Online Filter Bubbles: Misinformation and Disinformation

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of preventing misinformation and disinformation in online filter bubbles.

It is good to see you in the Chair and in charge of our proceedings, Sir Mark. It is also good to see the Minister in his place. He confessed gently to me beforehand that this is the first Westminster Hall debate in which he has had the honour of being a Minister. I am sure that he will mark his debut with elan.

This important issue has not had enough exposure and discussion so far in Parliament, so I am pleased to see so many colleagues present. I suspect that they have all had far too many examples than they can possibly count of not just fake news but fake science, fake medicine or online memes of one kind or another landing in their in-trays from constituents. This is not just about constituents writing to Members of Parliament; it is a much broader issue that affects the whole tenor and fabric of our democracy and public debate. It is particularly important because public debate, in these online days, happens in a far wider and more varied collection of different forums than it used to before the internet was so commonly and widely used. It is something that needs to be addressed.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this timely debate. Does he agree that the prevalence of fake news is all consuming? There was a quote put to me, as a Member of Parliament, on social media a few years ago. It was along the lines of, “In the words of Abraham Lincoln, don’t believe all you read on the internet.”

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The saying used to be, “Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers,” but it applies equally strongly in the modern digital world to everything that we read on the internet.

Fake news, or misinformation and disinformation, really matters, particularly this year. A large proportion of the democratic world will have general elections in the next 12 months. The scope for interference in those elections by malign actors, whether they are foreign states, organised criminals or people of a particular religious or political persuasion, is very strong. They try to sway public debate through fair means or foul, and if we are talking about misinformation and disinformation, that means foul means. The potential in the next 12 months for bad things to happen is very high, and that is just when it comes to democracy. That does not cover the other examples of fake news or fake science that I mentioned, such as fake medicine. Believing quack cures can lead to more deaths, more people getting the wrong kinds of medical treatments and so on. There are many different opportunities.

There is also a serious issue around radicalisation. Somebody who is fed a diet of alt-left or alt-right political views, or extremist religious views—it does not really matter what it is—can easily disappear down a rabbit hole, into an echo chamber of views where only one particular strand of opinion is put in front of them again and again. That way leads to radicalisation on a whole range of different topics, and it undermines both our society and our democracy, and science in many cases. It means that societies as a whole become much more brittle and more divided, and it is much harder for democracy to flourish.

What is misinformation and disinformation, without getting sucked into technocratic definitions? It is rather like trying to define pornography. As the famous phrase goes, “You may not be able to define it, but like a hippopotamus, you recognise it when you see it.” [Interruption.] I will ignore the heckling on my right; it will not help. There are two underlying facets to misinformation and disinformation. One is that if someone is simply making stuff up, telling lies and saying things that are factually inaccurate and false, that can easily become misinformation and disinformation. The second is when things are factually accurate and correct but really one-sided and biased. That matters too; it is extremely important, and we have long had rules for our broadcasters, to which I will return in a minute, that are designed to prevent it.

The good news is that the Online Safety Act 2023 took a few early steps to do something about factual inaccuracy, at least. It does not do a great deal—it should do more—but it takes some early steps, and it would be churlish to pretend that there is nothing there at all. I tabled a couple of early amendments to get us to think about factual inaccuracy and to work out where it came from—provenance, in the jargon—so that we could tell whether something comes from a trusted source. We ended up with some useful points, particularly duties on Ofcom relating to media literacy and making sure that people know what questions to ask when they see something on the internet and do not, as we were just hearing, necessarily believe everything they read online but ask questions about where it came from, who produced it and whether it has been altered. Ofcom has that duty now; it has not yet grown teeth and claws or started to bite but at least, in principle, that power is there and is very welcome.

There is also the advisory committee enshrined in the Act, which ought to make a difference, although precisely how will depend on how actively it flexes the muscles it has been given. Separately from the Online Safety Act, there are the national security laws about foreign interference too. There is some protection, therefore, but it is not nearly enough. The Minister’s predecessors, in what used to be the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport before it was reorganised, will say that in the early days of the Online Safety Act’s gestation, it was intended to cover misinformation and disinformation, but that was hived off and fell away at an early stage. That is an important omission, and we need to come back to it now.

I want to make a modest proposal. The Online Safety Act will start to make modest progress towards media literacy and people understanding and asking questions about factual accuracy and where something comes from when they see it on the web. It will go some way to addressing the first of the two sources of misinformation and disinformation—people telling lies, making stuff up, deepfakes of one kind or another. The sad fact is that the chances of deepfakes getting better with the advent of artificial intelligence is very high indeed so that, even if we think we can spot them now, we are probably kidding ourselves and in a year or two’s time it will be doubly, trebly or quadruply difficult to work out what is real and what is completely made up.

If we accept that at least something is in place in this country to deal with factual inaccuracy, we are still stuck with absolutely nothing, as yet, to deal with the one-sided and deeply biased presentation of factually correct narratives. I therefore want to draw a comparison, as I mentioned earlier, with what we already do and have been doing very successfully for decades in the broadcasting world, where Ofcom, through the broadcasting code, has been in charge of the duty of balance and undue prominence. That duty has very successfully said for decades that the analogue broadcasting world has to make sure that, when it presents something that is supposedly factual in a broadcast news programme, it must be balanced and must not give undue prominence to one side of the argument. That works really rather well, and has been a core part of ensuring that our public debates in this country are not sidetracked by fake news.

I suspect that every one of us here will, at various different times, have gnashed our teeth and shouted at the telly because we felt that the BBC, ITV or Sky News was presenting something in a slightly partisan way; depending on which side of the House we are on, we may have thought that the partisanship was on one side of the argument rather than the other. However, the fact remains that we all know the way they are supposed to do it and that there is some kind of redress, and there is generally an acceptance that it is the right thing to do. The duty matters not just because politicians think it is important, but because it has—very successfully, I would argue—made sure that there is a tendency towards reasoned, evidence-based consensus in British public debate, online and in broadcast news, over more than half a century.

The title of this debate is not just, “Misinformation and Disinformation”; it is about those two things in online filter bubbles. Online filter bubbles bear some quite important similarities to what broadcast news editorial room decision making has long been doing. The reason is that when we go online, we all have our own personal online filter bubble. Whether we use Google, Facebook, TikTok, all of the above, or whatever it might be, those platforms have an algorithm that says, “John Penrose likes looking at stuff to do with fishing tackle—we’re going to send him more stuff about fishing tackle.” I am not sure what the equivalent would be for the Minister; I am sure he will tell us in due course, unless he is too shy.

The algorithm works out what we have personally chosen to look at and gives us more of the same. That can also lead to radicalisation. If I start looking at things to do with Islamic jihad, it will say, “Oh! He’s interested in Islamic jihad”, and send me more and more things about Islamic jihad—or the alt-left, the alt-right, or whatever it might be. The algorithm’s decision to send people more of what they have already chosen—when it sends people things they have not chosen, but which it thinks they will like—is effectively a digital editorial decision that is, in principle, very similar to the editorial decisions going on in the Sky, ITV or BBC newsrooms, either for radio or for broadcast TV.

We need to come up with a modern, digital version of the long-established and, as I said, very successful principle of the duty of balance and undue prominence and apply it to the modern, digital world. Then, if I started looking at Islamic jihad, and I got sent more and more things about Islamic jihad, as I saw more and more things about Islamic jihad, the algorithm that was creating my personal filter bubble would start sending me things saying, “You do know that there is an alternative here? You do know that there is another side of this argument? You do know that the world is not just this, and this particular echo chamber—this rabbit hole of radicalisation that you are enthusiastically burrowing your way down—may actually be exactly that? You need to understand that there is more to it.” That is something that happens to all of us all the time in the old, analogue world, but does not happen in the digital world. I would argue that it is one of the reasons that many of us here, across the political spectrum, are so worried about the divisive nature of the online world and the rising levels of disrespect and potential incitement of violence there.

I plan to do something rather unusual for politicians and stop talking very soon, because I hope that this has served as a proposal for colleagues to consider. It is something that would need cross-party consensus behind it in order to be taken forward, and there may be better ways of doing it, but I am absolutely certain that we do not have anything in our legal arsenal in this area at the moment. I would argue that we need to act quite promptly. As I have said, the stakes in the next 12 months democratically are very high, but the stakes have been very high in other areas, such as medical disinformation, for a very long time because we have just come through a pandemic. The scope for damage—to our society, to our health and to our entire way of life—is very high.

Therefore, I hope that colleagues will consider what I have said, and if they have a better answer I am all ears and I would be absolutely delighted to hear it. This is a very early stage in the political debate about this issue, but we cannot carry on not having a political debate about it; we cannot carry on not addressing this central issue. So, I am glad that everybody is here today and I hope that we will all go forth and tell our political friends and neighbours that this issue is important and that they need to address it as well. And as I say, if people have better solutions than the one that I have just politely proffered, then my pen is poised and I look forward to taking notes.

Draft Historical Abuse Bill (Northern Ireland)

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date. The Bill will have to make its way through Parliament—through this Chamber and the one at the other end of the corridor—and there will be clarity at that point about when the payments scheme should be able to start making payments. I suspect that the appetite for a leisurely process will be very thin. I expect that people will want to crack on with this and it is right that we should want to. We would therefore want to start making preparations as soon as the civil servants constitutionally can—as soon as the direction that Parliament will go is clear—and at that point, we can start doing the preparations at an early stage, as I am sure everybody will want them to.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister alluded to the reasons why the legislation cannot proceed today or tomorrow. Setting that to one side, will he give an undertaking that the legislation will be placed before the House on the first day back in September—we have only two weeks back here then—that payments will be made as soon as possible thereafter, and that the period between now and then will be usefully used to see what institutions will pay where the abuse occurred?

[John Penrose]

I would love to be able to make the commitments exactly as the hon. Gentleman asks, but I am afraid that I cannot, simply because—as I said in response to earlier questions about tempting me into a constitutional impropriety—doing so would bind the hands of the incoming, new Administration. It is clear, however, that there is widespread appetite to move fast on this. This is an important issue, but of course it is not the only important one—Brexit is looming, and so on—so other things will be making bids for parliamentary time as well. However, Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the widespread support for prompt movement. I therefore hope that the comments from the hon. Gentleman and others will have struck home.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

If the hon. Lady will possess her soul in patience, I will come to that important point later; I want to take matters in the order in which they arose in the debate, but I will come to that—I am sure that she will pull me up if I do not.

I hope that a proper oral statement is an acceptable alternative to appropriating large swathes of parliamentary time to debate individual issues and reports separately.

On new clause 1, which proposes regulations for introducing same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland, I should start by saying that there are fiercely held and strongly principled views on both sides of the issue, as we have heard during the debate. Whether we are in favour of or against same-sex marriage, and whether we believe that devolution should trump human rights, or that human rights should trump devolution, I hope that we can all agree that this is a significant legislative proposal, in terms of its importance and complexity, and that therefore it must not be delivered without careful consideration and analysis of whether we are getting it right.

Personally, on a free-vote issue, I appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is trying to achieve, and I appreciate that many people in Northern Ireland are tired of waiting for their rights to be recognised on an equal footing with those of friends, family and neighbours across the rest of the UK. However, I also appreciate that that view is not universally held across Northern Ireland, as outlined by numerous Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The Minister talks about human rights versus the devolution settlement. Does he agree that what came across in the debate, and hopefully it will be held not just here in Great Britain but in Northern Ireland, is that it is the careful selection and cherry-picking of some human rights issues but not others that causes the frustration?

[John Penrose]

Yes, I absolutely accept that there is great concern that by creating one list of amendments today we will, by omission, leave out some very important things indeed. I am afraid that is inherent in the frustration, which I referred to at the start of my remarks, about the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat for well over two years now. I am afraid that frustration will only grow as that period lengthens. That is why the original purpose of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained yesterday on Second Reading, is very simply to give a little more time for the Stormont talks to bear fruit. While those talks still have breath and life in them, I hope that everybody here will support that opportunity and wish the talks well.

Although I appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Member for St Helens North is trying to achieve, I must at the same time issue a note of warning to anybody considering voting for it. It is a technical note of warning, rather than one of principle, because the principles have been debated extensively during our discussions this afternoon—because this is a free-vote issue, the Government will not be putting across a principled view, one way or another. The technical point, which needs to be made to ensure that everyone is aware, is that, due to the current drafting of new clause 1, the changes that would need to occur before the first same-sex couple could legally marry in Northern Ireland are probably not achievable, just as a practical matter, by October. There are many policy questions to be worked through that have not yet been properly considered for the Northern Ireland-specific context, which might require a different response from the one in England, Wales and Scotland.

That applies to matters such as pensions, the conversion of civil partnerships, gender recognition—we have heard many of those points made in contributions this afternoon—protecting the rights to freedom of religion and expression, and allowing religious institutions via opt-in, rather than compelling them, to engage in and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. I would issue a technical warning to colleagues who are considering supporting the new clause in principle. Whether Members agree with it or not, and however they balance the competing claims of devolution and broader human rights, they should bear in mind the fact that it may need substantial further work before it can achieve its intended effect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Employment levels are improving, as the Minister has said, but does he agree that we need to attract above-average salary levels now to try to grow the economy? In that respect, the Heathrow logistics hub is an excellent project. Will he join me in pressing and persuading those behind the hub to look at Ballykelly, which is a very attractive environment?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is a doughty battler for his constituents and for his constituency. I am sure that those involved will have heard his words and will be considering them carefully, but he is right about that and many other examples of important local investment in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend will know that tourism is a devolved matter, which is yet another reason for the Stormont Executive to reform quickly. I also urge businesses to use the event as a huge marketing opportunity. Portrush will be a target-rich environment for them, full of potential customers, suppliers and contacts for all sectors of Northern Ireland’s economy—not just tourism. I am sure they will grab it with both hands.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My right hon. Friend raises a creative potential legal solution, which he discussed in an Adjournment debate two weeks ago. The whole House will know that the Attorney General is currently involved in detailed negotiations on how to modify the backstop in line with Parliament’s wishes. Ultimately, it must be for him to judge whether my right hon. Friend’s proposal gets him closer to a legally effective solution that will allow him to change his advice. I will make sure that the Attorney General is aware of the proposal so that he can incorporate it if it is worth while.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

From the Minister’s discussions with ministerial colleagues, can he indicate whether they are indicating to him that, at this very late stage in our discussions with the European Union, a sliver of light is beginning to emerge that the EU understands the need for a fundamental change to the backstop?

[John Penrose]

I suspect that is well above my pay grade. I am sure we would all want to hear what the Attorney General and the Prime Minister have to say when it comes to the meaningful vote next Tuesday.

Low-Cost housing

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered low cost housing.

It is good to have you looking after us this morning, Mrs Gillan. It is also good to see the departmental Whip in her place—she is a fully-fledged Minister in her own right anyway. As a former Whip, I feel it is always good to see a Whip temporarily released from the office’s vow of omerta and allowed to show their knowledge of the area they cover for the Whips Office.

Housing, whether rent or mortgage payments, is probably the single biggest monthly bill that most of us face and because we have not, as a country, built enough new houses for decades, no matter who has been in Government, the costs have been getting steadily steeper. The result is less living space, longer commutes, less cash left over at the end of each month for other things and, overall, a lower quality of life for all of us. We need to increase the number of new homes that are built and yesterday’s welcome White Paper contains some important steps towards that goal. Most important, from my point of view, were the ideas to make it easier to build up, not out, in urban areas—greater housing density, in the jargon.

Anyone walking around most British town centres, passing train stations or high street shops, should look upwards. The chances are that they will mostly see fresh air—skyline. British towns and cities are some of the most low-rise in Europe, which seems bonkers for a country that is also one of the most crowded. Much of this is self-inflicted. For many Brits taller buildings create instant mental images of 1960s brutalist concrete tower blocks on sink estates—the backdrops for gritty dramas of social decay from left-wing film auteurs. This mental trope has had some real-world consequences for the country too because it means that we are, as a society, instinctively resistant to anyone who proposes building upwards. So let me sing a fierce anthem of praise for taller buildings—not necessarily brutalist tower blocks, although they have their admirers, but for elegant, well-proportioned apartment blocks and terraces where the design stands the test of time.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for interrupting him as he gets to the chorus of his eloquent speech. He talks about the need to build upwards. Does he agree—he has alluded to the ’60s-style connotations that building upwards has for many people—that we need to have planning forethought in terms of what buildings will be like in 20 or 30 years’ time so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1950s and 1960s?

UK Sovereign Wealth Fund

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[John Penrose]

I have not included in my paper any proposal to take existing Government assets and pour them into the sovereign wealth fund, to give it a kick-start. It would be possible, and there are parallels. The previous Chancellor floated the idea of a regional shale gas sovereign wealth fund, based on the proceeds from fracking. A number of Government assets could be added to any sovereign wealth fund, though in my paper, I do not propose that they should be, but there are respectable parallels. For example, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is based on the proceeds of its North sea oil. That is certainly an option to consider. I am not proposing it here, but it is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility. There are very respectable parallels and antecedents elsewhere in the world.

We need a sovereign wealth fund to pay for what we owe in our pensions and benefits system. It would give the scheme the same strong financial foundations as other occupational pension schemes in the UK for the first time in our country’s history. Like those other schemes, it should be managed through a fully independent board—in this case, a new stand-alone national insurance trust with a heavyweight board of trustees, like that of the Bank of England, to prevent political meddling.

Building the fund is rather like repaying a mortgage or saving for a pension: we have to put a little aside every month for a very long time. We would start by creating a new national debt charge, carved out of income tax, to pay the interest on the national debt, currently projected to be just over 2% of GDP by 2021. It would be set as a percentage of GDP and, as the economy grew, any surplus would be used to build up the fund. The process needs to take a long time—several generations—so that the costs do not all fall unfairly on current taxpayers. It is urgent too, because we need to start soon. There will be a brief moment, when the Government’s budget reaches balance in the next Parliament, when we could set the fund up, but old, bad habits die hard. As soon as there is a hint, a sniff, of a surplus, there will be dozens—hundreds—of proposals for tax cuts or extra spending from both sides of the House. Many of them will be excellent ideas, but we must ensure that we do not miss the golden opportunity to set the fund up at that moment, when we can, before it is too late and any surplus money is earmarked for other things.

We must ensure that all the effort and sacrifice of getting the budget in balance is not wasted. A balanced budget cannot be just a one-off episode of fiscal sobriety, in which our rock ’n’ roll economy detoxes for a few months before hitting the party scene again. We need a long-term commitment to clean living—to the fundamental rebalancing of our economy that the sovereign wealth fund would deliver.

Creating the fund would rebalance our economy; build stronger foundations, so that we invest more for the long term; deliver faster growth and extra jobs, so that we could afford stronger and better public services; insulate us against the next economic shock, such as the latest banking crisis; make us less dependent on foreign investors once Brexit is complete; build our international heft around the world; and answer some of those fundamental questions about the kind of country that we want to be after we leave the EU.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of debate. I agree with him about the long-term thinking that will be required to create a sovereign wealth fund. Does he agree with me that successive Governments need to commit to the promotion of a wealth fund? Then the beneficiaries throughout the United Kingdom will support it, because they will see tangible benefits accruing from it.

[John Penrose]

That is a crucial point. As I said, we need to start building the fund soon. It is an urgent priority that we should begin it when the budget hits balance, but once we have begun, we need to save a little for a very long time, and that needs to last over several generations, so that the burden of setting the thing up does not fall unfairly on the current generation of taxpayers. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: for it to be stable over such a long time, it needs to be politically stable. That means two things. First, I hope that it has cross-party consensus behind it, so that it will have some degree of political longevity; secondly, it will need institutional bulwarks to prevent Chancellors of whichever party, when they are under pressure—facing a general election or a cyclical recession—from interfering, meddling or trying to get their sticky fingers on the money. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the fund will need very strong institutional safeguards around it. Those are laid out in some detail in my paper. I did not plan to go into huge detail about that here. I am happy to, if anyone wants me to, but I thought that I would spare everyone the detail at this stage, simply because of pressure of time and because other hon. Members want to add their thoughts.

If we could do what I propose, we would be a fairer, more generationally just country, because we would not be saddling our children and grandchildren with the bills for our lifestyle. We would be more socially just, because low and high taxpayers would all own the same personal stake in the fund that underpins their state pension and benefit payments.

I hope that all of us in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Minister, will deal with three issues. First, can we all agree that rebalancing our economy is necessary and important? A number of Members have suggested in interventions that there may be consensus on that, but it would be good to get that on the record from hon. Members on both sides of the House if we can. Secondly, can we all acknowledge that once we have the budget in balance, reducing the bits of our national debt that we happen to have issued as Government bonds will not be enough to achieve rebalancing on its own? Thirdly, can we all accept that a sovereign wealth fund to underpin the state pension and benefit system is at least one valid way of solving the deeply ingrained imbalances and problems in our nation’s economy and finances, even if there may be other ways as well?

Think of it: if we can agree on some or all of those issues, cross-party, we could launch a new Britain—a socially just, generationally just, asset-owning democracy on a scale that no other developed nation could match. The post-war Governments created new institutions such as the NHS and the welfare state, which had little relevance to rebuilding homes and cities damaged in the war, but everything to do with forging a new society and nation. The post-Brexit Government is our generation’s chance to do the same—to leave a mark, to mould and weld our fractured society into a new and better shape. This will be a brief political moment in which, if we grasp it without fear, whether we are from the political left or right, we can create a legacy for our children and grandchildren to remember us by with pride, so let us think big and long term, and let us do this together.

EU Referendum: Timing

Debate between John Penrose and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I am coming to that point. I hope that I shall be able to respond to it adequately, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come back to me if I do not.

It is important for those issues to be debated fully and separately, because, as we have just heard, 5 May this year will be a very busy time at the ballot boxes. I need mention only a few of the votes that will be held then: votes for the Mayor of London, for police and crime commissioners, and for devolved legislatures in Stormont, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

I am not arguing, as some do, that it is impossible to hold more than one election in the same place and on the same day.  The fact that local council elections took place at the same time as the general election in many parts of the country last May without democracy collapsing in a heap shows that voters, and election administrators, are perfectly capable of handling such a situation comfortably. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), everyone is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, and I think that the right hon. Member for Belfast North made it clear that that was not the main source of his concern.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I accept what the Minister has said, but does he agree that this particular referendum will absorb the minds and hearts of people throughout the United Kingdom as no referendum has for 40 years, and must therefore be unencumbered by any other electoral considerations?

[John Penrose]

I agree with part of that. The important point is that the overlap needs to be dealt with extremely carefully. We must not attempt to run two polls at the same time, but an overlap is perfectly feasible provided that we accept a gap of a minimum of six weeks between them. I remind the House that six weeks is the full length of a general election campaign during which we decide who is to govern the country.