National Spitfire Project

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I say on behalf of all Conservative Members that we are delighted that the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) made such a telling case for the Union—not only for the Union of the United Kingdom, but the union of the Kerevan household, in which England and Scotland are clearly united, as they are in my family? My parents, like his, served in the Royal Air Force during the second world war. My mother was a Scottish Borderer. I come from a long line of rapers and pillagers—I have a lot of Border reiver blood in me. My father was a Lancastrian. They met in Ceylon, where my father was serving on Mountbatten’s staff as a Royal Air Force liaison officer. One of his jobs was to vet material being submitted to the Royal Air Force journal for publication. He had to go and check this stuff, and he thought this WAAF sounded rather interesting, so he went up country to check her out. Five weeks later, they were married, and their marriage lasted 40 years.

My mother had a lifelong passion for the Spitfire, which I have inherited. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who made a great case in opening this debate, that she was at Netley hospital and witnessed the bombing of the Woolston factory in 1940. She then went to Rednal, where she worked on Spitfires, and she wrote an article in Royal Air Force Parade called “The It in the Spit”. I have inherited all that Royal Air Force blood, and I have had the privilege to be a pilot for getting on for 52 years.

For those of us who fly, the Spitfire is unquestionably one of the most iconic aircraft ever developed. What a man R. J. Mitchell was. Yes, he was born in Stoke-on-Trent, but he designed his aeroplane down in the south. I went to Southampton University, so I have a huge association with the Spitfire. It was an iconic aeroplane. It was born of a competition, of course—the Schneider trophy. It went on to do such sterling work throughout the second world war, and it continued afterwards and was in service until the 1950s.

The greatest privilege for me was when my 65th birthday came up—a short while ago—and my wife gave me a surprise present. I did not know until the week before that we were going to the Goodwood Revival festival. I said, “What should I wear?”—people are supposed to wear 1950s attire—and she said, “I think you should wear your flying suit.” I wore my flying suit, and we had a celebratory lunch and drink in the golf club at Goodwood, of which both my sons are members. The champagne was passed round, and I held up my empty glass and said, “What about my glass?” She said, “Well, you’re not drinking.” I said, “Why am I not drinking?” “Because you’re flying.” I said, “What am I flying?” I had the privilege of flying a Spitfire.

I do not know how many other Members of Parliament have had the privilege of flying a Spitfire. I have flown quite a few aircraft types—only as a private pilot, in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and in Southampton University Air Squadron—but there is unquestionably something completely special about the Spitfire. Some colleagues do not seem to understand that machines can have human attributes, but the Spitfire does. It is the most gentle of aeroplanes to fly. It is incredibly sensitive. On the south coast of England as sunset was approaching on Battle of Britain Sunday, there I was patrolling in a Spitfire.

Willy Hackett, the Royal Air Force officer testing the F-35, was flying in the front seat, because I could not fly it solo unless I had done the conversion course, which costs £40,000. He said, “I’ll do the takeoff,” and at 350 feet I had control. He let me roll it—rolling a Spitfire is a fabulous experience—and he did the landing.

The Spitfire is such an iconic aeroplane, and it is so much a part of the history of these islands and the defence against tyranny. Of course there were other aeroplanes, notably the Hurricane, but the Spitfire is so beloved of pilots. Having flown it myself, I can certainly respect that.

We have sadly very few battle of Britain pilots left. Among them is Geoffrey Wellum, who wrote “First Light”—a fantastic guy—and Tom Neil, who is still alive. They will be celebrating the battle of Britain on the south coast in July. Then there are great men such as Tony Iveson. Tony was not only in the battle of Britain, but in 617 Squadron and responsible for the sinking of the Tirpitz. Captain Eric “Winkle” Brown, born in Melrose, was probably the most celebrated naval aviator who has ever lived. He died only last year, at 97. It was a privilege to know him. Eric flew more aircraft types than any other man in the world—487, I think, which will never be exceeded—with 2,500 deck landings; no man has flown that many deck landings. He also flew the Spitfire.

The Spitfire has a fantastic history, which is so bound up with the history of these islands that I believe it deserves this monument supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. He is joining forces with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), so the whole city of Southampton will be behind it. There can be no fitter monument for the centenary of the Royal Air Force.

My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that so many of the Spitfire pilots were not from the United Kingdom. One was an American, with an English mother and American father, John Gillespie Magee. Some will know his poem, “High Flight”, which he wrote as he was taking a Spitfire mark V up to 30,000 feet on the 3 September 1940. They are some of the most magical words in the English language:

“Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth

Of sun-split clouds—and done a hundred things

You have not dreamed of—Wheeled and soared and swung

High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there

I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung

My eager craft through footless halls of air...

Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue

I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace

Where never lark or even eagle flew—

And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod

The high untrespassed sanctity of space,

Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.”

The Spitfire—I congratulate my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. What a wide-ranging, erudite and evocative debate we have had. It is always a pleasure to hear colleagues on both sides of the House speak with passion about issues they really care about. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who, as we heard, is an RAF man himself, on the vigour with which he promoted the National Spitfire Project.

We have heard from many colleagues with connections to both the RAF and the Spitfire. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), had an anecdote, and I came very close to having my own Spitfire anecdote to contribute. I visited Dover last Monday, which was the 100th birthday of Dame Vera Lynn. It was planned that that anniversary of a very British icon would be marked with a fly-past by two other British icons: two Spitfires. Sadly, that was put off for 24 hours by similarly iconic British weather, which closed in at the last minute and prevented anything from leaving the ground, so it all happened on Tuesday and I missed it. That is a shame, because although, as a London MP, I have seen Spitfires go overhead on several occasions on days of national commemoration, it would have been nice to be a little closer.

The National Spitfire Project is of particular significance in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen and, as we have heard, across the city of Southampton, which played such an integral part in the birth of that iconic fighter plane. But its significance is not limited to Southampton—as many colleagues said, R. J. Mitchell’s exceptional design, powered by the mighty Merlin engine, was instrumental in winning the battle of Britain—so I endorse everything that my hon. Friend and others said about the national and international importance of remembering the plane.

I represent a very international constituency, so I welcome the comments from both sides of the House about the plane’s significance, not just to the British but in Europe and across the Commonwealth. It was wonderful to hear many people remind us of the multinational nature of the corps that took to the skies to defend Britain. Friends and allies joined British pilots in flying these planes with such courage and bravery. We also heard from my hon. Friend about the courage and bravery of the people of Southampton, who displayed great stoicism in the face of the Nazi onslaught on the city as they continued to produce this plane that was so integral to our war effort. I admire him for his involvement in the National Spitfire Project and congratulate everyone who got it to where it is today. I wish them continued success.

Let me turn to the money and the call that my hon. Friend made for money to be granted from the proceeds of LIBOR fines. As hon. Members will be aware, LIBOR funding has been allocated to supporting a wide range of armed forces and emergency services charities and good causes. Since 2012, in fact, more than £700 million of LIBOR funding has been allocated. That includes nearly £20 million at the last autumn statement alone, which is being used to support museums and memorials.

The shadow Minister mentioned doing our heroes proud. It is worth noting that more than £15 million has been allocated towards RAF museums and memorials, including the Battle of Britain memorial, the Lincoln Bomber Command memorial, Bentley Priory Museum and the Battle of Britain bunker at Uxbridge.

At the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that, to mark the 100-year anniversary of the RAF, £2.4 million of LIBOR money is being provided to the RAF for its RAF100 programme, allowing many other events to take place. Some of that money is being committed to the RAF Museum to prepare for 2018 to tell the compelling story of those 100 years of the Royal Air Force, helping to share that story with more and more people as the human connection in terms of the generation of people who were around at the time is gradually lost. It was touching to hear some of the personal memories from within people’s families of those connections. It will be more and more important that we support the RAF in telling the story and keeping it alive, to ensure that down the generations people are aware of the RAF’s role in guaranteeing us the security and freedom that we are privileged to enjoy today and perhaps have had cause to reflect on more in the past few days than in usual times.

That is alongside a wide range of other projects. Money has also gone towards helping former and current armed forces personnel and their families, air ambulances and children’s hospitals. All in all, more than £260 million has been committed in this Parliament, and more than £700 million in total since 2012. As the Chancellor confirmed in August 2016, any further money from LIBOR will continue to be used to support military and emergency services charities and other related good causes that demonstrate the very best value.

Let me turn to the application process for those funds, if I may take the debate in a more prosaic direction for a moment. With regard to the possibility for further applications to the fund, the last round ran in August and September last year and generated more than 550 expressions of interest. The Chancellor has yet to confirm whether there will be further opportunities to apply for support from LIBOR fines. With £700 million paid out to date, the funds remaining are dwindling and we do not anticipate further significant receipts from the Financial Conduct Authority. However, if there are, we will publish any future LIBOR public funding opportunities in the usual way. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen and those he is working with on the project will want to monitor the usual channels, such as gov.uk, for such opportunities carefully.

Despite the inspiring flights of oratory this afternoon, my Treasury feet are—predictably, perhaps—very much on the ground, and never more so than when I turn to the issue of governance and how funds are allocated, which is important to touch on. The allocation of LIBOR funding follows a robust governance process and adheres strictly to the mandated minimum standards for Government grants, which were introduced last year following the Government’s response to the report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on Kids Company. We all remember the nature of that news at the time.

Under the current LIBOR governance process, each applicant is required to submit an application form, which is assessed by an independent team of grant-making experts, checked with the Charity Commission and reviewed by the Government’s new grants advice panel before final consideration by the Treasury. Each application is considered both individually and holistically for any impact across its particular sector. Specifically, the assessment team examines the governance of the charity or organisation, working closely with the Charity Commission to do so. The team also does a full assessment of the feasibility of a project, its value for money and any risks to its delivery.

I know that some of that has been touched on in conversations between Treasury officials and my hon. Friend. We are always happy to give more information about how the process can be followed and helpful steers on how that path can be taken, if that is of use to those involved with the project. In summary, I want to thank my hon. Friend.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The LIBOR fund, which was developed by our right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), was a splendid initiative that has done a tremendous amount of good work. I was rather involved in the Bomber Command memorial, which was put together by a tiny group of people. This is a stunning and long overdue memorial to commemorate the 55,573 men who gave their lives in Bomber Command. In the end, Prime Minister David Cameron knocked a few heads together in Whitehall and we got some money to cover the costs of policing on that day of three quarters of a million pounds, which otherwise would have had to have come from the charity itself.

I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that it might be a good idea to be slightly ahead of the game. This is quite an emotional and iconic issue. It is not just a question of pounds, shillings and pence; it is also a question of our national identity and, in the centenary of the Royal Air Force, marking what was a special, iconic contribution to the maintenance of the freedom of these islands.

[Jane Ellison]

I assure my hon. Friend that that has not been lost on me this afternoon. Rarely have I sat through a debate with such genuine passion felt across the House. His point about timeliness and the anniversary is well made, and as I said, we have already made moneys available to mark that for the RAF. I look forward to seeing some of those projects come to maturity. His point is extremely well made. I assure him that I will make the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is responsible for sport, tourism and heritage, fully aware of both the project—I am sure she is aware of it already—and the ambitious plans to mark our heritage; and, indeed, of the passion expressed for the project today in Westminster Hall.

I hope that all hon. Friends will understand that the process for allocating LIBOR funding must be transparent and objective. There is a process that all bids must take, so although I know that friends and colleagues would wish me to go further, sadly I cannot commit further at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The switch from capital to resource was actually made at the request of the health service and the Department of Health. In terms of finding efficiencies in the NHS, and indeed in the public sector as a whole, it is important that we deliver sustainable efficiencies, embed a culture of efficiency, and ensure that we get value for money for the taxpayer.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

While I welcome this Government’s commitment to health, may I invite my right hon. Friend to take a leaf out of President Trump’s book and increase defence expenditure by 10%, funded from the bloated overseas aid budget?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Splendid idea.

UK Economy: Post-Referendum Assessment

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady’s point is particularly significant because of the long-term impacts. It is very clear to any of us who engage with those who invest in the UK—businesses that make decisions on where to locate investment—that access to the single market is an important attribute for the UK. It is clear within the report that business investment would fall significantly in both the short and long term as a consequence of leaving the EU.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Leaving aside the Treasury’s notorious incompetence at forecasting, does my hon. Friend—for whom I have a lot of time, normally—not agree that this document really does plumb new depths in “Project Fear”? The Government are trying to scare the public witless. If the consequences are so dire, why on earth did the Prime Minister say on record that Britain could prosper perfectly well outside the EU? Why do the Government, through this report, say:

“as our economy transitions to a worse trading arrangement with the EU.”?

Does my hon. Friend not accept that that is utterly dishonest? The Europeans export £72 billion more to us than we export to them, so it will be in their interests to do a deal with us. And we will have a Government far more capable of negotiating than the present Government have been able to do.

[Mr Gauke]

First of all, may I say that I have an awful lot of time for my hon. Friend normally, but that I disagree with the points he makes? On trading arrangements, it is impossible to see how we could negotiate a trading arrangement as strong as the one we have at the moment. Access to the single market and its benefits, particularly in the context of non-tariff barriers, is very important. We would undoubtedly be a less open economy as a consequence of leaving the EU.

On the report and trying to scare people, it is worth pointing out the Treasury’s assumptions and what the Treasury is not suggesting is underlying what will happen. We are not putting forward a view that there will be an immediate financial crisis—for example, a current account crisis. We are saying that we can reach a deal within two years, which, I have to say, is ambitious. We are not saying, under the shock scenario, that there would be any economic contagion as a consequence of the UK leaving the European Union. If we wanted to put a much more dramatic, scary report together, there are a number of things we could have included in the report, but simply did not. This was a cautious, careful, small “c” conservative report, which, as I say, has been signed off by perhaps the leading authority in this area in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

The question is, I hope, about Air Ambulance Northern Ireland, and I confirm that we are working with the charity and the Northern Ireland Executive on how those funds are delivered. They will go to the air ambulance charity, which I know will be broadly welcomed across all communities in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

In his document published yesterday, the Chancellor posed the question:

“Is our national security best served by retreating from the world?”

I hope that he is not foolish enough to suggest that those of us who wish the United Kingdom to leave the European Union want to retreat from the world, because the truth is far from that. We want the United Kingdom to break free from the sclerotic shackles of the EU and its superstate, and embrace the exciting world out there that befits the world’s fifth largest economy, a nuclear power, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

[Mr Osborne]

Of course I respect my hon. Friend’s views. We are having a referendum, and his vote and my vote count equally. I would make the point that our membership of the European Union enhances our national security—that point was also raised by the Secretary-General of NATO last week. Not one of this country’s allies or friends abroad are recommending that we leave the EU.

Iraq Inquiry Report

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am delighted to take part in this debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and others on securing this extremely important debate. I agree with my right hon. Friend. When the former Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, Lord Hurd, described the delay in the publication of the report as a scandal, he was absolutely right. Many of us in this House were absolutely horrified by the way in which Sir John Chilcot buried his head in the sand amidst the criticism that was, I think last year or in 2014, all around. My right hon. Friend set out the timetable according to which we were assured action would be taken and the report published, but we have been strung along, and as has been said, it is the bereaved who are paying the price for delay.

The Conservative party, as the official Opposition in 2007, called for a public inquiry into the reasons for the Iraq war and the conduct thereof. We initiated that debate on 11 June 2007, and I happened to wind up for the Opposition as a shadow Defence Minister. The Labour party opposed it. The then Foreign Secretary described an inquiry as “self-indulgent” retrospection and our debate as “opportunistic”. Of course, that changed, because Gordon Brown, in 2009, eventually ordered the Chilcot inquiry, but by then six years had passed.

We were not alone in supporting an inquiry; some in the Labour party also supported it. I cannot remember but I am sure the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) did. The late Michael Meacher certainly did. We gave three reasons why we felt an inquiry was needed. First, there was a lack of any discussion, in the run-up to the conflict, about post-conflict reconstruction. I remember going to Washington at the time. The debate there, in the run-up to the conflict, was all about post-conflict reconstruction. The fact that it was not delivered is another matter, but we were not even having that debate here. We had a debate on 30 January 2003, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), then shadow Secretary of State for International Development, during which the Government were simply not willing to discuss the aftermath of any conflict.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I do not think we learn anything. Look at the situation in the middle east: Libya—a mess; Egypt—to some extent a dictatorship. We have learned nothing from these interventions, and all because we never planned any post-war reconstruction.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Indeed. I could not possibly disagree. That is entirely right.

Secondly, we felt the inquiry was necessary

“to consider how we should adjust our whole military posture to the new type of military operations we face, including at the tactical level: whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen are getting the right training package for that type of warfare; whether…we have the right equipment for the task; whether we have the correct balance of forces, and what needs to be done so that we do not become disproportionately reliant on urgent operational requirements—a kind of panic-buying formula—to make up the shortfall in equipment.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 583.]

Thirdly and finally, there had already been several Select Committee inquiries, and there was a real need for a comprehensive inquiry by an independent committee established by the Government. We suggested there was real urgency. In introducing today’s debate, my right hon. Friend mentioned the effect of the time lag. At the time, I said:

“The reason for the relative urgency is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks”—

now Lord Hague—

“said, while the events are fresh in people’s minds and the e-mails have not been destroyed, we need to learn whatever lessons we can from the background to operations in Iraq so far, and to apply them to Afghanistan before it is too late.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 585.]

So there was an imperative, and a great disservice has been done to everybody, in that the inquiry was not established in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war but indeed was six years late. As I said, the bereaved are owed an explanation.

[Mr David Davis]

My hon. Friend has been a Defence Minister and shadow Defence Minister. What is his opinion of the argument put at the time that, whenever our forces are in the field, we cannot have an inquiry, which seems madness to me? We had a successful inquiry into Norway, for example.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. He mentioned Norway, and indeed there is plenty of precedent. I think that that was an excuse for not holding an inquiry, and I think that it was a mistake.

It is not just the bereaved who are owed an explanation, however. Those of us who were in the House at the time are owed one as well. All of us bore a responsibility for the decisions that we made on whether to vote for the war or not, and those of us who were on the Front Bench bore a special responsibility. However, we had no more information than what we read in the newspapers.

When I voted for the war, I did so for three reasons. First, I had had a meeting in New York with Hans Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, who had said that he had no doubt that Saddam Hussein intended to develop weapons of mass destruction, and that if he could develop them he would use them, but he—Hans Blix—could not, at that point, find them. He said that just a month before the war started, and I thought that it was pretty compelling.

My second reason was, of course, the “45 minutes” claim. I remember this vividly, because it was all over the front page of the Evening Standard. We were told that Saddam Hussein could launch what I think were described as “battlefield biological and chemical weapons” at 45 minutes’ notice, and reach the sovereign British base of Cyprus. I thought, “I have a responsibility. I am a shadow defence Minister.” I could hear Mr John Humphreys, on the “Today” programme, saying, “Well, you knew all about this, Mr Howarth, so why did you not take action at the time?” I felt that that claim had to be taken seriously.

Thirdly, I thought that, as a key ally of the United States, we had a very close relationship with that country, and we had to have a good reason for not supporting our US friends. I realise that that view will not be shared universally in the House.

[Paul Flynn]

Can the hon. Gentleman, from his very knowledgeable position on this matter, clarify something that has been a great puzzle? While a case might have been made for saying that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, was there any plausible case for saying in what scenario he would ever use them against the west without guaranteeing his own suicide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

That is a good question, but it is a question in retrospect. At the time, not only did the chief weapons inspector tell me, to my face—and tell the other members of the Defence Committee who met him in New York—that he thought that Saddam Hussein was intent on developing weapons of mass destruction, but I was then told by the Government—the British Government, my Government—that there was a possibility that he would be able to launch those lethal weapons at 45 minutes’ notice.

That brings me to my next point, which is, of course, that all this involved Dr David Kelly, and all the tragedy surrounding that poor chap, and the dodgy dossier. I believe that one of the things for which Mr Blair and the rest of the Government will have to account to the nation is what I consider to be the usurpation of the Joint Intelligence Committee by the Prime Minister’s spin doctor, Alastair Campbell. He was the man who was putting pressure on the Committee, led by Sir John Scarlett, to release enough information to produce—to coin a phrase—a “sexed-up” dossier to make the case as convincingly as possible, to us in the House and to the British people, that there was a real threat which we could not ignore and on which we had to take action.

I think that one of the lessons we have to learn now is that the Joint Intelligence Committee must be led by a man or woman with experience in security matters, and must not be subject to political pressure. Its professional view must be respected, and its authority must not be usurped.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. I agree with every word that he has said so far, but one question has confused and really worried me, and I do not think we have had an answer to it yet. If there were no weapons of mass destruction—I am referring particularly to chemical weapons—what was it that killed the Kurds and the marsh Arabs? We have never found those. Where the heck did they go?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. and gallant Friend has raised a very good question. I do not think that it will be the subject of my contribution to the debate, but I hope that he will be able to develop it if he is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have set out the position of the Conservative Opposition at the time. We believed that it was imperative and urgent for an inquiry to be held. I have explained why I supported the war, and have described some of the shenanigans that went on in an attempt to persuade the British people that there was a justification for it. I think that the delay in the report’s publication has been wholly unacceptable, and I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. Five years ago, Sir John said that it would take him a few months to prepare the final report; for five years those families have been having to wait, and have been held in limbo.

I agree that the Maxwellisation arrangement must be revisited. We cannot allow an open-ended opportunity for people who have been criticised in a draft report to respond to that criticism. There must be a time limit. As one who was deeply critical of the Saville report, which took 12 years and cost £200 million, I think that the country needs to start looking very carefully at how it conducts inquiries such as this.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am afraid not. A great many other Members wish to speak.

Let us compare what has gone on in the last seven years with what went on after the Falklands campaign. Three weeks after the end of that war, the Prime Minister announced an inquiry, and the inquiry team took six months to deliberate and report. There were international ramifications, because the United States was initially tempted to take the side of its South American neighbour. I know that certain sensitivities will apply in this case in connection with the relationship between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush, but there were similar sensitivities in the case of the Falklands campaign. That inquiry cost £81,000, which at today’s prices is about £280,000.

This morning I was advised by a friend that the Chilcot report is likely to run to 2.5 million words and 12 volumes. Whether the interests of better understanding will be served by a report of that length I know not, but what I do know is that we in this House are right to demand that the report be published as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holloway]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention.

To continue my theme of the inexperienced political class ignoring the experts, Britain’s one ambassador who actually understood what was going on and expressed it to politicians now works for HSBC. On Syria, we have not taken advice from officials who have been deployed forward with the Syrian opposition, as was. They argue that ISIS is fundamentally a political and counter-terrorist problem, much less a military problem, and a function of broken politics in the countries concerned and in the wider region. We have again thrown ourselves behind an American-led, largely military strategy that, until recently, threatened to turn the whole of Syria into hell.

Iraq went wrong, and the NATO deployment to Afghanistan cannot be counted as a success, and neither can Libya or Syria. The sanctions being imposed on ordinary people in Syria today cannot be considered a success.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon.—and gallant—Friend for giving way. I agree with much of what he says, and I particularly endorse his comments about military commanders. They do themselves, their country and this House no service by not telling us the truth. They need to speak truth unto power.

I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that we went into Libya because Benghazi was about to be subjected to genocide. Had we not done so, we would have been criticised for allowing thousands of innocent people to be destroyed. We were on the horns of a dilemma. The Prime Minister was in a difficult position, and I do not blame him for his decision. We would be in just as bad a position now had Benghazi fallen.

[Mr Holloway]

I drove down with my friend Leo to the frontline at Ajdabiya. The armoured vehicles that had been hit on the edge of Benghazi were still warm. I completely agree that if the vehicles had got into town it would have been enormously serious, but to proceed with regime change, when some of our officials did not accept that there were tribal issues in Libya, was a big mistake, for which the people of Libya are paying the price.

Our overall approach since 9/11 has left our country facing much greater dangers. Neither Saddam nor the Taliban threw so much as a petrol bomb at the west, yet the images of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria on the websites of global jihad will have terrible consequences for our people.

After the chemical outrages in Damascus, Parliament was asked to vote to bomb the Assad regime. Three years later, we were again asked to vote to bomb, but this time it was to bomb the forces opposing Assad. I wonder how many of us here voted to bomb both the Syria Government and their opponents. It is little wonder, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan, that the public do not have much confidence when Ministers tell them that they deserve their backing in such endeavours.

When the Chilcot report eventually is published, we will need to scour its content in the hope that it might lead us to take more seriously the security of our people and move us away from the dreadful career politics that have infected us. Chilcot may point to dysfunction rather bigger than just Iraq and rather closer to this Chamber. We must learn from our mistakes, and we owe that to our people and to those in countries where we have contributed to unimaginable insecurity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I did not intend to speak, but I rise to do so because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) has asked me to speak anecdotally, as he knows very well some of my experiences. My theme for the next couple of minutes is why I believe our senior military officers have become too politicised.

In April 1993, I took soldiers into the village of Ahmici in central Bosnia. I identified a massacre where at least 100 people had been killed and I decided that I had to inform the world—it was my duty under Geneva conventions. I decided that I would have a press conference where I would identify the people I thought were responsible—special forces of the Bosnian Croat army. Then I informed the Ministry of Defence. Of course, by my action I was kissing goodbye to a glorious military career—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Opening up a new one.

[Bob Stewart]

Not for a while. When I returned to my base, I received a blistering telegram demanding to know how I had the authority to make such a statement. It said I was meant to be neutral and I was not to get involved in the war. I was later told that I had ordered my men to open fire in defence of themselves, that I was way out of line and that I very much risked being sacked immediately. That was rather depressing for me. However, as a result of that press conference, front pages in this country carried the story—it was in the news, on the television and on the radio—and the reaction from the public and from politicians, both Back-Bench Members of this House and Ministers, was unanimously supportive. The generals who had given me that severe wigging then sent another signal, totally ignoring the first one, saying that I had acted in the highest traditions of the British Army and I was to be congratulated. It was at this time that I thought perhaps our senior officers are too politically correct. Since then I have decided, as people who look at the Daily Mail and The Sun today will know, that political correctness is something I do not necessarily particularly agree with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Let me say at the outset that we certainly welcome this debate, and our thanks should be recorded to those Members from different political parties who put their names to the motion. We have had a good debate. This is a serious issue that exercises the minds of not only Members of this House, but many people across the country. The concerns of so many people in our country have today been well expressed, articulately and in different ways.

As has been said, it was Labour that set up the inquiry in July 2009, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister. I have heard what Members have said about how such an inquiry should be conducted, but as was made clear at the time, it was genuinely thought that the inquiry should begin only once all British combat troops had left Iraq. I remain convinced that that was the right course of action to take at the time.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took a rather different view, and voted in favour of our motion, but the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who was in the Chamber earlier, took the Government line, even though he has been a critic of the decision since then?

[Wayne David]

I willingly acknowledge that this issue is open to discussion and judgment, but at the time that was our judgment, and I think that it was probably the correct one. The important thing, I would stress, is that the Labour party did not at the time expect that the report, thorough as it was going to be from the start, would take seven years to complete. That is completely unacceptable and very difficult to justify or, indeed, understand. The Labour party wants the report to be published in full as soon as is practicable. At the same time, we must acknowledge that if the report is to have integrity, it needs to be recognised as independent. It would be wrong, therefore, for the Government or individual politicians to try to influence the contents of what I hope and am sure will be an objective report and assessment.

The fact that the report is taking so long is cause for concern, however. The latest delay, we are told, is caused by the need for security checking. We understand that there needs to be security checking. Sir John Chilcot explained clearly in his letter to the Prime Minister, dated 28 October, why that should be:

“National security checking is distinct from the process of declassifying material for disclosure in the inquiry’s report. Its purpose is to ensure that the government’s obligations under article two of the ECHR and for the protection of national security will not be inadvertently breached by publication of the inquiry’s report as a whole.”

That makes a great deal of sense, and I do not think that many people would object to that. It is noteworthy that the Prime Minister said the following in his letter to Sir John dated 29 October, which he willingly consented to publish:

“In relation to National Security checking, the Government will aim to complete the process as quickly as possible. As you know, National Security checking for the Savile Inquiry took two weeks to complete. It would certainly be our plan and expectation to take no longer than this, and we will look to complete the process more quickly.”

It is worth bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said, and was more than happy to make public. I am concerned that we are where we are today. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the debate, and to my specific question: what is the date for publication?

I conclude by reiterating what several Members have said: it is important to have the report published soon, for two essential reasons. The first is so that we can, collectively, learn the lessons of Iraq. Lessons have to be learned about what happened in the run-up to the war, during the war and, crucially, once the war concluded. I remember going to Washington and having a meeting in the Pentagon before the war commenced, and I pointedly asked a five-star general what the United States’ plan for reconstruction and rehabilitation after the war was. He said, “That is not our concern. Our job is to kick ass and get out.” That was crudely put, but unfortunately that was the attitude that informed the actions of the American-led coalition. In my discussions with military personnel in this country, the attitude was quite different, but, to be blunt, Britain was a very junior partner. That kind of mentality and mindset among the Americans made what has happened since almost inevitable. Lessons have to be learned from the situation that unfolded.

The second reason is that we need openness and closure for the families of all the British soldiers who so gallantly gave their lives for the country. We have a debt to them, and it is important that a clear message goes out from the House that we want the report to see the light of day, and to be published, examined and debated as soon as is practicable.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

I appreciate being called early in the debate, and I hope I can help by outlining our thinking and the journey the Government want to take on this issue.

It is important that we recall why this measure on Sunday trading hours is before the House. The laws on trading in England and Wales were last updated in 1994—back when the only time we heard of Amazon was when we talked about the river, and back when our high streets faced no external pressures. The internet is liberating and changing the way we live and work, but the pressures on our high streets are rising, and the internet plays a part in that. Our measures will help them by giving local councils the right to expand Sunday trading.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

All those conditions were apparent just 10 months ago when the Conservative party stood on a manifesto that it presented to the British people, but there was zero mention of any change to Sunday trading laws. This measure represents a fundamental change to the social practice in our country, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) pointed out. Why have the Government now found all these reasons to introduce a measure in this absurd fashion?

[Brandon Lewis]

I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, having worked with him on a range of issues, but we clearly said in our manifesto that we were determined to drive economic growth, and we believe that this is an important part of that. That is why we referred to this last summer.

It is clear that local authorities believe they are the right bodies to hold this power. They represent local people, are accountable locally, know their areas best and want this power, which is why almost 200 have written asking for it to be devolved to them, including councils such as Carlisle, Chorley and, despite what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said, Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have just over 27 minutes remaining. I call Sir Gerald Howarth.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) by being a co-signatory to his amendment. The Minister is a great man, as befits being the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, but he has had an impossible task today. I have never seen new, serious legislation affecting our country introduced in such a shambolic way. It looks like something delivered by lastminute.com and makes the back of a fag packet look like a sophisticated form of engagement. He has known, the Prime Minister has known and everybody has known for months that many Conservative Members are deeply unhappy with this. I was in the House 25 years ago when we hammered out the compromise over years, not hours or months—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Two years.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

It took two years, but we started the process before that, in 1986, and it was done over a period of time. The truth is that we arrived at that compromise after huge consultation and I believe it has largely worked; we have maintained Sunday as a different day and we have fulfilled the Keep Sunday Special concept. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is absolutely right to say that this goes to the heart of the fabric of our society; it is not simply about all the things relating to workers’ pay and all the rest of it. It is about the nature of our country, and I fully support what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said on this. As a church warden at the royal garrison church in Aldershot, I think the Government’s proposals are deeply flawed. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, there is also no demand for them, with 67% supporting the current arrangements and 90% of shop workers, who will be deeply affected by the Government’s proposal, opposed to it.

[Victoria Borwick]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, forgive me.

This proposal will also do nothing to relieve the problems felt by the beleaguered high street. I also wish to say something to my hon. Friend the Minister about delegating this responsibility to local authorities in my part of the world. I sit at the apex of four different council areas and there would be a serious domino effect involving Surrey Heath, Rushmoor, Hart and Bracknell—if one went, the rest would feel obliged to follow suit. The changes that were made there during the Olympic games seriously damaged small shops. I have in my constituency the Association of Convenience Stores—some may call it the association of Conservative stores—which is run by small people who do a fantastic, hard-working job. The Oxford Economics survey found that increasing the opening hours of large stores will cost the convenience store sector 8,800 jobs and £870 million in sales. My council does not want this change, and nor does the Association of Convenience Stores.

I say to the Minister that we have a solution at hand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has proposed an alternative. The Minister is apparently talking about an alternative that is supposed to have been tabled today. Of course it has not been tabled, but it will be tabled in the other place. Why do we not do as we did in 1993, which is to have a Bill setting out the three options—possibly more—one of which is no change at all, and then let us debate it over a period of time, instead of trying to rush it through in a couple of hours?

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister’s last-ditch attempt at a compromise has already been described as scraping the barrel. I have to ask why we should believe last-ditch promises by this Government when the Prime Minister made a promise last April, and it is not being kept. My name is on amendment 1, and I agree with Government Members who have said that this should have been a conscience vote—a free vote.

The USDAW survey, which has been repeatedly mentioned—I congratulate USDAW on its sterling work—gives us a stark picture of existing Sunday working in both large and small stores. In fact, it tells us that 35% of staff in large stores and 55% in small stores want to work fewer hours, and less on Sundays. Chief executives from stores such as John Lewis and Sainsbury’s have expressed their concerns. They do not believe that there is an appetite among consumers and retail staff for this change.

I want to remind the House that there are carers in retail in the same way that there are in all occupations. The USDAW survey says that half the staff that it surveyed have caring responsibilities for children, older people, people with disabilities or family members who are ill. Arranging alternative care for Sundays is very difficult,

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

We addressed that issue at some length yesterday when discussing the European Union Referendum Bill. This is the third or fourth time that the House has addressed that idea, and each time it has returned pretty solid majorities against it. The vote yesterday was because we did not think it sensible to change such a fundamental piece of the franchise for just one vote. That would leave us open to the charge of trying to sway the franchise for the EU referendum to favour one side or the other—something that I am sure no one would support.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I encourage my hon. Friend to consider postal voting? Leaving aside what may or may not have happened at the recent by-election, is it the case that registering for a postal vote is far too easy these days, which renders the whole system open to serious abuse?

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and large numbers of people are concerned about that issue. I am happy to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) is at this moment considering a report, and if my hon. Friend has any suggestions about what should be in it, he is welcome to make them.

Euro Area

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The President of France has gone even further than the five presidents. I will briefly highlight what is in the rather lengthy and important report, because it has escaped most comment and attention in the United Kingdom. The five presidents say:

“For all economies to be permanently better off inside the euro area, they also need to be able to share the impact of shocks through risk-sharing within the EMU. In the short term, this risk-sharing can be achieved through integrated financial and capital markets”.

That is pretty comprehensive union, which they call “private risk-sharing”. Those markets would be

“combined with the necessary common backstops, i.e. a last-resort financial safety net”—

presumably that is public finance. They continue:

“In the medium term, as economic structures converge…public risk-sharing should be enhanced through a mechanism of fiscal stabilisation for the euro area as a whole.”

That is rather wordy and slightly opaque, but I think the meaning is clear. The five presidents have recognised that to have a successful single currency, taxpayer money needs to be standing behind the financial institutions—the banks and others—and the states involved in that financial union. That is exactly the issue that the tragedy of Greece has highlighted.

Euro banknotes have no symbols of French or German taxpayers in the way that our banknotes have the Queen as a representation of the full power of the sovereign in Parliament and the revenues going into the Treasury. Euro banknotes do not have that, for the good reason that the symbols could not be agreed and there was a bit of reluctance to put the full power of taxpayers behind the banknote. They have a misleading symbol on them: the European Union flag. One has to ask why that is, when the United Kingdom—the largest country in the “outs”—has made clear that we have no wish to put any taxpayer money or finance behind the euro, because it is not our project and we are not part of it. That illustrates a much bigger problem that the eurozone is grappling with: who stands behind its banks? Who stands behind the member states when they get into financial difficulties? That problem has come out in the Greek struggle.

The five presidents go on to say:

“Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards a genuine Economic Union…Second, towards a Financial Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing…This means completing the Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation”—

that means sharing tax revenues, basically—and

“finally, towards a Political Union that provides the foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability”.

They go on to say that there will have to be a lot more common decision making or shared sovereignty, although I would call that the gift of sovereignty to a higher body. They say that

“this would require Member States to accept increasingly joint decision-making on elements of their respective national budgets and economic policies. Upon completion of a successful process of economic convergence and financial integration, this would pave the way for some degree of public risk sharing”—

that is, countries using other people’s taxes to sort out their own problems—

“which would at the same time have to be accompanied by stronger democratic participation”.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points. Would what he just quoted not be more accurately described as the “United States of Europe”?

[John Redwood]

I hope that it would be the United States of Euroland, but my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will say that we will not be part of it and that a plan exists to negotiate a new relationship for the United Kingdom. We will clearly need such a relationship, because no party in this House wants the UK to risk-share on that basis, putting in British taxpayer money to help Greece, Portugal or whoever is in trouble due to the euro.

The five presidents want a euro area system of competitiveness authorities that will try and create commonality of policy and outturn across the Union. They claim to have largely achieved the goal of bank supervision with the setting up of the single supervisory mechanism, but the single resolution mechanism is not fully implemented, and they want to complete a financial union, launching a common deposit insurance scheme and a full capital markets union. They want to get on with those immediately and not await treaty change, which they will need for some of their other proposals.

The five presidents ultimately want a single European capital markets supervisor, which would have great implications for the City of London and the conduct of our markets and our regulatory system were we to take part. They say that

“regulation creates incentives to risk-pooling and risk-sharing and ensures that all financial institutions have sufficient risk management structures in place and remain prudentially sound.”

Even more importantly, they go on to say, referring to the capital markets union:

“Taxation can also play an important role in terms of providing a neutral treatment for different but comparable activities and investments across jurisdictions.”

Will the United Kingdom be able to opt out of this capital markets union? If we sign up to it, does that mean that we would have to accept common European taxation on this rather important business interest for the UK?

Last, but by no means least, the report contains a heading referring to a euro-area treasury, under which it states:

“The Stability and Growth Pact remains the anchor for fiscal stability and confidence in the respect of our fiscal rules. In addition, a genuine Fiscal Union will require more joint decision-making on fiscal policy”—

in other words, a euro-area treasury.

European Union Referendum Bill

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

I am delighted to do so. I am pleased to confirm, as would all my hon. Friends, that from speaking to people from eastern Europe and other people from beyond the shores of the United Kingdom during the Scottish independence referendum, I know that they not only welcomed the fact they were allowed to take part, but felt more Scots—more British, if hon. Members like—as a result of being allowed to take part. However they eventually voted, the fact that they were allowed to partake in such a massive event for our nation meant that they identified even more strongly with our nation afterwards than they had before.

To conclude, now that it very much looks as though the referendum will happen, we must make sure that we get it right. It has got to be fair and seen to be fair. That means that the funding of the different sides must be fair; it does not necessarily have to be equal, but it has to be fair, open and transparent. We have to know who is paying in the money, and therefore who is pulling the strings of the different campaigns. The referendum must be conducted in such as way that everyone who resides in these islands—even those who, it appears, are likely to be denied a vote—feels that they are still entitled to stay here and can accept the result. The only thing that would be worse than holding a referendum would be to hold one that was seen to be rigged or unfair.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to take part in this debate.

In following the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), I want to say two things. First, it is great to see the Scottish National party participating in this Union Parliament so vigorously. That is very welcome. Secondly, he just needs to understand that this referendum is about the future of the United Kingdom in the European Union and is exclusively a matter for the people of the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not.

This is a matter for the people of the United Kingdom to decide. Those who are taking advantage of our liberal society are of course most welcome, but we need to remember that it is for the British people to decide our future in the European Union.

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

It is quite clear that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is only distressed because he has not been invited. If he speaks to me very nicely, I might arrange for a wee ticket to be sent to him.

This is a very important subject. I want to put on the record my appreciation for the Prime Minister’s having kept his word to the British people that there would be a referendum on Britain’s future in the European Union. That he has brought forward the Bill so early in the Parliament is highly commendable and indicative of his determination. It is indicative of the current spirit of the Conservative party that this moment is completely unlike 1992, in that we are airing our differences of view and our different concerns in this Committee debate in an amicable spirit, as we try to find the best way through.

There is unanimity in this Chamber that if the referendum is to be successful, it must be fair. Not only do we have to arrange provisions to ensure that it is fair, to the best of our ability; it must be seen by the British people to be fair. There would be nothing worse than to carry out this extensive operation and hold the referendum and, in the end, for people on whichever side of the argument not to be satisfied that the conditions that we in this House laid down for the conduct of the referendum had been fulfilled.

It is right and proper for us to be as precise in framing the rules for the referendum as possible. It is in that spirit that I support amendment 53, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is no longer in his place, and amendment 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and to which I am a signatory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone says that the Electoral Commission does not believe that it is necessary to include amendment 10, which would limit the capacity of the European Commission to have any involvement whatsoever in the referendum. The Electoral Commission has made a number of important and valid suggestions, but I need to be persuaded on that point. We all know from our constituencies that when a project has been funded in any way by the European Union, those socking great stars are plastered all over it as though it has been funded by the EU. Of course, all of us in this Committee know that it has not been funded by the EU at all, but by the British taxpayer with money that we have given to the European Commission, some of which it kindly gives back to us.

We need to be very clear that we do not want the European Commission, in any shape or form, sticking its oar into our domestic debate about whether we should continue to be a member of the European Union or seek our fortune elsewhere.

[Mark Spencer]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will clarify his remarks, because I think that amendment 10 could have unintended consequences. Many companies and businesses that have received European funding for a project, such as an extension to a factory to create more employment, would be barred from the process and would not be able to fund one side of the argument or the other. Even if they felt passionately that we should be in or out, they would be excluded by the amendment.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I heard my hon. Friend’s intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, and he makes a valid point that we need to address. However, the purpose of amendment 10 is crystal clear: it is to stop the European Commission getting involved or funding third parties to get involved in the campaign. If a company in his constituency that received support under a European Commission scheme five years ago, three years ago, last year or whenever chose to back one side or the other, one would not be able to say that it was doing so because it had received money from the European Commission, but if the European Commission started to fund organisations that were involved in the campaign, that would be unacceptable. We do not want it interfering.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would it really matter, because surely both sides will get just about equal funding? Where the funding comes from does not matter in the end if both sides get the same rough amount.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I should tell my hon. and gallant Friend that if he thinks the European Commission will be impartial in those matters, he has another think coming. I am sure he is far more worldly-wise than to give the Committee the impression that the European Commission will be even-handed. There is no evidence whatever that it has done anything other than use our money to promote the European project. That is what it is on about and what it believes it is necessary to do. It shows no signs of reluctance in pursuing that.

That is all I wanted to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who is back in his place, is right in his amendment 53 to suggest that there should be equality of resources. Sir John Major was responsible for imposing initial limits on party spending at general elections some time ago. We can all see the absurd situation in the United States, where it cost $1 billion to get President Obama elected. We do not have that absurd system in this country and it is right that we have a limit. My hon. Friend’s amendment moves in that right direction, so I support it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Just to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about America compared with Britain, I was recently on a parliamentary visit to Washington where we met a senior member of the Democratic party. I explained that there were limits on electoral expenditure in general elections in Britain, unlike in America, and he said, “How civilised.”

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

That is a very civilised remark from a very civilised Member, who together with me champions the cause of the sixth-form colleges. He and I have the finest sixth-form colleges in the country. Mine is slightly better than his, but there we go.

This debate in Committee is important. If we do not refine the detail in every possible manner, compatible with what my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench know has to be done in order to comply with the law and so on, we have Report stage, when things can be sorted out. However, it must be made crystal clear that we will not have the European Commission interfering in that referendum in the United Kingdom in any shape or form. Amendment 10 gives us the vehicle to send the clearest possible message to Brussels that that is something up with which we will not put.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in today’s debate, Mr Howarth, and to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), as the Minister responding. The constitution is always in safe hands when it is in the hands of Somerset, so it is reassuring that he is here to respond.

I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said about amendment 10, on EU funding, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and to which I have added my name. The appearance of fairness within the referendum is at the heart of what the Government must try to do. The Government, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. It would be wrong if there was any feeling that the referendum was being held improperly, that undue pressure was being brought to bear, or that funding was directed to one side rather than the other—I say that as somebody who supports the Government’s position—but it would be most wrong if British taxpayers’ money funnelled by the European Union ended up being used to campaign for us to remain subject to the European Union.

Future Government Spending

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House rejects this Government’s failing austerity plan set out in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement which the Office for Budget Responsibility has said will take public spending back to a share of national income not seen since the late 1930s, before the National Health Service came into existence; notes that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that this would entail cuts on a colossal scale and has raised concerns that this could involve a fundamental reimagining of the role of the state; further notes that the Chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that these spending figures were based on the policy assumption presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and signed off by the quad, which consists of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and calls on the Government to instead adopt a different, fairer and more balanced approach, which involves sensible reductions in public spending, a reversal of this Government’s £3 billion-a-year top rate of income tax cut for people earning over £150,000 and an economic plan that delivers the sustained rises in living standards needed to boost tax revenues, in order to get the current budget into surplus and national debt as a share of GDP falling as soon as possible in the next Parliament.

I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) in his point of order. He made the point eloquently and I pass on our condolences from the Opposition Front Bench.

The choice between this Government’s failing austerity plan and a better plan for working families at this election is now clear. The majority of people are not feeling the benefit of the recovery and the squeeze on living standards has not been so prolonged since the 1920s. When we cut through the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s rosy view and spin and look at the report produced today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we can see that it confirms that the vast majority of people, typical working people, are worse off than they were in 2010.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I shall give way in a moment. What has been less well known is the devastatingly corrosive effect of stagnant wages, falling tax receipts and rising welfare costs on the health of our public finances. The social security bill is £25 billion more than planned at the outset of the Parliament. Tax credit costs have risen to subsidise the low-wage economy. Incidentally, my hon. Friends know from looking at the statistics last week that, in just one year, the number of zero-hours contracts in our society has grown by 20%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) can explain why the deficit has continued at such a level and whether he agrees that the fall in living standards has had that effect on our public finances.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to the shadow Chief Secretary for giving way. I will tell him why we are in this situation today: the destruction of the public finances by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Prime Minister. When will the shadow Chief Secretary apologise to the British people on behalf of the Labour party for having put them through this misery, which we have now amended? We are restoring the strength of the British economy and we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. That is no thanks to the shadow Chief Secretary but is thanks to this Government. Apologise.

[Chris Leslie]

I expected better than that from a knight of the realm. I thought that such partisanship would be beneath the hon. Gentleman, but no. I did not quite hear him mention those words “global banking crisis” and perhaps I might remind him of the cause of the difficulties our economy has faced. He did not answer my question about the state of our public finances today. He seems to feel content that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised that the deficit would all have been eradicated by now, has not done exactly the job he set out to do in 2010. The hon. Gentleman also did not explain why things have not turned out as the Chancellor promised.