and he is asking us to accede to completely the wrong principle. As I have said, I believe that he has been given very wrong advice. Far be it from me to speculate about how many Eurosceptics there are among the permanent secretary community, who might want a bit of extra freedom about what they get Ministers to do during a referendum campaign.

I am deeply disappointed that the Labour party has abandoned all its principles, but we know that it is split on the matter. On Second Reading, it was in favour of scrapping purdah. At Prime Minister’s questions, it was against scrapping purdah. Last night, Labour Members were going to vote for amendment 11, but today they are no longer going to do so. I think that they are in a bit of a muddle, and I suspect that quite a few pro-EU Labour Members would like to help to rig the referendum in favour of the yes campaign. [Interruption.] I see I have provoked the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). In the interests of brevity, I shall not invite him to intervene.

Unless we insist that the provisions for purdah remain in the Bill, we are acquiescing in the dilution of an important principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I completely understand that concern. I repeat that we will not ask the House to rely only on the words of Ministers from the Dispatch Box. We have made a commitment to introduce into the Bill changes that give expression to the assurances that we have given.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Some of my hon. Friends were asked, in courtesy to the Committee, to shorten their speeches so that the Minister would get to speak. Is the Minister not going to extend the same courtesy to those who should be summing up on the amendment? If that does not happen, there will be other occasions when the Minister can be talked out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments 3 and 7—I think he is—it will be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider them for debate on Thursday. I think the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes, there is the opportunity, or there is likely to be the opportunity, for debate.

[Alex Salmond]

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. Does the same apply to amendment 17, which is also in that category? We would not want to lose any opportunity to debate further the extent of the Government’s humiliating climbdown and acceptance that they should show courtesy to the people of Scotland.

[The Temporary Chair]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no, because that was not debated under the group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I recall that, once upon a time, he stood for a group of radical young Conservatives north of the border. I think they called themselves the White Rose group. We were wearing white roses during the debate on the Queen’s Speech in his honour, and I dare say we would welcome him back to try his luck again north of the border some time. He spoke wisely about ensuring fairness in a referendum campaign. I agree that the restrictions on charitable groups contained in the amendments pale into insignificance when compared with some of the other imbalances—or dangers of imbalance—in the legislation that we are trying to correct.

The hon. Gentleman was also right to mention the activities of Sir Nicholas Macpherson, which his Committee quite rightly brought to book, and the dangers of a lack of observance of civil service impartiality, particularly during a campaign period. I should say that Sir Nicholas threatened to reach for his lawyers when he saw an advance copy of a book that I published recently. It is available for £12.99 at all good bookshops. [Laughter.] In a letter to the editor of The Scottish Sun newspaper, he said that he was considering his “legal options for redress”. I am pleased to say that, in the interest of freedom of speech, the articles in the newspaper went ahead, as did the book. As yet, we have not heard from Sir Nicholas’s representatives—Sue, Grabbit and Runne, or whoever the permanent secretary to the Treasury uses these days.

We have reached an extraordinary situation when we find ourselves lecturing charities and regulating their activities without any evidence that any charity is about to breach the fairness rules—except for the rather slight evidence mentioned earlier in relation to the north-east referendum some years ago—but we are not concentrating on the hugely serious potential imbalance that could result from the activities of Government Ministers breaching purdah or from civil servants breaching impartiality rules. By all means, let us have assurances about the range of amendments that have been proposed. Incidentally, never in any European debate in this House have I seen such a small number of speakers ready to address the amendments before us. Let us examine the amendments by all means, but let us also remember that this is a small matter compared with the other matters that we have been discussing.

Earlier in the proceedings, I was astonished to see real concern being expressed across the Chamber about fairness and impartiality in relation to what could happen during the campaign period. I was also clear that if the Labour party had been prepared to adopt a more robust stance, we could have had it written into this Bill the impartiality that we previously had through the observance of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 rules. There was even enthusiasm for an enforcement mechanism, without which rules and regulations have no effect whatsoever. I think that Labour will look back at those lost opportunities and recover a little bit of political momentum. Its Front-Bench team was quite extraordinary today, in its lack of answers to the question of how, when the opportunity beckoned, to defeat the Government in a major matter and to ensure fairness and impartiality in the observance of legislation that a previous Labour Government had passed.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I find myself in a surprising degree of agreement with what he is saying, but there is a chance that the sinner repenteth, because similar amendments may come forth on Report.

[Alex Salmond]

As I understand it, and I am open to correction from Sir Roger, the sinner may get a chance to repent even before that. Amendment 11 has still to be called in our proceedings, so the sinner may get a chance to repent on Report, at the eleventh hour or at 7 o’clock this evening. Let us all hope that the sinner does repent whenever they choose to.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

As I am being quoted, may I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not be taking repentance at that time?

[Alex Salmond]

I wish to make it absolutely clear for the record that the only sinners to which we are referring are those who were previously located on the Labour Front Bench. I am not talking about anyone else in the House.

There is a serious point. Whatever side of this referendum campaign we want to adopt, and if we are all agreed that it is important that everyone sees the referendum as fair and square, the rules should be drawn up in such a way to give a proper contest—a square goal, as some of my Glaswegian colleagues might say. If there is to be a genuine and fair contest, it does require us, when opportunities present themselves to defeat the Government, as they so rarely do, to ensure that those opportunities are taken. I appeal to the Labour Front Bench Members—perhaps they will communicate this to their colleagues—to see that that opportunity still beckons to ensure that that can happen later in our proceedings.

The Government’s position across a range of matters seems to be somewhat disorganised. I know that there was a great anxiety on the part of Government to rush forward with this Bill immediately after the general election. Perhaps they wanted to catch out the Labour party, which was still in a state of leadership limbo. A number of things already in our proceedings tell us that insufficient thought has gone into the Government’s position. There was that extraordinary climbdown, or cave-in, on Government amendment 55. I welcome the fact that respect has belatedly been shown to the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it does not have the smack of a Government that have considered their point of view. Across a range of matters, particularly with regard to purdah, there is a sign that the Government have not sufficiently thought through their position.

Earlier, I was told that it is in order for the Minister for Europe to circulate a letter, only to his colleagues, that says what might happen on Report if people do not press their amendments inconveniently. I see that the experienced hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who spoke from a sedentary position—we all welcome him back to his place—is smiling. He has been on the receiving end of many such letters over the years—probably more than the rest of us put together. I do think that it is somewhat remiss of the Government to distribute information only to those on the Conservative Benches.

Earlier, I was struck by the actions of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He had not received the communication, but within seconds of it being passed to him, decided that he was in favour of it. That was a remarkable rush to judgment, I would say, both in terms of the climbdown we have seen on the date of the referendum and of the inadequate thought that has been given to this hasty revocation of the purdah considerations.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Should the Government not be commended for listening and being flexible, rather than condemned?

[Alex Salmond]

When in government, I always listened and was always flexible. One interpretation of events might be that, when the Government realised yesterday at about 7pm—when the Democratic Unionist party decided to sign the SNP amendment—that they were about to go down to a defeat not of ones and twos but of 10s and 20s because they could not carry a majority of the House, they prepared what can only be called a 9.35, spatchcock, last-minute amendment and tabled it as a starred amendment with the Clerks. That could be called flexibility and listening or blind panic that they would go down to a defeat. Whether it was blind panic, as most of us think, or whether it was the listening Government that the right hon. Gentleman aspires to, it is a welcome concession.

[Mr Jenkin]

I should correct the right hon. Gentleman. The correct title of the group to which he referred, to which I and others such as Mr Speaker and one of the Deputy Speakers, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), belonged, was called the White Guard.

I want to pick up the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the letter. It says that the Government wish to use civil servants to explain the position arising from the renegotiation during the purdah period. If the referendum is not going to be about the Government’s deal with the EU, what is it going to be about? The letter says that the Government want to use the government machinery for precisely the purpose that they should not be allowed to use it for.

[Alex Salmond]

That is an excellent point. I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s memory as to the White Guard as opposed to the White Rose group. I am delighted to receive the information that Mr Speaker was a member. I cannot believe that he was unsuccessful in an election anywhere, but I am delighted to have that information. No doubt I shall use it at some point in the future.

I am afraid that I have just got the letter through Twitter and have not had a chance to examine it fully. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point that goes to the heart of the profound issues that he and others have raised.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I thought that the white rose was a Jacobite symbol and then a Tory symbol. I am surprised that the SNP has adopted it, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for adopting our symbol. Notwithstanding the arguments about purdah—he makes some good points—does he agree that it is important that there is broad equality of spending on both sides?

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is a Jacobite white rose. I have always had the hon. Gentleman down for a Jacobin rather than a Jacobite, but there is also the MacDiarmid rose in the poem:

“The rose of all the world is not for me

I want for my part

Only the little white rose of Scotland

That smells sharp and sweet - and breaks the heart.”

SNP Members were adorned by the MacDiarmid rose during the Queen’s Speech.

The point about spending limits is well made. Fairness in terms of spending capacity is one important part of elections and referendums. There is an enforcement mechanism—some may say that it is not always used as rigorously as it could be—for election or referendum spending rules and there are severe penalties for breaching them. There is no such effective mechanism for breaches of purdah or when Ministers or civil servants go clearly outside the purdah rules. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the new clauses, which we will vote on later, which would introduce exactly such an enforcement mechanism to ensure fairness not just in our debates but in a referendum.

[Sir William Cash]

The civil service code does not impose any restriction on civil servants as far as I am told. That would definitely have to be dealt with, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

[Alex Salmond]

I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who is in a sedentary position. His colleague the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), whose Committee’s report condemned the activities of Sir Nicholas Macpherson a few months ago, has alluded to exactly why that should be done. The hon. Member for Stone is right and I commend him to look at our new clauses 3 and 4, which seek to set out what the rules should be and to provide an enforcement mechanism to make sure that they are adhered to.

You have been patient, Sir Roger, and I know that a number of other hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak. I say to the Government that this debate has already flung up a range of issues. There are severe deficiencies in the Bill, although we certainly welcome the concession on the timing of the referendum, whether that happened as a result of listening or of panic. However, there are other areas on which the Government have not yet convinced me as a pro-European or, I suspect, some of their colleagues who take a different view on the European referendum. The joint view that we hold, as far as is possible, is that we would like to see a referendum that is conducted in a proper and fair manner.

[Sir William Cash]

I am going to speak to my amendment 9, which is a simple amendment with very important consequences and implications. It would ensure that the referendum period lasts for at least 16 weeks.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, there is a maximum six-week period for potential lead campaigners to apply and be appointed, followed by a minimum four-week period before the poll. However, the Electoral Commission, drawing on its experience of regulating the rules for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, has concluded that an alternative approach is needed to the timetable for appointing lead campaigners. The amendment recommends that, should the legislative timetable allow for it, the appointment should take place shortly before rather than during the first six weeks of the referendum period.

The effect would be to provide clarity at an earlier stage for voters and campaigners, and to ensure that the lead campaigners were in place shortly before the majority of the regulatory controls come into force. I cannot think of anything much more important than people knowing who is running which organisations. That would therefore allow for a shorter total duration of the subsequent referendum period—for example, a designation period of six weeks—with a subsequent 10-week regulated campaign period.

This is a massively important referendum and it is pretty astonishing that there is a vacuum on this subject. This is an extremely important amendment. The Minister for Europe is not in his place, but one of the senior Whips is, which is no substitute—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not give way, because all three Members have spoken and intervened ad nauseam. I have a reception to go to for BAE Systems, the fourth largest defence manufacturer in the world, based in my constituency, and I do not wish to detain the Committee more than is absolutely necessary.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. In a Committee of the whole House, is it a reasonable explanation for not giving way for the hon. Gentleman to say that he has a reception to go to?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)]

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, that is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman can give way or not. That is a matter of choice for the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

We have heard an extensive set of contributions in this debate, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—he was kind enough to say nice things about the constitutional impact of Somerset—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris).

I will start by saying a few words about clause 3 in general. I will then speak to the Government amendments before endeavouring to respond to the various points that have been made by colleagues on both sides of the Committee. Clause 3 sets out that part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—PPERA—applies for the purposes of this referendum. It has been in place since 2000, so it provides a well-established and understood framework for regulating referendums in this country. For example, part VII sets the spending limits for campaigners during the referendum period and the rules on donations.

However, the legislation for two recent referendums—on the voting system in 2011 and on Scottish independence last year—although based on PPERA, also provided examples of how the controls on campaigning and the framework for conducting a referendum could be improved. Where those changes have improved the regulation of referendums, with the support of the Electoral Commission, we have sought to replicate them in the Bill.

[Alex Salmond]

The Minister is quite right about building on experience to try to augment the PPERA recommendations. If the Government have done that with regard to finance, why did they not do it with regard to purdah?

[John Penrose]

We have already discussed that, and I understand that promises were made from the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon by my colleague the Minister for Europe. Further proposals will be brought back to the House in due course, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues will be pleased by what is brought back at that point.

Clause 3 therefore introduces schedules 1 and 2, which make further provision, and it modifies PPERA in relation to the campaigning and financial controls that will apply for the referendum. It also introduces schedule 3, which makes further provision, and it modifies PPERA in relation to the framework for administering the referendum.

Rather than spending a great deal of time on the detail of those schedules, I will move on to the Government amendments and then try to respond to the other amendments in the group, particularly those tabled by colleagues on the Government side of the Committee. The Government have tabled two amendments, which I will briefly explain. Amendment 14 will increase the spending limits for permitted participants at the EU referendum. The limits will apply instead of those provided for by PPERA. The increase takes account of inflation since PPERA was passed in 2000 but goes no further. The changes will apply to the spending limits for all those campaigners who are eligible to become permitted participants on both sides of the debate, including the designated lead organisations and political parties. It should be fair for both sides.

Amendment 15 gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission. It provides that where campaigners register as permitted participants but do not incur regulated spending, the responsible person must submit to the Electoral Commission a declaration that no regulated expenses were incurred. It will apply only for the purposes of this referendum. It is a technical amendment. Under the current provisions, there is no provision for a nil return. Although that can perhaps be seen as a logical approach in the event of a campaigner not spending, it creates a challenge for the Electoral Commission in undertaking its statutory duties. When a registered campaigner does not submit a spending return after the poll, it is not always clear whether that is an act of non-compliance, or because they have not incurred regulated spending. The amendment will make the situation clearer. Every registered permitted participant will be required to submit a return or declaration of some sort. Failing to do so without reasonable excuse will be a criminal offence. That should help to ensure that the Electoral Commission can focus its attention on clear cases of non-compliance. Given that it applies only to people or organisations that have already registered as campaigning groups, it ensures that transparency will be paramount.

Let me move on to some of the other amendments in the group. I will begin with amendment 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, which a number of colleagues have addressed. The amendment seeks to extend the referendum period from the currently envisaged 10 weeks to up to 16 weeks. Having listened to my hon. Friend’s speech, I think that he is particularly concerned because at the start of any campaign the Electoral Commission needs to go through a process of designating the lead campaigning groups, and in the past there have been great concerns. In fact, the designation process has occasionally lasted for five or six weeks. If that six-week period begins at the start of 10 weeks of referendum campaigning, we will effectively end up with lead campaigning organisations being designated as such, and getting the public funds to which they are entitled, with a period of only four weeks to go before polling day. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that that might put a crimp in the way in which the campaign was run, for both sides, which would not leave enough time to air important issues or make preparations. His proposed solution is to extend the period from 10 weeks to 16 weeks. I suggest a slightly more flexible alternative, which I hope will achieve the same outcome.

The Bill states that Parliament must agree to an affirmative statutory instrument to fix the date of the referendum in law. As my hon. Friend knows, an affirmative SI takes about six weeks to go through Parliament. Therefore, after the announcement of the election date, the House will consider the SI for a period of about six weeks before it approves the date of the referendum, and only then can the 10-week period start. Clearly, that will not help unless the designation of lead campaigning organisations can be done in parallel.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and others have mentioned, stirrings of campaigns are already under way. Campaigns are already gearing up, and the organisations involved are already co-operating and co-ordinating with each other, although we are at an early stage. I encourage those on both sides of the debate to engage at an early stage with the Electoral Commission, because both sides will, in all probability, start campaigning unofficially long before the eventual official start of the referendum campaign. Because they will be able to start engaging with the Electoral Commission at an early stage, not only will we be able to begin designation six weeks before the beginning of the 10-week period, but we stand a decent chance—with the Electoral Commission’s blessing, of course—of getting through the designation process rather faster than we otherwise could.