Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall speak to amendment 21 and new clauses 8 and 13. I will try to be disciplined, as the Minister was, by keeping my remarks as brief as possible, but I would state that while many of us feel that we have seen some progress in terms of transparency for overseas territories, we need a much broader programme of reform so that we stamp out dirty money from the British financial system.

While the Minister referred to amendment 21, he failed to grasp its significance and intention. As with other Brexit-related Bills, the Opposition have many concerns about the wide-ranging powers that this Bill gives to Ministers, and in particular the way in which it gives Ministers the ability to amend, repeal or revoke legislation through regulations without appropriate scrutiny. We frequently cited Lord Judge in Committee, but it is appropriate that I do so one last time in this Chamber. He was very clear about the dangers of this power. As he said, it gives Ministers

“‘regulation-making powers for this, that and the other’”.

He is a very learned person and, as he put it,

“the secondary will override the primary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 718-19.]

I do not think that many Government Members could disagree with that. Clearly this is an excessive power. It is not justified by the need for speed, for reasons that were well rehearsed in Committee.

The Government have yet again today maintained that these powers are for the sole purpose of combating money laundering and maintaining a sanctions regime, but we heard just a few moments ago that these issues can be highly contentious. There can be different points of view within our parliamentary system on these matters, and that must be reflected in an appropriately inclusive parliamentary procedure.

The Committee advocated by Her Majesty’s Opposition is necessary precisely because the European Scrutiny Committee will not be operating in its same form after we leave the EU, and our sanctions policy will not be derived from the EU once we have left. That is surely the whole point, so we will need another body that can conduct that scrutiny. We will not want Members turning up on an ad hoc basis to a secondary legislation Committee ill briefed, ill prepared and not expert about the topics at hand. That is why we are making our call, and the arguments for such a body are self-explanatory.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we do take the view that after Brexit there should be a Committee that can continue to keep an eye on what is happening in the EU, because that will still be important and very relevant to what happens in Britain.

[Anneliese Dodds]

And that Committee has been able to develop its expertise around some very complex issues. We will not have such expertise in the future without the kind of Committee that we are advocating. It will be spread across a range of Departments, as is the case with our sanctions, so there is a need for a group in which expertise can be built up among Members. Surely that is enormously important.

As the Minister said, new clause 8 would bring forward the timetable for introducing a public register for foreign-owned property in the UK, but it would do so only in relation to the Government’s current proposals. It would actually be behind the initial timetable that we were given by the Government for introducing such a register, according to which we should have seen developments last month, given that today is 1 May. I will not rehearse all the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West).

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

Thank you for letting me speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting to get in, so it is a real privilege to have the opportunity to bring up the rear of the debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for her steadfast work on this Bill. I also thank other Members across the House. In particular, we heard an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who spoke about SLPs and the negative impact—the devastating impact—they have had across the UK. I recently met a Moldovan human rights lawyer at the Council of Europe. Many Members will be familiar with the nefarious activities of the Moldovan Government and certain oligarchs. She—I will not name her—has experienced huge tragedy in her life, being separated from her young son in trying to fight the Government, who are using an SLP to launder money and are engaged in criminal activities.

The point about reputation is really important, not just for Scotland but for the rest of the UK. The Scottish name is being used, and misused, through a piece of legislation. By and large, those who use SLPs are doing so for legitimate reasons, but a few are spoiling it for the many. SLPs are increasingly being abused by money launderers because of their unique characteristics. The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the Russian laundromat case, which extracted £16 billion out of Russia between 2010 and 2014. There were 114 SLPs in the laundromat, two of which were core laundering vehicles. Progate Solutions no longer exists—the Sarajevo-based Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project uncovered that company and highlighted its activities—but it is still being used to launder money. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who has done a lot of work on this, described there being an “explosion” of SLPs. In terms of the statistics, 82% of all SLPs registered at the end of 2016 and 70% of SLPs incorporated during this period are registered at just 10 addresses.

Getting to the core of the issue of transparency, this is about how business is being done now. We look at gender pay reporting and the impact that that has had on business in this country. That is a move forward. It was interesting to hear some Conservative Members talking about resources for us to have the power to investigate these companies. Our very limited and stretched public resources are being used so that our trained taskforces can investigate them. If we bring about a more transparent system and more transparent laws, our vital resources can be directed towards other crimes to protect our citizens. This is fundamentally about protecting our citizens across the UK.

With regard to Companies House, it is important to put it on record that I do not think anybody would want to criticise the staff or the job that they do, but what has happened to some consumers cannot be right. I have had constituency cases where people have bought services or goods, the company has gone bust, and they are left with nothing—neither their money back nor the items. A constituent of mine followed the individuals concerned through their registration in Companies House, and discovered that they had set up a new company and started trading again within a few weeks. She was told by the police that there was nothing that she could do because this was an entirely legitimate practice. It cannot be right that people are allowed to do that. That is why we feel that new clause 2 is so important.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We have heard from earlier speakers that Companies House is desperately under-resourced, with a small number of staff. Is under-staffing a body not a simple way to make it ineffectual? It should have many more staff.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. It is also important to note the point made earlier about how difficult it was to make Companies House bigger or give it more resources or a greater remit. That seems bizarre. I sat on the Public Bill Committee on the Enterprise Bill, in which the Government, in a welcome move, introduced the Small Business Commissioner, which involved setting up a whole new organisation with new resources. The failings of Companies House, to my mind, will work against the Small Business Commissioner and give it more work.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that point. Companies House needs more resource and better oversight. Companies that are not doing business properly and going about their business in the right way are surely a threat to good businesspeople across the UK. If the Government will not support new clause 2, it would be interesting to hear why.

The Panama and Paradise papers have been mentioned a number of times. We know from them that the Odessa oil mafia controls a number of British Virgin Islands companies collectively known as the Rubicon Group. One of those individuals controlled a number of BVI companies without officially declaring them, and that group owns at least eight high-end London properties worth tens of millions of pounds. The secrecy afforded to those individuals, who have questionable sources of income, has allowed them to hide their identities and their wealth.

In the point I made earlier to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), I was not criticising the Labour party in any way. I was trying to get across that after the tragedy of Grenfell and given the housing crisis, the rise in homelessness and the fact that these kinds of people own 40,000 properties across London—that is four fifths of my Livingston constituency—and more than 86,000 across England and Wales, we surely face a huge issue and a massive challenge. If we want to tackle the housing crisis, this is how to do it. The Government should be doing something about it, rather than standing by and saying that we already have the powers, when we clearly do not.

I commend the Government for new clause 6, which is an excellent and positive move. However, if the Prime Minister was really serious when she took office about governing for all the people of the UK, there is a great gulf still to cross. There are some serious and important amendments tabled by Members across the Chamber that the Government could put their support behind and in doing so make a real difference to our citizens.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Retained EU rights

‘(1) If and to the extent that anything in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 would, in the absence of this section, prevent any power within subsection (2) from being exercised so as to modify anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 of that Act (saving for certain rights etc), it does not prevent that power from being so exercised.

(2) The following powers fall within this subsection—

(a) any power conferred by this Act, or by regulations under this Act, on a Minister of the Crown within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (however that power is expressed);

(b) any power conferred by regulations under Schedule 2 on a supervisory authority.

(3) In this section “modify” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause is consequential on government amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and makes clear that any restrictions in that Bill on the modification of retained EU law do not prevent powers under this Bill (for example, powers to impose an asset-freeze or immigration sanction) from being exercised in cases where their exercise will interfere with a retained right that a person would otherwise have under clause 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

Enforcement: goods etc on ships

‘(1) The provision that may be made by virtue of section 17(2) (enforcement of prohibitions or requirements) includes provision as to the powers and duties of prescribed persons in relation to—

(a) British ships in foreign waters or international waters,

(b) ships without nationality in international waters, and

(c) foreign ships in international waters.

(2) Regulations may make provision by virtue of this section only for the purpose of enforcing relevant prohibitions or requirements.

(3) A prohibition or requirement is a “relevant prohibition or requirement” for the purposes of this section if it is—

(a) a prohibition or requirement specified by the regulations which is imposed by regulations for a purpose mentioned in any of paragraphs 2 to 7, 15(a), (b) or (c) or 16(a) of Schedule 1, or

(b) a prohibition or requirement imposed by a condition of a licence or direction issued by virtue of section 15 in relation to a prohibition or requirement mentioned in paragraph (a).

(4) The powers that may be conferred by virtue of this section include powers to—

(a) stop a ship;

(b) board a ship;

(c) require any person found on a ship boarded by virtue of this section to provide information or produce documents;

(d) inspect and copy such documents or information;

(e) stop any person found on such a ship and search that person for—

(i) prohibited goods, or

(ii) any thing that might be used to cause physical injury or damage to property or to endanger the safety of any ship;

(f) search a ship boarded by virtue of this section, or any thing found on such a ship (including cargo), for prohibited goods;

(g) seize goods found on a ship, in any thing found on a ship, or on any person found on a ship (but see subsection (8));

(h) for the purpose of exercising a power mentioned in paragraph (e), (f) or (g), require a ship to be taken to, and remain in, a port or anchorage in the United Kingdom or any other country willing to receive it.

(5) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (f) or (h) must provide that a person may not exercise the power in relation to a ship unless the person has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship is carrying prohibited goods (and the regulations need not require the person to have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being or has been committed).

(6) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(e)(i) or (f) must provide that the power may be exercised only to the extent reasonably required for the purpose of discovering prohibited goods.

(7) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(e)(ii) on a person (“the officer”) may permit the search of a person only where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that that person might use a thing in a way mentioned in subsection (4)(e)(ii).

(8) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(g) on a person—

(a) must provide for the power to be exercisable on a ship only where that person is lawfully on the ship (whether in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of this section or otherwise), and

(b) may permit the seizure only of—

(i) goods which that person has reasonable grounds to suspect are prohibited goods, or

(ii) things within subsection (4)(e)(ii).

(9) Regulations that confer a power on a person by virtue of this section may authorise that person to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.

(10) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a British ship in foreign waters only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to foreign waters other than the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to any relevant British possession, the Secretary of State may give authority only if the State in whose waters the power would be exercised consents to the exercise of the power.

(11) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a foreign ship only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Secretary of State may give authority only if—

(i) the home state has requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for the purpose of enforcing relevant prohibitions or requirements,

(ii) the home state has authorised the United Kingdom to act for that purpose, or

(iii) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941) or a UN Security Council Resolution otherwise permits the exercise of the powers in relation to the ship.

(12) The reference in subsection (11) to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea includes a reference to any modifications of that Convention agreed after the passing of this Act that have entered into force in relation to the United Kingdom.

(13) In this section—

“arrangements” includes any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable);

“British ship” means a ship falling within paragraph (a), (c), (d) or (e) of section 7(12);

“foreign ship” means a ship which—

(a) is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom, or

(b) is not so registered but is entitled to fly the flag of a State other than the United Kingdom;

“foreign waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to any relevant British possession or State other than the United Kingdom;

“goods” includes technology within the meaning of Schedule 1 (see paragraph 36 of that Schedule);

“home state”, in relation to a foreign ship, means—

(a) the State in which the ship is registered, or

(b) the State whose flag the ship is otherwise entitled to fly;

“international waters” means waters beyond the territorial sea of the United Kingdom or of any other State or relevant British possession;

“prohibited goods” means goods which have been, or are being, dealt with in contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement (see subsection (3));

“regulations” means regulations under section 1;

“relevant British possession” has the same meaning as in section 7 (see subsection (14) of that section);

“ship” has the same meaning as in section 7 (see subsection (14) of that section);

“ship without nationality” means a ship which—

(a) is not registered in, or otherwise entitled to fly the flag of, any State or relevant British possession, or

(b) sails under the flags of two or more States or relevant British possessions, or under the flags of a State and relevant British possession, using them according to convenience.

(14) In the definition of “prohibited goods” in subsection (13), the reference to goods dealt with in contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement includes a reference to a case where—

(a) arrangements relating to goods have been entered into that have not been fully implemented, and

(b) if those arrangements were to be fully implemented, the goods would be dealt with in contravention of that prohibition or requirement.”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause allows regulations under section 1 to provide for powers to stop and search a ship outside the United Kingdom, and to seize goods or technology found on the ship. The powers are exercisable for the purpose of enforcing prohibitions in sanctions regulations relating to the goods or technology.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16

Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct

‘(1) Regulations may make provision conferring on prescribed persons powers exercisable—

(a) in relation to—

(i) British ships in foreign waters or international waters,

(ii) ships without nationality in international waters, and

(iii) foreign ships in international waters,

(b) for the purpose of—

(i) investigating the suspected carriage of relevant goods on such ships, or

(ii) preventing the continued carriage on such ships of goods suspected to be relevant goods.

(2) The powers that may be conferred by virtue of this section include powers to—

(a) stop a ship;

(b) board a ship;

(c) require any person found on a ship boarded by virtue of this section to provide information or produce documents;

(d) inspect and copy such documents or information;

(e) stop any person found on such a ship and search that person for—

(i) relevant goods, or

(ii) any thing that might be used to cause physical injury or damage to property or to endanger the safety of any ship;

(f) search a ship boarded by virtue of this section, or any thing found on such a ship (including cargo), for relevant goods;

(g) seize goods found on a ship, in any thing found on a ship, or on any person found on a ship (but see subsection (6));

(h) for the purpose of exercising a power mentioned in paragraph (e), (f) or (g), require a ship to be taken to, and remain in, a port or anchorage in the United Kingdom or any other country willing to receive it.

(3) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (f) or (h) must provide that a person may not exercise the power in relation to a ship unless the person has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship is carrying relevant goods.

(4) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(i) or (f) must provide that the power may be exercised only to the extent reasonably required for the purpose of discovering relevant goods.

(5) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(ii) on a person (“the officer”) may permit the search of a person only where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that that person might use a thing in a way mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(ii).

(6) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(g) on a person—

(a) must provide for the power to be exercisable on a ship only where that person is lawfully on the ship (whether in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of this section or otherwise), and

(b) may permit the seizure only of—

(i) goods which that person has reasonable grounds to suspect are relevant goods, or

(ii) things within subsection (2)(e)(ii).

(7) Regulations that confer a power on a person by virtue of this section may authorise that person to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.

(8) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a British ship in foreign waters only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to foreign waters other than the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to any relevant British possession, the Secretary of State may give authority only if the State in whose waters the power would be exercised consents to the exercise of the power.

(9) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a foreign ship only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Secretary of State may give authority only if—

(i) the home state has requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1)(b),

(ii) the home state has authorised the United Kingdom to act for such a purpose, or

(iii) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941) or a UN Security Council Resolution otherwise permits the exercise of the powers in relation to the ship.

(10) The reference in subsection (9) to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea includes a reference to any modifications of that Convention agreed after the passing of this Act that have entered into force in relation to the United Kingdom.

(11) In this section—

“regulations” means regulations under section 1;

“relevant goods” means goods in relation to which relevant non-UK conduct is occurring or has occurred;

“relevant non-UK conduct” means conduct outside the United Kingdom by a person other than a United Kingdom person that would constitute a contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement if the conduct had been—

(a) in the United Kingdom, or

(b) by a United Kingdom person;

“relevant prohibition or requirement” has the same meaning as in section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) (see subsection (3) of that section);

“United Kingdom person” has the same meaning as in section 19 (see subsection (2) of that section).

(12) In the definition of “relevant non-UK conduct” in subsection (11), the reference to conduct that would constitute a contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement if the conduct had been in the United Kingdom or by a United Kingdom person includes a reference to a case where—

(a) arrangements relating to goods have been entered into that have not been fully implemented, and

(b) if those arrangements were to be fully implemented (and if the conduct had been in the United Kingdom or by a United Kingdom person) the goods would be dealt with in contravention of that prohibition or requirement.

(13) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships)—

“arrangements”,

“British ship”,

“foreign ship”,

“foreign waters”,

“goods”,

“home state”,

“international waters”,

“relevant British possession”,

“ship”, and

“ship without nationality”.”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause allows regulations under section 1 to provide for powers to stop and search a ship outside the United Kingdom, and to seize goods or technology found on the ship. The powers are exercisable for the purpose of seizing goods or technology where there has been conduct (or suspected conduct) which would be a contravention of a prohibition in sanctions regulations relating to the goods or technology, but for the fact that the conduct falls outside the territorial scope mentioned in Clause 19 of the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

Procedure for dealing with goods etc seized from ships

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with goods seized under a power conferred by regulations under section 1 by virtue of section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) or (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct).

(2) Regulations under this section relating to goods seized on suspicion of being prohibited goods or relevant goods may include provision—

(a) requiring prescribed persons to be notified of the seizure of the goods;

(b) requiring the Secretary of State to determine whether the seized goods were, at the time of their seizure, prohibited goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships)) or relevant goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct));

(c) enabling the making of a claim by prescribed persons in relation to the seized goods;

(d) about the determination by a prescribed court of any such claim;

(e) about the publicity to be given to any such determination by a court;

(f) for and about the return of seized goods to prescribed persons before or after any such determination of a claim by a court;

(g) about the treatment of seized goods not so returned (including, in prescribed circumstances, their destruction or sale);

(h) for and about the payment of compensation by the Secretary of State following a determination by a court that the goods were not, at the time of their seizure, prohibited goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships)) or relevant goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct)).

(3) In this section—

“goods” has the same meaning as in sections (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) and (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct) (see subsections (13) of those sections);

“prohibited goods” has the same meaning as in section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) (see subsection (13) of that section);

“relevant goods” has the same meaning as in section (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct) (see subsection (11) of that section).”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how goods or technology seized from ships under the new clauses which would be inserted by NC15 and NC16 must be dealt with.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Public Register of Beneficial Owners of Overseas Entities

“(1) The Secretary of State must, in addition to the provisions made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, create a public register of beneficial ownership information for companies and other legal entities registered outside of the UK that own or buy UK property, or bid for UK government contracts.

(2) The register must be implemented within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) For the purposes of this section “a register of beneficial ownership for companies and other legal entities registered outside of the UK” means a public register—

(a) which contains information about overseas entities and persons with significant control over them, and

(b) which in the opinion of the Secretary of State will assist in the prevention of money laundering.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This new clause would create a public register of beneficial ownership information for companies and other legal entities outside of the UK that own or buy UK property, or bid for UK government contracts, within 12 months.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Kashmir

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on a fine speech. She is a great addition to the House and I welcome her to it.

Much has been said that does not need to be repeated, but I commend so many of the serious, weighty and important speeches and I hope that the Government are listening. Like many hon. Members here today, I represent several thousand Kashmiris in my Luton North constituency. Many came to Luton decades ago, but they have not forgotten the painful experiences of their fellow countrymen and women, which continue to this day. Indeed, in recent months, those experiences have got worse, and we must all stand against the violence and human rights abuses that are being inflicted on the people of Kashmir.

The Government must be pressed to do more in international forums to secure an end to those abuses. I have spoken in previous debates on the subject in the Chamber and have been with other hon. Members to the Foreign Office to make representations to Ministers and to press them to use their influence to help eliminate the human rights violations as a first step to resolving the Kashmir dispute once and for all.

I have visited Kashmir. I have been to Mirpur and the town of Kotli, where many of my constituents come from. The region is therefore not just a distant continent to me. As the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out, India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, and Kashmir is prime source of tension between the two countries. It is therefore of the greatest interest and concern to the wider world to find a solution to the Kashmir dispute to make the world a safer place.

I have had many meetings in Luton with Kashmiri constituents. Although all are united in wanting freedom for the people of Kashmir, there is a range of views about what its future should be. Some believe that Kashmir should simply become part of Pakistan, and doubtless others will want it to remain to part of India, while yet others want it to be an independent state. However, the concept that unites all of them is that Kashmiris should decide their future for themselves; that there should be self-determination. I support the Kashmiris in that aspiration. They should determine their future and we should support them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I hope the former Minister for Europe will join me in congratulating the two leaders, who are coming together this week. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is going to Geneva to try to push forward what will be monumental discussions to finally provide that important solution. I hope that then cases such as this will be able to be resolved much faster.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

3. What reports he has received on the conditions in which political prisoners are held in Colombia; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)]

We are concerned by reports about the detention of human rights defenders and activists in Colombia, often held without trial or access to legal representation. Our embassy in Bogota closely follows specific cases. The Prime Minister raised our concerns about threats to human rights defenders with President Santos during the state visit in November.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but, following the amnesty law passed by the Colombian Congress on 28 December, will the Minister urge the Columbian Government to release all civil society prisoners, as agreed, as soon as possible?

[Alok Sharma]

We welcome the approval of the new amnesty Bill of course, and we believe it will lead to a benefit for all citizens and the wider region as part of the Columbian peace process. We look forward to all aspects of that law, particularly with regard to disarmament and reintegration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the political and security situation in Kashmir.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

12. What recent diplomatic steps the Government have taken to support resolution of the conflict in Kashmir.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)]

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) cares deeply about Kashmir and has visited the region. I am concerned by recent events in Kashmir. I have in recent weeks met representatives from the Governments of both India and Pakistan and urged calm and restraint on both sides. I will continue to do so.

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am of course concerned by those reports. He may also know that the use of pellet guns in Kashmir has come under review by the Government of India. The results of that review have not yet been shared publicly, but it has been indicated that alternative methods of crowd control will be introduced.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The tragic recent history of Kashmir arose from the partition of India, which was managed by Britain after world war two. Does not Britain therefore have a special responsibility to help to find a solution to Kashmir’s troubles and the suffering of the Kashmiri people?

[Alok Sharma]

The UK of course has very good relations with both India and Pakistan, but our long-standing position, held by successive Governments of all hues, is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as mediator.

Referendums

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

What I will agree with the hon. Gentleman on is the fact that there is a “Project Status Quo”, but I think he has misunderstood the point I was making, which was that there are people on his side of the argument who would like us to come out of the EU and who claim repeatedly that the basis on which we would be able to trade with the EU would be unchanged. They say, “There is no change. It will be exactly the same. We will get exactly the same terms whether we are in or out.” That is why I referred to “Project Status Quo”.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I have made the point many times, as have other hon. Members, that we have a gigantic trade deficit with the rest of the EU, and with Germany in particular. Germany is therefore not going to play games with us on trade, because it will only shoot itself in the foot by doing so.

[Tom Brake]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman can read forward two, three, four, five, six or seven years to what the arrangement between the UK and the EU would be if the UK were to leave. I cannot do that, but clearly he is clairvoyant.

One serious question I wish to put to the Minister is whether he is confident that the Electoral Commission and the police will have the resources and the tools they need to ensure that the rules on expenditure will be observed in the campaign. He will be aware of a recent exchange in which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—I warned him I was going to raise this point in the debate—said in an email:

“It is open to the Vote Leave family to create separate legal entities each of which could spend £700k: Vote Leave will be able to spend as much money as is necessary to win the referendum.”

I hope that the Minister will provide some clarification on that. My memory of being a Minister and being involved with the rules of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is that it is very clear that if organisations are working in concert—the Vote Leave family suggests that that is exactly what would happen—the total limit would be £700,000, and that to seek to go beyond that by some artificial creation of a number of identities would be a breach of the law. However the campaign is conducted, we need to know that all sides will treat it in a way that observes the law.

European Affairs

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), even though I do not agree with anything he said, apart perhaps from what he said about the speech by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), which was one of the best I have heard in this House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, it was a pleasure to listen to. I really feel that he raised the level of the debate.

I want to speak about patriotism. The British people are deeply patriotic. According to the recent social attitudes survey, the overwhelming majority of British people describe themselves as being proud of our country. I think that means that they want to see a strong country, a strong economy, a more secure country and a country that stands tall in the world. It is my view that there is a powerful, progressive, patriotic case for remaining in the European Union.

I believe, as do many in this House, that we are stronger, more prosperous, safer and more influential as a member of the European Union. The challenges that we face in the 21st century will not be solved by pulling up the drawbridge, and they do not stop at the white cliffs of Dover. We achieve more working together than we do alone. We have a proud history as a trading nation and a proud history of providing leadership in international and European co-operation.

We, the patriotic, progressive pro-Europeans, are the optimists about our role in the world. We believe that by working with others, we do not lose power, but assert and augment our power in the world. The anti-Europeans are the pessimists in this debate—pessimistic about what we as a country can achieve by working with others, and pessimistic in saying that we will always be the losers when we try to work with others. British Prime Ministers of different political colours have disagreed with that assumption. They have driven international co-operation and the establishment of international organisations. The great post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin were instrumental in setting up NATO.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

In a minute.

As the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex said in his powerful contribution, his grandfather, Winston Churchill, played an incredibly important role in preserving the peace in the post-war period. Edward Heath took us into the European Economic Community. Margaret Thatcher very successfully drove the creation of the European single market. Tony Blair, somebody of whom I am very proud because he won three elections for us, successfully pushed for the enlargement of the European Union.

I do not often agree with the current Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, but I thought he made a very powerful case on Monday for our membership of the European Union. That powerful case goes beyond the deal that he struck. He was absolutely right when he said in his closing remarks that

“this is no time to divide the west”

when we face

“Putin’s aggression in the east; Islamist extremism to the south.”

I agree with him too that there is “strength in numbers” and that the choice in the referendum is between

“an even greater Britain inside a reformed EU and a great leap into the unknown.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 25.]

Many column inches and much time on the broadcast media over the past few days have been dedicated to the divisions in the Conservative party over our membership of the European Union and to the intricacies of the deal that was struck at the longest English lunch in living memory on Friday in Brussels. However, I hope and believe that it is the bigger arguments about why it is in our interests to remain in the European Union that will, in the end, determine how people vote in the referendum on 23 June. I will make three key arguments that are at the heart of the patriotic and progressive case for our membership.

Let me take the economy. We trade more with the rest of the EU than we do with any big economy around the world, including the US, China or India. As a member of the biggest single market in the world of 500 million people, we are a gateway to the rest of that market, which is why we are able so successfully to attract inward investment from companies in the European Union and beyond.

On the outskirts of my constituency, Jaguar Land Rover has invested in a huge award-winning engine factory that, when at capacity, will employ 1,500 people. Its chief financial officer recently said that any split from the European Union would damage trade for UK business, and he cautioned against “barriers” that would arise in the event of the UK leaving the EU.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

As ever, you have been very generous, Mr Speaker.

I beg to move,

That this House believes in the importance of Parliamentary sovereignty; and calls for the Government’s EU renegotiations to encompass Parliament’s ability, by itself, to stop any unwanted legislation, taxes or regulation.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and Members on both sides of the House who supported the application for it.

There can be no greater issue for this Parliament to debate and defend than the country’s sovereignty, as that goes to the heart of everything we do. Without it, we cannot truly have the final say on a host of issues, including the primacy of our laws, the integrity of our borders and the extent of burdensome regulation. As our EU renegotiations proceed, however, it appears that little effort is being made to truly restore parliamentary sovereignty. It is not a priority, which I suggest is a great opportunity missed.

We have a golden opportunity to pitch for fundamental change in our relationship with the EU for the benefit of both parties, as the Prime Minister promised in his Bloomberg speech, but we are missing it while No. 10 tinkers at the edges. Without consulting his parliamentary party, in my view the Prime Minister is sidestepping the issue completely by arguing for temporary measures, and measures that require us to club together with other Parliaments, in the vain hope of stopping the EU. That is not restoring parliamentary sovereignty. If we as a Parliament and a country cannot on our own stop any unwanted EU taxes, directives or laws, then it is clear that if we vote to stay in, we vote to stay on the conveyor belt towards ever closer union, as laid out in the EU’s founding treaty. Parliament will become nothing more than just a council chamber of Europe.

To those who say that the UK already accepts a certain pooling or loss of sovereignty when joining other international organisations, I say that only the EU can force us to take in economic migrants despite the strain on our infrastructure, override our laws, and foist burdensome regulation on our companies, despite the vast majority not even trading with the EU.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue, and I agree with everything he has been saying. The great 19th-century constitutionalist, Walter Bagehot, divided politics into the “effective” and “decorative” parts of the constitution. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this place must be the effective part of our constitution, not just a decoration?

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree, and that is why I suggest that the issue of sovereignty goes to the core of our relationship with the EU. If we do not take the opportunity to address it now, it could be lost for a generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on his excellent speech.

I want to address those of my Labour colleagues who mistakenly remain in favour of staying in the EU. The hon. Gentleman talked about being told, “No”, but we have some opt-outs, which is good, because they have saved us some of the pain of being a member of the EU. I think, in particular, of the opt-out from the euro. Had we been a member, we would have been destroyed by the crisis in 2008. The fact that we could depreciate by 30% protected our economy, to an extent, from that terrible experience. Other countries in southern Europe had much greater difficulties and are still suffering. Currency flexibility, which means that countries and economies can adjust to appropriate parities with other economies, is fundamental to a successful world economy, let alone national or European economies.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is not one of the more ridiculous parts of the document published yesterday the idea that we need the EU to recognise more than one currency in the EU? Given that Sweden voted in a referendum to stay out of the euro, when it did not have an opt-out, as was negotiated in the Maastricht treaty for the UK, is it not clear that if a country has its own currency, the EU cannot take it away, and that we do not need a treaty change or anything to tell us we can have the pound?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I have had the pleasure of being a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for some years now, and in that capacity I meet representatives from other Parliaments. Swedish Parliament representatives tell me that support for joining the euro is at 11% in Sweden, so I do not think it will be joining any time soon. We heard from the Czechs recently. As soon as anyone suggests they might join the euro, they basically say, “Never”. One or two countries that joined the euro now think it was not such a good idea and might like to withdraw if they could. It is true that there are several currencies in the EU: several countries retain their own currency. Some years ago, I met Polish representatives, and I said, “Whatever you do, don’t join the euro, if you want to run your economy successfully, because you would be pinioned, and it would not be good for Poland.” I do not think my advice mattered; nevertheless that country has not joined the euro, and I see no prospect of its doing so in the near future.

I want to talk about other opt-outs. I have long campaigned in the House on the bizarre and nonsensical common fisheries policy. Thousands, if not millions, of tonnes of fish are being destroyed by being dumped back into the sea dead, and fish stocks have been savagely cut. The only way forward is for countries to be responsible for their own fish stocks, along traditional lines, to husband their own resources and to fish in their own seas, as the Norwegians do.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Is it not a pity that the Government have missed the opportunity of treaty change around the CFP, which has been an absolute disaster for the Scottish fishing community?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I raised the matter when a former representative from UKRep spoke to the Committee a few years ago. I said, as I had suggested to the coalition Government, “What would happen if we gave notice that in five years we would withdraw from the CFP, restore the 200-mile and 50% limits and start to manage fish stocks properly, in the interests of our own fishing industry, monitoring every boat and catch sensibly, as happens in Norway?” He said, “You’d be expelled from the EU,”, so there is no possibility of that happening.

If the Government put that in their negotiations, however, they might be a bit more persuasive. I have a list of things I would have in the negotiations—sadly, the Government have not followed it—and getting rid of the CFP is one of them. We have the largest fishing grounds and used to have the most successful fishing industry in the EU, but it has been devastated by overfishing and the appalling discarding of bycatches. The point is that, if we made a real change, we would apparently be thrown out, so the substantial changes I want would not be acceptable.

Even yesterday, people were talking about the common agricultural policy—another nonsensical policy that has cost us dear—under which we make massive net contributions to the EU. Every country ought to manage its own agriculture. Some, like the Norwegians, would choose to subsidise it for strategic reasons, as would be perfectly acceptable. We could do the same and choose either the current subsidy regime or a different pattern of subsidies. Each country should do its own thing. One of the nonsenses is that some countries are paid not to grow food. I was in Lithuania a couple of years ago with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. It used to be self-sufficient in food, but now thousands of acres are lying fallow because it is paid not to grow food. That is nonsense, and it is all to do with the CAP.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. In Northern Ireland, a big issue is what would happen to farming subsidies were we to leave the EU, but is not the point that farming subsidies are better tailored to the needs of individual countries than is a common policy that often fails to meet the needs of farmers in our countries?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we withdrew, we could eliminate the net loss of our contribution to the budget—some say £19 billion, others £14 billion, but either way it is in the billions—and still subsidise regional and other policies, and tailor them to our national and regional needs.

I turn now to the sham of so-called “social Europe”. It is used as a lever to persuade social democratic and socialist parties to say yes to the European Union, but when it comes to the crunch—this would not necessarily impress Conservative Members and certainly not Labour Members, I hope—the EU always finds in favour of employers. Free movement is not about being benign; it is about bidding down wages, ensuring that wages are kept down and profits kept high. It is part of the neo-liberal package of measures that is being driven by the European Union.

In the case of Greece and other southern European countries that have had bail-outs, one of the conditions for bail-out is to put a brake on collective bargaining: “You’ve got to calm down your employees, especially in the public sector. We’re not going to give you the bail-out unless you cut back on collective bargaining.” That is hardly “social Europe”. What about the rights supposedly involved in the charter of fundamental rights? Then, of course, another condition of bail-out is forced privatisations, and we have seen fire sales of public assets in these countries. All these things have damaged social welfare in those countries.

The biggest problem of all has been mass unemployment, falling national output and falling living standards. Greece provides the most extreme example, but other countries have suffered, too. Greece has seen its living standards cut by 25%, and its unemployment is at 25%—50% among young people. Across southern Europe as a whole, youth unemployment stands at 40%. It is nonsense—it does not work economically. The idea that is all about “social Europe” and that it is beneficial to workers is, I think, complete nonsense and simply not true.

[Kate Hoey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has said is predominantly why—

[Kate Hoey]

I am saying that my hon. Friend provides a reason why the trade union movement and trade unionists across the country are catching on to this more and more. Is this not why trade unionists are speaking out and beginning to join and get involved in the campaign to leave?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent. I was about to say that a single -sentence answer would suffice, but the hon. Gentleman has provided a one-word sentence—magnificent!

European Union Referendum Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

I have argued consistently and as hard as I can for real purdah because I want the people of this country to have a fair referendum. I want them to know that when they have made their decision, it has not been unfairly or unduly influenced by statements made through the civil service or its agencies, or through the European Union or by the provision of its money, which we will come on to later. As I have set out in amendment 78, I want complete purdah. I may find that, because of circumstances, I have to vote for amendment 4, but I want purdah with no ifs and no buts. Ultimately, when the regulations come out after the Bill is enacted, we will come to regret the arrangements that come from new clause 10, amended slightly, and amendment 4. We will face a kind of qualified purdah, which will not satisfy the test of fairness that I really believe this country deserves.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Basically, I agree with him that it would have been a lot better to have had no tampering with section 125, and that we should have left it as it was and abided by the legislation that was enacted all those years ago.

I want to speak strongly in support of what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said. He chose his words carefully and wisely. I was pleased to be a member of his Select Committee, to participate in the discussions and to listen to the advice that we were given. I have signed his amendment (a), and I am pleased that the Government have accepted it. I am also pleased that our Front-Bench team is going along with the attempts to modify the Government’s position. As I have said, it would have been much better to have had none of this debate and to have accepted the legislation as it was. I had a slight qualm about one thing that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, and that is that my enthusiasm for Tony Blair is rather more muted than his. I will say no more than that.

It is important that somebody from the Labour Back Benches says a few words in support of the shift that has taken place in the Government. It seems to be supported by all sides even though it does not go as far as I would like. That is very important, because, whichever way this referendum goes, if there is a sense that it is not fair, it will devalue the whole result. I am of a certain age and I remember well the 1975 referendum, in which I participated strongly, as I have mentioned before. I was the chair of the “Vote no” committee in Luton and the agent for the “Vote no” position in Bedfordshire at the time, so I know what happened very well. It was unfair, and the resources piled into the yes side compared with the puny resources on the no side were unbelievable. That was a travesty of democracy. When we are voting on fundamental constitutional positions, it is important that referendums are regarded as fair by all sides.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is no longer in his place, implied that no one takes referendums seriously and that after the result whoever loses always thinks that they have been treated unfairly. I do not think that is true. Some years ago, referendums on the European constitution took place abroad. The political establishments in France and Holland put massive resources into ensuring that there was a yes vote, but on both occasions there was a no vote. I do not think that they thought that the result was unfair, even though the big resources were on the losing side. They had to come up with another way of dealing with the matter and, of course, they introduced very similar constitutional changes into the European Union.

It is important that we ensure that the purdah period is seen to be fair, that no cheating takes place and that the Government cannot use their resources to pour in propaganda on their own side, whatever that might be. One assumes that the Government will come back and say that they have made a wonderful deal in the European Union and that we should all vote in favour of it. If that is the case, we want to have a fair debate that is seen to be fair by all sides.

Like the hon. Member for Stone, I have deep reservations about the European Union. We have constant talk about Europe, and I have to say over and again that this is about not Europe but the European Union, which is a political structure imposed on some of the countries of Europe. Europe is a wonderful place that I love dearly. I am very Eurocentric: I go there for my holidays, I drink European wine, and I love European culture, history, language—everything. But it is Europe I love, not the European Union.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s line of argument. It would have been better had section 125 been left in its entirety. I take a more optimistic view than some Members. The benefit of this debate is that it has exposed the Government trying to do something underhand. That debate has been had and now, during the referendum, they will have not only to follow the rules but to be seen to be following the rules of purdah. This debate has almost certainly ensured a much fairer referendum campaign.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. The debate has largely cleared the air and I look forward to a much fairer referendum than might have taken place if we had not had it or these changes.

Before I conclude, I should apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the Minister’s speech. I heard the meat of it and the important points that he made, however.

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I agree with pretty much every word he said.

I find it extraordinary that we are having this debate. We are discussing something that is part of our national politics. We have had a long-standing convention that Ministers can act and speak as Ministers and then move into a different mode and act as politicians. The most graphic example I can give is for Members go to the Government website and look at the transcript of the Bloomberg speech and then go to the New Statesman’s website. On the Government website, certain political phrases are excised. That is absolutely normal in our political discourse, certainly in general elections.

The Cabinet Secretary himself, referring to the last general election, wrote on the civil service blog:

“For this election, purdah begins today. Of course, the country—and the public services that we deliver—can’t just stop for the election. The UK Government retains the responsibility to govern and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. Civil servants will keep delivering government business, and if any crisis needed urgent action then we would tackle it in the normal way.”

We know that that works perfectly well in general elections. I remember going to help one of our Ministers. She had been to a ministerial event with her red box in the morning and she came back and was acting as a politician. It works fine and we have a long-standing tradition of doing that during general elections.

We did not have purdah in referendums, as was shown spectacularly in the first Welsh referendum. I was involved, as there was a complete cleanout of Tory MPs in Wales. I was the nearest thing, because my bottom gate is 50 yards from the Welsh border. The Tory party was flat on its back at the time and the Labour party behaved in the most amazing manner. There was even an aeroplane that flew along the south coast of Wales with a large banner fluttering along behind it reading “Vote yes, support Blair”. That was where we were with referendums, so it was quite right that the Neill committee was established.

It is worth remembering the comment made by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, which I mentioned earlier. He taught the Prime Minister a little something. He said that

“one purpose of a referendum…is to secure legitimacy for decisions where Parliament alone can not secure that legitimacy. For that legitimacy to be secured, the losers have to feel that the fight was fairly conducted.”

That point has not been made tonight, apart from by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Everything we say tonight is for the birds if the public smell a rat. If the public detect that the referendum has been rigged to help one side, they will not feel that it is legitimate or that the debates are straight. Whatever the result, many of them will not accept it.

There is an incredibly important point here. Purdah was not set up lightly. It was set up after long debates and I remember clearly that Labour’s interpretation of the Neill committee’s recommendations was that it should be 28 days. Those of us in the Conservative Opposition at the time were very unhappy with that. We had wild, radical Jacobins who are now in the Lords, such as Lord Fowler, Lord MacGregor and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—not crazies, or crazy radicals—who argued consistently and steadily for more than 28 days, and we pushed that. I remind the House of those debates, in which those of us in the Conservative party reluctantly accepted 28 days.

I find it strange that those on the Labour Front Bench are not proud, as they should be, of introducing purdah. After the horrors of the first Welsh referendum, they took note, listened to the Neill committee and came forward with these purdah rules, which have worked extremely well. Labour should be proud of how the rules have worked. We have had several referendums. I am sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who was Secretary of State during the most recent Welsh referendum. I am totally unaware of any problem relating to purdah in any of those referendums so I am afraid that I doubt the Government on this.

European Union Referendum Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Given the limited time available, I will be brief. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak on the other amendments. I just want to warn the Committee that on subsequent occasions I will bore Members by going on about electronic voting as often as I can. We have been waging a campaign for 15 years to see whether we can update our electoral methods and bring them into the 21st century. For brevity’s sake, I will circulate the notes prepared by the Library for those Members who are interested. I want to thank Isobel White, the researcher, for preparing the notes, which go through the history of electronic voting, including the various pilots that we have undertaken since 2000.

We started the adventure way back in 2000, when we established the first pilots, and we had more in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007. At each stage we had reports back on the enhancements that electronic voting would bring to our procedures. The background to the attempt to introduce electronic voting is the declining turnout in elections, although the key issue is whether the subject of an election excites the general public, such as in the Scottish referendum. If people feel the issue is important enough, they will turn out and vote, but unfortunately they do not have the same incentive in some elections. Part of the issue, therefore, is ensuring that voting is as easy as it can be, and we have been piloting electronic voting for a long time.

The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy has explored the issue in the last two years and made several recommendations. The remaining issue to be confronted is the security of online voting, but I do not believe it to be an insuperable problem. The reason for raising the issue in the debate on the Bill—as I will for every other Bill that we consider, including the trade union Bill we are expecting—is to ensure that we force the Government to resolve the issue of security, which seems to be the only thing holding this back.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

This is possibly the first time in 18 years that I have had a slight disagreement with one of my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend suggests that changing the way we vote will increase turnout. We introduced postal ballots for that reason and we have still seen a big decline in turnout. People do not vote if they see less difference between the parties: if there is a real difference and they have a real choice, they turn out to vote.

[John McDonnell]

Thank goodness, we are not disagreeing. That is the point that I tried to make earlier, but in a more complicated fashion. The issue about turnout is how people are incentivised to vote, but the minimum we can do is increase the access to voting procedures. We have done that through postal voting, as my hon. Friend says, and we have just introduced electronic registration, to assist in the registration process. It was argued that once we had introduced electronic registration we would revisit online voting, but unfortunately that is not the case in this legislation. I hope that the tabling of the amendment will make the Government go back to the Electoral Commission and ask it to make detailed proposals. Even if we have to pilot electronic voting in some areas in this referendum, we may be able to overcome some of the problems that have been identified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the issue of May 2016 has already been dealt with through amendment 55, and I am focused on May 2017, when local elections are taking place in various parts of the country.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend that, when we are voting on whether to leave or stay in the European Union, it should not be confused or blurred with party allegiances and so forth; there should be a clear understanding that on that day we are voting on our membership of the European Union and nothing else. No other elections should be held on that day; we want a unique day for that vote.

[Mr McFadden]

On European matters, it is not always the case that I am in agreement with my hon. Friend, but this time on this point, I am. I entirely agree with his point.

The first reason, then, is that on such a major constitutional question about the country’s future, the focus should be entirely on that question, but there is a second reason why on this occasion it makes sense to separate this poll from other polls, which relates to the discussions we have had about purdah arrangements. Without re-running Tuesday’s debate, the Government’s argument is that there needs to be some qualification of the purdah arrangements that would normally apply. The jury is still out on what the eventual outcome of that argument will be, but we know from Tuesday that the Bill will be amended in one way or another on Report.

However, purdah arrangements also apply to a local election period, so combining the referendum with other elections could mean we had full purdah in place for some things and qualified purdah or no purdah in place for others. In such circumstances, what exactly would the role of Ministers and the civil service be? We could have one set of rules for one poll taking place on that day, and another set of rules for another poll taking place on the same day. We do not need to think long and hard to realise that that is not an ideal arrangement for clarity on the conduct of the poll.

Our point is that the Bill deals with a big constitutional issue, which deserves to be considered by the public on its own merits, not tacked on as an add-on to local elections in various parts of the country. For those reasons, we feel that there is unfinished business from Tuesday. Amendment 55 was not the end of the matter, and our amendment 3 would, if passed, make it clear that this has to be a stand-alone poll and not one combined with other elections—either next May or in May 2017. To conclude, if given an opportunity to do so this afternoon, we intend to press the amendment to the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I take the hon. Gentleman back again to 2011, when we had the London mayoral election on the same day as the referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. That did not appear to cause the electorate any great problems.

The other question that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East put to me was about the difficulty of operating different regimes for purdah during overlapping electoral and referendum periods. To some extent, the riposte to that came from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but given that the Government have this week undertaken to consult all parties on the appropriate framework for purdah in the run-up to the EU referendum, I am happy to take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s points as part of that consideration and future discussion.

There are some technical flaws in the Opposition’s amendment. There is, for example, no carve-out regarding by-elections, so an unanticipated by-election could inadvertently result in an agreed referendum date becoming invalid at short notice. Nor does it capture police and crime commissioner elections, which, if the amendment were agreed to, would still be possible on the same day as the referendum. Even if the right hon. Gentleman had his way, there would need to be some tidying up at a later date.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I am overwhelmed by Members’ enthusiasm.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister implies there is more to be discussed and there has been too short a time to have a proper debate about the issue. It should be returned to on Report and, possibly, in another place before the final Bill is approved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure my colleagues in the Cabinet Office, who lead on constitutional matters, will have heard that point. E-voting may be something that the Government will want to consider in the future, but it is not a priority immediately for the legislation to authorise the arrangements for this referendum.

I want to say a few things about the conduct rules more generally. Clause 4 provides that Ministers may make provision about the conduct of the referendum in regulations. The provisions in clause 3 and schedule 3 already set out the key aspects of the conduct of the referendum, and broadly they are concerned with the overall framework. In addition to those general provisions, it will be necessary to set out more detailed rules for conduct. Clause 4 grants Ministers the power to do so by regulation.

Our intention will be to draw on the rules used for the conduct of the parliamentary voting system referendum in 2011 and those used for elections more generally, in particular for our parliamentary elections. We will also take account of recent changes to electoral law to ensure that they also apply for the purposes of this referendum. The clause also requires that Ministers consult the Electoral Commission before making any regulations on these issues.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister will know that there have been serious concerns in the European Scrutiny Committee, the Chair of which is in the Chamber at the moment, but there is not the time at this stage to discuss bias in the media on European Union matters. Will there be a time on Report for a more thorough discussion of this, because there are some serious concerns? As he will know, the chair of the BBC Trust and the director-general of the BBC have both been before the European Scrutiny Committee to discuss the matter.

[Mr Lidington]

Obviously, what we discuss on Report will be in the hands of Members who table amendments. I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for many years, and I know that he is ingenious and creative in finding opportunities for parliamentary debate on subjects that are close to his heart.

European Union Referendum Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

May I take up the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need for a fair campaign on the referendum? It is very important for there to be a balance of voices, representing both sides, in the broadcasting media in particular. Does he agree that for too long the BBC has tended to see the issue of the European Union as purely a Conservative party matter, although people on the left as well as the right take sceptical views?

[Sir William Cash]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am sorry, but I am running out of time.

Those who argue that we should pull out of the EU need to set out what Britain would look like—what our economy and country would look like—in their alternative, because there are many alternatives.

Many Members have used the word “historic” in this debate. I claim another historic point in that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who made the case for our continued membership as passionately and eloquently as he always does, slightly understated his case at one point. He was talking about the undesirability of Norway’s situation, but there was one point he did not add, which is that Norway, not a member of the European Union, of course needs to have access to the single market and, in paying for that access, it is the 10th largest contributor to the EU budget. It has all the alleged disadvantages and none of the advantages of membership. That is a model that the British people would certainly not wish to follow.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Green]

I am sorry, I have had my two interventions.

The other option is that of Switzerland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe also mentioned that but, again, did not make the point that not only does Switzerland not have access to the services market, which would be absolutely essential to the UK, but that it took nine years to negotiate its partial access to the single market. If the referendum vote goes the wrong way, therefore, and the British people vote to come out of the European Union, any British Government can expect to spend at least 10 years trying to renegotiate ourselves back into a position in which we would have any kind of reasonable access to what is, by a significant margin, our largest export market.

I put it to the House that that is not a sensible approach for any British Government to wish to adopt. It would do long-term harm to the economic interests of this country, as well as to our position in the world. I have never understood the proposition that making it more difficult to export to Germany and France makes it easier to export to China and India. I suspect that few businesses would agree with that proposition either. I look forward to it being tested in the coming months and years.

The debate is not only an economic one, and the Bill sets us off on a debate about our place in the world—how we see ourselves and how others see us. In the current state of the world, particularly with the dangers emerging on the eastern and southern flanks of Europe, what would we be thinking about to turn away from our closest neighbours? Are we so confident of a friendly reception in other parts of the world that we can turn to 27 other friendly democracies and say, “We don’t want to be part of a club with you any more”? Would such an act increase our influence in the world, or damage it? Would it make it more or less likely that the US President would pick up the phone to Downing Street in a crisis? Would it make the Indians or Chinese treat us more seriously as trading partners, or dismiss us as a bunch of nostalgic eccentrics?

President Obama has already made clear this week the answer to my rhetorical questions. Our closest friends want us to stay in the European Union. We should listen to their friendly advice. The notion of an Anglosphere, in which English-speaking countries from all over the world can set the rules for themselves is a post-imperial fantasy that I do not think this country should follow.

There is of course—there needs to be—a positive case for continued membership of the European Union, and there is one. There is an idealistic vision of a continent that has spent centuries tearing itself apart with wars that destroyed communities, but in the past 70 years has largely become a haven of peace and prosperity. Ask people in Krakow, Bucharest or Vilnius and see what they think. Britain can be proud of our part in building that peaceful and prosperous continent, and Britain can benefit hugely from continuing to play a full role in its development. Let us have that national debate and then vote yes in the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

First of all, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say what an absolute pleasure it is to see you in the Chair and to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon? The only note of sadness I would sound is that you are no longer with us on these Benches. Your company was always a delight.

I am very pleased to be able to support the Bill. Indeed, I have campaigned in favour of a referendum on Europe for a long time. I speak as a former board member of People’s Pledge, the multi-party campaign for an EU referendum, and as a member of Labour for a Referendum. Both campaigns have succeeded, albeit a little late in the day in the case of the latter. Labour for a Referendum has included EU supporters—Europhiles—as well as sceptics like me. Recent voter analysis has concluded, sadly, that had we persuaded our Labour leaders to support a referendum earlier, we would have won an extra eight seats in the recent general election and prevented the Conservatives from having an overall majority. That would have made this Parliament rather different from the one that we shall have for the next five years, so it was a significant decision not to support a referendum before the election.

I am pleased that my party leadership has now had a change of heart and is supporting the referendum. A few years ago, a mini-referendum was held in my constituency on whether local people wished to be granted an EU referendum. There was a 2:1 vote in favour. The wishes of my constituents are now being reflected on both sides of the House, and I am pleased about that.

I have a track record on EU matters going back to the 1975 Common Market referendum, when I was chair of the Luton Vote No campaign and the Bedfordshire agent for the no vote. I have not changed my view since then. Perhaps that just demonstrates rigidity of mind, but I believe that events since then have strengthened my view that the European Union is not a sound organisation—certainly not for Britain. Interestingly, the Bedfordshire agent for the yes vote was the late Sir Trevor Skeet, then the Conservative MP for Bedford. When I met Sir Trevor a few years ago and reminded him of his previous position, he was horribly embarrassed because he had since become a strong Eurosceptic who would no longer have wished to vote yes.

In 1975, however, the Conservatives were overwhelmingly pro-Common Market while Labour had a majority against it. It has been suggested that the Eurosceptics were just a small number of extreme left-wingers, but I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we had a massive majority at the special conference on the Common Market that I attended in 1975. A great majority of Labour MPs were in favour of a no vote. It was not just a small group of left-wingers—I happen to be on the left myself—who took a Eurosceptic view; people on the right of the party did so as well.

Labour Eurosceptics have included many distinguished former Members of this House, including Hugh Gaitskell, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore and Tony Benn. Indeed, I last met Denis Healey in the late 1990s at a meeting that had been called to oppose Britain’s membership of the euro. I hope, therefore, that there will be no personal disparagement during the campaign on the referendum, and that the debate will focus on the arguments. I hope that those who take a critical view of the EU will not be abused, and that their arguments will be listened to. I have set out my own views in print, and I shall be writing and speaking on this matter much more in the coming months.

In simple terms, I believe that the EU is about economics, and the economics are failing. Low growth, mass unemployment and falling living standards—in swathes of the eurozone in particular—are evidence of the EU’s failure. But the overwhelming argument against our membership of the EU is about democracy. Democracy must mean elected national Parliaments making the final decision on how their people are governed and how they choose to be governed. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) referred to a dictatorship. It might not be a dictatorship, but it is certainly an authoritarian bureaucracy. We want our laws to be made following debate in this House, not by bureaucrats in Brussels. That is of fundamental importance.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I support all the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. He mentions the importance of democratic decisions, so is he concerned about the increase in the spending limits for referendum expenditure in the Bill and the danger that that could undermine true democratic debate and put the decision in the hands of the big spenders?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Spending limits are crucial and I remember the vast amounts of Euroslush poured into Britain to win the yes vote. Every corner shop in my constituency had a steel noticeboard cemented into the pavement with pictures of Harold Wilson on it saying “Vote Yes.” That money did not come out of the pockets of ordinary people—well, it did indirectly—but it came though big business or from the European Union.

I have a final point to make, repeating what I suggested in business questions last Thursday. I suggested that all parties ought to have a free vote for all Members of this House on whether they accept the terms that come back from Brussels when the Prime Minister has finished his negotiating. I hope that my party will observe that and I hope that the Government will too. It was probably my fault that the row broke out over the weekend, because clearly some Conservative Members were rather taken with my suggestion that there should be a free vote for all Members. I shall be voting freely and I hope that my Whips will understand when the time comes. Harold Wilson wisely allowed a free vote on his renegotiated terms of membership of the Common Market before the referendum and I hope that all parties will follow that wise example so that we not only have a free debate in which we discuss the issues and do not abuse each other but are free to vote with our consciences, as we should be in this Parliament.