European Union Referendum Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I will let my hon. Friend the Member for Stone speak for himself in the course of the debate. I am sure, however, that he will await—with a healthily sceptical approach—the return of the Prime Minister from Brussels with that package, and that he will consider it carefully and analytically, safe in the knowledge that underpinning this whole process is an absolute commitment to allow the British people to have the final say on this issue in an in/out referendum.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

None of the concessions that the Prime Minister has so far obtained from the European Union, including the veto of the fiscal union treaty, has fundamentally changed our relationship with the EU. How does he intend fundamentally to change that relationship?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right, of course. I have already mentioned an area in which we need fundamental change in the way in which the European Union operates. It is now a Union with a eurozone of 19 member states at its core, and those states will integrate more closely together. There needs to be an explicit recognition that those who are not part of that core do not need to pursue ever-closer union. There needs to be an explicit protection of the interests of those non-eurozone members as the EU goes forward. That is an example of an area in which we need specific structural change to the way in which the European Union operates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is robust in his defence of the interests of Tate and Lyle—his constituents—and I will take that representation and put it with the many others from both sides of the House about particular areas that we need to raise in the course of the discussion.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I need to conclude my remarks because many Members wish to contribute.

Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

We would be very happy to look at all amendments that come forward during consideration of the Bill on the Floor of the House. We have some amendments that we will table. I shall come to those in a moment. I agree with the Foreign Secretary in this respect: once the Government eventually reach a view, they are entitled to explain it to the British people. Indeed, they will have to explain their view to some of the members of the Cabinet. Therefore, it is reasonable to ensure that the Government are able to do that.

[Mr Jenkin]

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he thinks Ministers will have to be able to do that they were not doing during the Scottish referendum or the AV referendum? I seem to remember Ministers giving lots of explanations of their view. Is he concerned that this might be an opportunity for the Government to call the referendum so soon after the deal has been concluded that the British people do not have a chance to digest what has occurred—a snap referendum designed to get a certain result?

[Hilary Benn]

As I understand the argument, it relates to section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the definition of “material”. That is what that section says. It would not be sensible for any Government to find themselves constrained from explaining to the people the Government’s view, because the people are entitled to hear from the Government of the day, as happened in 1975.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

This is a great day, a remarkable moment: we have a Conservative majority—now, I am delighted to hear, backed by the Labour Opposition—that will deliver a Bill to give the people of the UK a choice on who actually makes their laws and regulations. The mentors, sadly dead, who encouraged me to come to this place more than 20 years ago, such as my predecessor the late Lord Biffen of Tanat and the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale, would be delighted that we have the opportunity to go back to the question of whether this country voted in 1975 to join a market and, as the shadow Foreign Secretary has commented, have the benefits of a market, embrace the world and get our full seat back on organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, and not be told what to do by the political and judicial arrangements that we are currently under.

This is a glorious moment in history, because the eurozone will inevitably move to become a co-ordinated country, in which significant amounts of money are shifted from the northern wealth-creating areas of Germany and Holland to southern Europe, and we have a chance of really radical change. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary expounded that today and that the Prime Minister has made a start. We have a real chance.

[Mr Jenkin]

I would recall other mentors who were in the House when I first entered it, such as the late Lord Shore of Stepney and, indeed, the late Tony Benn.

[Mr Paterson]

I am glad to have the endorsement of those key figures from the Opposition Benches.

I want to touch on two points. First, I strongly advocate that the Prime Minister gets the maximum time for his negotiations, and I would like the referendum to be held in late 2017. Secondly, on the question, I favour two positives, rather than having one side as a negative.

The issue that really concerns me, however, is the suspension of purdah. I am afraid that I was dismayed to read the Foreign Secretary’s comments on ConservativeHome this morning, which are nonsense. The rules of purdah have developed steadily over 20 years. We have just fought a general election very satisfactorily, during which the wheels of government continued to turn without attempts to use taxpayers’ money to influence the way people voted.

I want to take the House through the long process that goes right back to 1996, when the Nairn report called for referendums to be brought within election law. The result of the Welsh referendum, when the Conservatives were in total disarray, was extraordinarily narrow: 6,721 was the majority across Wales, or 168 per seat. By any standards, that was a very marginal result. Particularly in north Wales, near where I come from, there was widespread dissatisfaction at the fact that the result was affected by very significant Government interventions.

In October 1998, Lord Neill of Bladen’s Committee came up with some absolutely key recommendations. I want to cite Vernon Bogdanor of Oxford University—he taught the Prime Minister a thing or two about politics, philosophy and economics—who, in a very telling contribution, said:

“I hope also the Committee will make some suggestions about referendums because one purpose of a referendum…is to secure legitimacy for decisions where Parliament alone can not secure that legitimacy. For that legitimacy to be secured, the losers have to feel that the fight was fairly conducted.”

That issue is absolutely fundamental: the British public have a real sense of fairness, and if they have a sense that this referendum is rigged, the result will not be legitimate.

On that basis, the very distinguished figures on the Neill Committee stated:

“We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the government of the day to state its views and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns, just as they do during general election campaigns. But we also believe 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. In other words, referendum campaigns should be treated for these purposes in every way as though they were general election campaigns.”

They also said:

“We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign, especially when, as will usually be the case, itself it is a party to the campaign. We believe governments should not participate in referendum campaigns in this manner, just as it would be thought to be wholly inappropriate during a general election campaign for the government to print and distribute, at the taxpayers’ expense, literature setting out government policy.”

Their recommendation 89 stated:

“The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly ‘factual’ literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case.”

I stress that very senior, respected figures on both sides of the House have participated in this long debate over the past 20 years. In an Adjournment debate on the Neill report on 9 November 1998, there was a significant contribution by the then Home Secretary Jack Straw, but, on the Conservative side, the now Lords Fowler and MacGregor of Pullham Market were absolutely clear in calling for full implementation of Neill. Sir Norman Fowler, as he then was, said:

“However, we accept the findings in the report and believe that legislation based on it should be introduced with the proviso that it should implement all the major proposals. There should be no cherry picking of one proposal, leaving the others to one side.”—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 59.]

Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was on 10 January 2000, introduced by Jack Straw. Interestingly, Mr Speaker, there was a significant intervention, at column 36, by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Only you could use such a phrase as this:

“I am sure that the House has listened to the right hon. Gentleman’s historical exegesis with great interest.”

Very pertinently, as the first person to raise the issue of time, you went on:

“If he is against the purchase of votes, how does he justify promoting a Bill that will allow the issue by Ministers of official press releases in support, for example, of the abolition of our national currency, while regulating the activities of campaigning organisations in any such referendum for up to six months, thereby preventing the supporters of national self-government from effectively arguing their case?”—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 36.]

That was a most pertinent intervention because the issue of time reappeared in Committee.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has sadly left his seat, argued hard on the amendments, and, Mr Speaker, you and I participated on the issue of special advisers. Respected figures such as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and a number of us who have held this party together through the long winter of opposition, all made the point that 28 days was not sufficient. We were absolutely clear that we did not like Jack Straw’s proposals on 28 days. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said:

“we are worried that the 28-day period on its own will be insufficient. The particular mischief is that there will be a preliminary period, in which the campaign that will be set up in opposition to the view that the Government want to put forward, but which they will subsume into their own campaign organisation, is not up and running because it has not received validation from the commission.”—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1062.]

Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, another distinguished Conservative, said:

“I believe that purdah should apply during the whole referendum period. I consider that to be fair and equitable.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 884.]

A helpful intervention came from the Electoral Commission yesterday:

“We are therefore disappointed and concerned that the Bill includes provision to remove the restrictions on the use of public funds by governments and others to promote an outcome right up until voters cast their vote.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

I remember when John Major, as Prime Minister, ironically thanked the right hon. Gentleman for resigning from the Cabinet so that he could consolidate and secure his leadership of the Conservative party.

The SNP’s attitude is that we are a pro-European party. We believe that controlling 99% of our taxation revenue would be genuine independence, as opposed to the sum of 12% that we control at the moment or the 20% or so that we will control under the proposals that we debated yesterday. That is why we are proud to say, as are so many other countries, that we can be independent within the European Union. The idea that the right hon. Gentleman portrays—that a country cannot be independent in the European Union—is not widely shared across the continent. It might just be that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are wrong in being out of step with all other Europeans, as opposed to him and his friends being correct about their idea of independence within the European construct.

The question of whether or not there will be collective responsibility in respect of the referendum is capable of being answered as a matter of principle. I hope that the Foreign Secretary or his colleague will address it in those terms when they wind up the debate this evening.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Salmond]

I am in the fortunate position, as Mr Speaker said, of not being bound by the 10-minute rule. I will give way a couple more times, but I understand what Mr Speaker said about allowing other Members to get in.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the same arguments that were deployed by people like him to say that we should join the euro—thank goodness we did not—are now being used by people like him to say that we cannot possibly consider leaving the EU? Does that not underline that he is Braveheart in Scotland, but slaveheart in Brussels?

[Alex Salmond]

One wonders how long it took the hon. Gentleman, when he was lying in bed this morning, like the Prime Minister, working out how he would deploy that bon mot in the debate, to come up with that.

The hon. Gentleman mistakes me, incidentally. He should reflect on the speech that I made in this Chamber only last week. I am not one of those people who argues that the UK could not possibly be out of the European Union. In my speech last week, I warned against a parade of establishment figures talking down to people and saying, “You can’t do this. You can’t do that.” I am not one of the people who argues that case. The essence of my case for being in the European Union is a positive case about what Europe should be doing, not about what it should not be doing. I hope that at some point in this debate, we will get to the stage where what is said to be wrong with the European Union is not things like hard-working Polish people being able to repatriate their child benefit to Poland. There must be more to this country’s relationship with the rest of Europe than matters of such smallness.

I will move on to the essential nonsense of this referendum and why my party will oppose it in the Lobbies this evening. When someone proposes a referendum, it should be because they are proposing a significant constitutional change, whether it be the alternative vote, Scottish independence, Scottish devolution or Welsh devolution, and they are looking for democratic sanction—the sovereignty of the people—to back that change. That is not the position of the Prime Minister. Nobody seriously believes that he wants to take this country out of the European Union. The referendum is a tactic that is being deployed as a means of deflecting support from UKIP and as a sop to Back Benchers. Nobody believes that the Prime Minister wants to take the country out of the European Union.

The suspicion, which is already developing in this debate, is a result of that essential contradiction in the Government’s proposition. The suspicion is coming, incidentally, not just from the hardened Eurosceptics—or Europhobes, perhaps—from whom we have heard on the Government Benches, but even from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who questioned why it looks as though the Government are trying to stack the deck in the referendum before the campaign has even begun. The questions about the campaign limits and the purdah period are coming not just from people who are opposed to the European Union, but from Members of great experience who are concerned that the Government are already moving to imbalance the referendum campaign.

Let me tell right hon. and hon. Members who do not share my view on Europe what exactly will happen if we go into the campaign and the polls start to close or perhaps the no side even moves ahead. We will find Sir Nicholas Macpherson parading things in front of Select Committees of this House; we will find civil servants compromising their impartiality; and we will find the Prime Minister suddenly making a promise, a commitment, a pledge or a vow, and saying that he has found some new policy initiative to turn the argument, in total defiance of any idea of a purdah period.

My advice—and it is free advice, honestly given—is that Members should lock things down in the Bill, otherwise all their worst fears will come into being. With great respect to the Foreign Secretary, they should not trust his bona fides in saying that he just wants a fair game and fair play. If we want to secure a proper and decent referendum and avoid the deck being stacked, we should lock it into the Bill through amendments.

We have detailed reasons for opposing the referendum in its current form. I say to the Labour party that I am surprised by its argument, “We lost an election, and we therefore have to change our policy”, as the acting Leader of the Opposition said just the other day. Does that apply to all the policies that Labour fought the election on, or just to the policy on the referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I entirely agree. The European Scrutiny Committee was unanimous in its report, which was severely critical of the BBC’s failure to be sufficiently impartial in relation to European matters. There will be further discussion of that issue as we continue to debate the Bill.

At the 1922 committee meeting, I made it clear that we would engage not in wilful opposition but in a process of mutual respect and debate. In plain English, what the Prime Minister said on 23 March boils down to the following. He said that he wanted to change the basic principles by which the United Kingdom is connected to the European Union. He carefully distinguished between “fundamental change” in our relationship and mere reform of it. Reform may include some treaty change to include issues relating to benefits and so forth, but they pale into insignificance by comparison with the Prime Minister’s own assertion that he wants “fundamental change” in our relationship with the EU.

In its report on referendums, the House of Lords Constitution Committee made it clear that a referendum would be primarily necessary in the event of a proposition that we leave the European Union, as opposed to mere nibbling at the treaties. I have said repeatedly for years that if we do not achieve this fundamental change, we will have to leave the European Union. That becomes essential if we are to govern ourselves in line with the wishes of the voters in general elections. In his Bloomberg speech, the Prime Minister said:

“It is national parliaments which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.”

Nothing is more important than that when it comes to the government of our country and its freedom.

Other member states may seek to block this action, but they do so at their own peril. They need us politically and economically, and they repeatedly say that they want us to remain in the EU; but then the handouts, the bail-outs, the subsidies and the ideology of political union get in the way. We have positive alternatives to the European Union. Our democracy and our national Parliament are what people fought and died for in two world wars, and it was through their sacrifice that we saved Europe in those two wars. It is not in the interests of Germany, Europe or ourselves for us to remain in the second tier of a two-tier Europe dominated and profoundly affected by a de facto eurozone, which is in reality at the epicentre of the legal framework of the European Union itself, in which we have been embedded by successive treaties and which does not work.

[Mr Jenkin]

That is the most fundamental point that must be addressed by those who want us to remain in the EU on the present terms. For 20 or 30 years we have had a dysfunctional relationship with the European Union because we do not want to be in political or monetary union, and do not want to be absorbed into something that looks more and more like a state. If those people cannot answer the question how we can be at the heart of this Union on a completely different basis, we will indeed end up as a second-tier member state of an increasingly centralised European Union.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Removing the words “ever-closer union”—which have never been specifically adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice, and merely form part of the preamble to the treaties—will not solve the problem. It does not change the legal obligations of the accumulated treaties, from Maastricht to Lisbon. Notwithstanding their protestations, it will not be the establishment, the EU, the BBC or the self-appointed multinationals with vested interests who will decide these matters. None of those multinationals has advanced a rational argument to support their determination to stay in the EU. That is my response to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who asked the same question of us from the other side of the argument. They were hopelessly wrong about the euro, and have been hopelessly wrong about so many aspects of European debate.

It is the voters who will give their verdict by the end of 2017. It is the voters, and the voters alone, who will decide it, not the massed ranks of the Europhiles. The rolling back of the treaties is imperative to our national interest. Indeed, the 1971 White Paper, on which the European Communities Act 1972 is still founded, clearly stated that we must keep the veto precisely because it was in our national interest to do so. It went on to say that to do otherwise would

“imperil the very fabric of the Community.”

I look at my right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe because he knows that he supported that at the time, in 1971.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

What we are providing for in the Bill is a power to set a date by order. The only thing on the face of the Bill is that the referendum must be held, at the latest, by the end of 2017. We are at the start of negotiations and we do not know when they will be concluded, but that is the right approach to take. It is Parliament that will have the right, when the order comes before it, to decide whether the date proposed is the right one or not. I will also say—this is the point the right hon. Gentleman made during his speech earlier—that when the Government come to set a date, if that date were to require combination with other elections of some kind, we would obviously at that point make our views known and provide a full explanation to the House in line with what the Electoral Commission proposed in its report of December last year.

A large number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the importance of securing a fair referendum. I agree with that. Many of the concerns expressed related to matters of campaign funding. The arrangements provided for in the Bill rest upon those provided for in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Campaigners who do not wish to register with the Electoral Commission are allowed to spend up to £10,000. Campaigners who are registered with the Electoral Commission—these have to be permissible campaigners and donors under our electoral law—have other rules that apply to them. The two designated lead campaign groups will have an equal maximum limit available to them of £7 million. Each of those groups will be entitled to receive a Government grant of £600,000. Each will have the right to a free mailshot to all homes and each will have the right to a television broadcast. Other permitted participants in the campaign will be subject to a maximum of £700,000 each. Political parties are, of course, free to campaign. The ceiling on their permitted expenditure will depend on their vote share at the general election, in line with the provisions in the 2000 Act.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have very little time and there were many points made in a very long debate to which I wish to respond.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked about the position of the European Commission and foreign Governments. They cannot be permissible donors under our law, so they would not be entitled to contribute to the lead organisations for either campaign, or make donations of any kind. We cannot pass law in this House that has extraterritorial impact on foreign Governments and international institutions. They have both certain freedoms and responsibilities under the Vienna conventions on how they operate in this country. I can say, from a recent conversation I have had already with the head of the European Commission office in London, that I think the Commission is aware that the very last thing that would help a yes campaign in a European referendum would be a flood of glossy literature from the European Commission going through people’s letterboxes. I would trust the proper diplomatic relationships with Governments and institutions, and encourage them to stick by their duty to respect the right of the British people to take their own decision responsibly. I do not think that their intervention needs to be feared.

I will write to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who raised detailed points about foreign companies. All I would say is that we are simply applying the rules as they currently exist within the overall legislation on political parties, elections and referendums.

Many right hon. and hon. Members spoke about section 125 of the 2000 Act and the Government’s proposal that it be disapplied. I emphasise the points that the Foreign Secretary made earlier. Normal EU business will not stop during a UK referendum campaign, but the phrasing of the 2000 Act is so broad that it could prevent the Government from, for example, setting out in any published form its position on the mid-term review of the multi-annual budget, on ECJ court cases that have an impact here, on negotiations on annual budgets, on trade negotiations or on EU foreign policy initiatives. That would not be a sensible position for us or any Government to get themselves into. For this referendum the public will expect the Government, as the Government, to make their recommendation clear, to explain their reasons for that recommendation and to respond to questions put to them by electors during the course of the campaign. It is for those two reasons that we propose to disapply section 125.

The question I take from the debate is this: how do we provide the credible assurances that give effect to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said—that the Government will be restrained in their use of public money and have no wish to compete with the umbrella campaign organisations whose job it will be to lead the yes and no campaigns? I acknowledge the constructive way in which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) responded to the Foreign Secretary’s speech on that point. As the Bill goes forward over future weeks and months, within the House we will need to consider how we put in place the right framework so that what my right hon. Friend talked about will be given proper effect, while giving the Government the freedom to publish without being constrained in the way I have described.

We will come to questions about the franchise in Committee of the whole House next week. I simply say to those who have argued for EU citizens to be enfranchised that it is straightforward and in accordance with referendum precedent for the United Kingdom as a whole that we rely on a general election franchise, rather than on the franchise for local and national elections.

On the question of 16 and 17-year-olds, I accept that there are strongly held views in this House on both sides of that debate, but the proper occasion to have that debate will be in the form of legislation to amend our arrangements on the Representation of the People Acts, so that we can debate the principle and decide as a House whether to apply that rule to all future elections and referendums—not to make some one-off exception for this referendum on the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union.

There have been a large number of detailed points made by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I shall try to respond in detail to those Members whose points I have not been able to address in the course of my concluding remarks in the form of letters over the next week. We will have the opportunity very soon, in the form of Committee of the whole House, to explore some of these matters in further detail.

I believe, however, that this Bill provides a straightforward, fair and effective framework for the British people to decide our country’s future in Europe. This Bill delivers on a promise that the Government of the United Kingdom made to the people of the United Kingdom at the general election, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to come nearer to the Chair to make his point of order?

[Mr Jenkin]

I cannot speak from here?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Not during a Division.

[Mr Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great delay in the Aye Lobby because there are so many Members of Parliament there. I am reminded that Margaret Thatcher once said that

“the Road to Damascus has never been more congested.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for bringing those pearls of wisdom to the House this evening. So far, however, an inordinate amount of time has not elapsed since the beginning of this Division. If an inordinate amount of time does elapse, I will—as I always do—send the Serjeant at Arms to investigate whether there is a delay in the Lobby.