European Union (Referendum) Bill

Huw Irranca-Davies Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

It is a rather semantic point. I feel that we are leading the House down something of an angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead diversion, so we should probably move on to more substantial issues. The substantial point that I was trying to make before being entertainingly diverted by the hon. Gentleman was that we could end up in a situation in which the people of Gibraltar voted to remain in the European Union, but were effectively expelled from it by virtue of a United Kingdom referendum. We can leave the debate about the precise nature of Gibraltar’s detachment from the United Kingdom for another time.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

I am reluctant to take another intervention on this point, because the Members behind me will be getting frustrated, but I will give way.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My intervention is on a different point. Is not a more powerful argument in support of the new clause that there is a strong argument to make to Gibraltarians that their interests are very well served within the EU, particularly because of the importance of the EU to international global treaties on maritime issues, fisheries issues and so on? That is the strong argument that we should make if the new clause is to be passed.

[Martin Horwood]

That was a much more constructive intervention and it was typically well made by the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that there is a strong case for Gibraltar to remain within the European Union, as there is for the United Kingdom to remain within it, not only because of the issues that he mentioned, but because of the fight against cross-border crime and terrorism and a range of other issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is drawing me into commenting on the Scottish referendum, which is rather dangerous territory, so I will leave it at saying that I think that votes should be extended to 16-year-olds.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Amendment 44 does not say that we should extend the vote to 16 to18-year-olds in order that they can vote for staying in the European Union. It would give them the franchise. The jury is out on whether they would vote in or out, but it is important that they have a say in the future because it is their future.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman again makes a good point. It is the future of those young people that we are debating. This issue is even more important in respect of this referendum than in respect of the wider franchise. In elections, people can change their mind after five years and kick out the Government. This decision will last a generation. The more young people we can involve in the decision, the better.

I will draw my remarks to a close. Important issues are finally being tackled in the amendments that relate to Gibraltar, but they do leave questions unanswered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. In the previous Parliament, we carried out a major inquiry on the overseas territories. They are all different. Some of them are completely depopulated, some have few people, such as the Pitcairn Islands, which I think have 56 or 57 people, and others, such as the Falkland Islands, have a long-standing British population. The people of the Falkland Islands have expressed their self-determination in a vote, but they still suffer serious threats from Argentina.

Gibraltar still has a problem with regard to Spain, which is why new clause 1 is important. The point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham is valid, because if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, what would happen to the efforts of the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to get the European Commission President to intervene when Spain puts pressure on Gibraltar? If we were on an exit path or had already left the EU, presumably the Commission would not try to help the citizens of Gibraltar when they were suffering blockades, huge queues and all the other problems that have arisen in recent months. I have not yet mentioned the dispute that has arisen over territorial waters, concrete blocks and fishing access.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out his lucid argument. Although I support new clause 1 and many of the amendments in the group, we must consider territories that rely not only on the UK’s voice but, in a diverse and asymmetric way, on the EU’s voice. I am thinking of my area of expertise, which is fisheries, maritime issues and so on. Those territories’ voices will not be heard, and none of the amendments will enable that to happen. We must consider how their voice can be heard in any future vote to leave the EU.

[Mike Gapes]

I agree, which was why I tabled a series of amendments relating to the overseas territories. We must also consider Crown dependencies such as Guernsey and Jersey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are huge implications for the economy and our people should we leave the EU. However, the debate is on the Bill and not the wider issues, so I will not be drawn down that path.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend tickled me when he described London as the fifth largest French city—he must not forget the London Welsh contingent. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has turned around from the Front Bench to express sympathy. On a serious point, the forensic analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) applies and the anomalies he exposes make me wonder whether introducing a referendum in the shape of a private Member’s Bill—hon. Members have proposed right-minded amendments—has given the Electoral Commission sufficient time to look at the Bill in detail and raise similar concerns.

[Mike Gapes]

We will discuss the Electoral Commission’s report on the wording of the question when we speak to another group of amendments. The commission clearly takes a different view from the Government on the question, but that issue is not for this group of amendments. I do not know about the commission’s detailed views on the issues I am discussing, so I will not comment on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am replying to the hon. Member for Ilford South. He proposed amendments that seek to—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. From the start of the debate, I have listened intently to every word. I believe that perhaps inadvertently the Government Front-Bench spokesman has misrepresented the position of our Front-Bench team. However, he is refusing to give way. Is there any recourse for our Front-Bench team to clarify a point not only of debate but of accuracy?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I get the gist. It is not a point of order. The Minister has the Floor and is responsible for what he says to the House. Opposition Front Benchers will get their opportunity to speak in the debate. If the Minister does not wish to give way, that is a matter for him. The normal courtesies are that Members give way at some point, but they do not have to do so repeatedly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is clairvoyant in picking up that ambience from the Minister for Europe. I hope that we will hear more from hon. Members who are willing to comment on these issues later in the debate.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I wonder what bearing the fairly recent debate and vote that the House had on prisoners’ entitlements to vote will have on the amendment. In the light of the detailed way in which my hon. Friend has explained the difference between referendums and other elections, does that vote have a bearing on whether the amendment should or should not be put before the House?

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the issues that must accompany the referendum debate is the cost and potential cost to the taxpayer. That is why we need a definitive opinion from the UK Government and the relevant Law Officer about whether the ruling in the Polish case in 2008 would apply to this referendum. If it did, that would mean that there would be no money incurred, potentially, through legal disputes raised by prisoners who were not given the right to vote. That is why we need guidance from the Attorney-General and from the promoter of the Bill on the legal position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Prime Minister will grace us with his presence later, given his keen interest in the Bill.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

A crucial point is the cost of compensation resulting from prisoners mounting challenges under the legislation. Would my hon. Friend be willing to give way if the promoter of the Bill—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is quite enough. If the promoter of the Bill wishes to take part in the debate, he will indicate that in the normal way. I do not require Mr Bain to comment on that. I would like him to speak to his amendment and the other amendments that we are discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In fact, in having discussed Crown dependencies, overseas territories and so on, we can look at some of those places, such as the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, for examples of where 16 to 18-year-olds can vote. If we look close to home, we can learn some lessons.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I have not looked at those examples, because I have been spending so much time reading through the Committee proceedings on the Bill. However, I accept that there are other good examples to point to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

I am somewhat perplexed. The Conservative party has for decades, if not centuries, marketed itself as the party of business, but we now find Conservative Members in complete opposition to what the CBI is saying is in the best economic interests of this country. I think that most people will find that staggering.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bain]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It is very good to make my first intervention under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will comply with your very helpful guidance.

I suggest that my hon. Friend’s amendment and the other amendments to do with the timing of a vote are a distraction, because the timing is about what is politically more advantageous. The point is that the National Farmers Union and the Food and Drink Federation, which represents the biggest manufacturing sector in this country, have echoed the CBI’s words. For many people, it is not about timing—it is about getting out of the EU.

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. As a specialist in the common agricultural policy and the needs of our rural economy, he knows that it is incumbent on the Government to spell out the consequences of leaving the European Union—what a yes vote in the referendum would mean and what a no vote would mean.

It is intriguing that the CBI, having requested more information and explored the potential consequences of a vote to leave the European Union, concluded:

“While the UK could certainly survive outside the EU, none of the alternatives suggested offers a clear path to an improved balance of advantages and disadvantages or greater influence.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

It is interesting to explain the purpose behind these amendments, and I can best do so by contrasting the referendum proposed in this Bill with the referendum that was held in 1975, when two White Papers were issued on the terms of the renegotiation between the United Kingdom and our European partners. That was prior to the Bill’s publication and its being presented to Parliament. When Parliament was asked on that occasion to consider legislation to establish a referendum, it knew the full details of the implications of a no vote and, indeed, a yes vote for the electorate. That is what my amendments seek to put into the Bill, because, as drafted, it simply does not achieve that aim.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

In probing amendment 68, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he envisages consulting organisations such as the Farmers Union of Wales, NFU Cymru and the National Farmers Union in Scotland and in England? That would be important because of their specific interests in the European Union and because they have expressed their clear desire not to leave.

[Mr Bain]

That is correct and I agree with my hon. Friend in his ambition to make sure that when the Government produce proper documents to accompany any referendum, they take into account the interests of farmers and the rural economy. Leaving the EU would have profound implications for this country’s farming industry.

[Mr Bain]

If I may point out some of the problems with the hon. Gentleman’s argument, the reason for my amendments is that when a similar referendum was held in 1975, this House had had the benefit of two White Papers, a full debate and a full consultation. None of that has accompanied this Bill. It is because the interests of the farming industry, exporters and workers—whose rights at work might be diminished by the renegotiations—have not been considered that we should put the amendments in the Bill. The Government need to consult on the real interests of this country, not simply have an internal conversation within the Conservative party.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Perhaps I have a helpful suggestion with regard to amendment 68. When Wales held a referendum on the Government of Wales Act 2006, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) pulled together wider civic society. A similar action with regard to this Bill would particularly help Wales, which benefits to the tune of roughly £40 of surplus per head as a result of farming and structural funds. We could pull voices together if the amendment is agreed to.

[Mr Bain]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

I want to further explain the reasons for and rationale behind my amendments by examining the context of the referendum that will take place on these islands, in Scotland, next year. I may have my differences with the UK Government, but I entirely agree with the way in which they have published a series of detailed, factual accounts looking at the consequences for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom of Scotland’s leaving the UK. They have explored the consequences for macro-economic policy and the impact on trade, financial services and business. The publications have been produced by the Government even before the Scottish Parliament has fully passed its legislation to establish the question for next year’s referendum. If that process is good enough for the referendum in Scotland, it should be good enough for any referendum that the Bill’s promoter and the Government are keen to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie]

I will not give way any more, because I am conscious that the Opposition want to talk out the Bill, and I do not want to be part of that process.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition are trying to talk out the Bill, but interventions are being made by Government Members. May I, through your good offices, ask him to reconsider?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I do, and I am about to make that point.

As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, I am a pro-European, but I am also a critical one. That is why amendments 77, 78 and 68 and new schedule 2 are important. I am not a Europhile who cannot see that the EU needs reform or who wants integration at all costs. I am a practical European. I voted yes in the 1975 referendum but, as an MP in 1992, I voted no in the House to the Maastricht treaty—with the hon. Gentleman, among others—because I did not think the foundations on which the euro was erected were the right ones. Time has probably proved that view correct.

As Europe Minister over a decade ago, I was intensely frustrated with what I call the Brussels bubble, which is mainly inhabited by Commission officials, small-country Ministers and European parliamentarians. It exists in a world of its own, forming an elite and making the EU increasingly unpopular among its citizens. But—and this is the point of a proper consultation—none of this means that we should pull out, any more than Scottish frustrations with the Westminster bubble mean that Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom, or voters’ frustrations with all the major political parties, including Labour and Conservative, mean that they should give up on parliamentary democracy.

We need systematic consultation with a report that Parliament can properly assess before deciding how to proceed. I am sure that the Royal British Legion, if consulted, would have something to say. Just imagine if, at the end of the second world war, Monnet and others had concluded that 80 years of bitter Franco-German hatred made European unity impossible.

The following 60 years of Franco-German reconciliation and EU achievement would never have occurred. That is a matter that organisations, particularly veterans organisations, should be properly consulted upon, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2. It is incumbent on our generation to find the means to take Europe forward on the global stage, not to retreat into reactionary isolationism.

Amendment 68, like new schedule 2, would place an obligation on the Government to consult on all these matters. It is essential that we do so. The consultation would also be an opportunity to recognise that Europe’s first achievement was to remove the internal tariff barriers that held back growth and prosperity across the whole continent, including Britain. We accepted that, especially with globalisation, our interests were best served by bringing down barriers, which enabled Europe to act as one unit in trade and become a more powerful, if as yet imperfect, force for trade liberalisation under internationally agreed common rules. Again, we could be talking to the business sector and exporters about that, if the Government had the courage. It makes me wonder why they do not. Have they got a reason to be worried about a proper consultation?

Consultation under these amendments would also give us the opportunity to remind everybody—in particular, it would give the older generation a chance to remind younger citizens voting in this referendum, if it happens—that Europe’s success in reconciling once-bitter foes established and consolidated peace and democracy across the EU. It is important that there be proper consultation, that this be assessed and that Parliament have a chance to reflect upon it. For example, EU enlargement, first to Greece, Spain and Portugal—countries that until relatively recently were fascist dictatorships—and now to former communist states in central and eastern Europe that were also under a form of dictatorship, has amply shown how the zone of stability, democracy and prosperity can be extended right across a continent on which more wars have been fought over the centuries than in any other part of the world.

Similarly, with proper consultation—my amendment 78 suggests a minimum of 28 weeks—we could assess the impact of our being part of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and of the continuing accession negotiations that the EU is conducting with Turkey. I believe it essential that those negotiations succeed, because Turkey is a vital bridge between Europe and Asia, west and east, Christianity and Islam. If we enter a referendum campaign in the heat and din of a three-week in/out squabble, none of these issues will be revealed, and that is why consultation is essential.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that consultation would also allow light to be shone on the work of the Centre for European Reform, which only this month produced 35 recommendations that were very much in line with his comments and none of which, they argued, needed our exit from the EU?

[Mr Hain]

Indeed, I think the CER does some very good work, and again I hope that under sub-paragraph (j) it will be properly consulted by the Government. It is a serious analyst. By the way, Eurosceptic organisations should be consulted as well under that sub-paragraph.

A series of other organisations, some of them specified in the new schedule, including the Trades Union Congress, should be consulted, so that people can understand that the EU has brought with it policies to extend social, environmental and consumer rights. Without those, and despite the EU’s faults, we would not have as fair a society as we do today. Organisations such as Citizens Advice and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, specified in new schedule 2, could have their say as well.

Consultation would provide another opportunity to recognise that Europe has its faults but that the remedy is to get in there and argue for a stronger reformed Europe, not for Britain to turn its back and walk away. Although it has become fashionable to criticise Euroland, a consultation would reveal that its productivity per hour worked is far higher than Britain’s. The work force are, sadly, more highly skilled, and public services such as health and transport are superior. Under new schedule 2, whether under sub-paragraph (g) or others, organisations such as the National Council of Voluntary Organisations would be able to express their view and say whether they agree with that assessment.

Consultation would afford another opportunity. The continentals probably have something to learn from our better record on employability and our more flexible market. Equally, it would reveal that we need to acknowledge that our employees are far less protected and subject to much greater job insecurity than those on the continent. Consultation with the TUC and other organisations, including the citizens advice bureaux, would reveal the high social costs of the inferior rights and job security which, sadly, exist in Britain.