EU Membership: Economic Benefits
Kevan Jones Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
History shows what happens when this country turns its back and stops engaging with Europe. That is why most of the world and many experts are asking us to remain where we are. Those who say that we must look to the world as well as to the EU are correct and I agree with them, but we should do that as part of the biggest and richest single market in the world. If the rest of the world is telling us that we can best deal with the rest of the world by being in the EU, we should listen. The USA, China, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the whole Commonwealth have said that we should remain where we are. Not one country has come out and asked us to leave the EU. Only Russia and North Korea might want us to do that.
World economic forums such as the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation all say the same. Unite, the GMB, the CBI and the National Farmers Union say we should remain where we are. NATO says we should remain where we are, as do universities and 90% of scientists. The Royal College of Midwives says the same thing. Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says, “Stay where you are.” If the coalition telling us to remain where we are stretches from the world’s superpowers to the local birdwatcher, we should listen to what they have to say.
I want to say a few words about the north-east of England and the con that the leave campaign is perpetrating on people not just in the north-east, but across the country. The north-east is a net beneficiary of EU grants and subsidies that help to train our young people for work and fund small businesses, our universities and agriculture, helping our economy to grow. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Monday that leaving the EU would put the northern powerhouse at risk. Between now and 2020 the north-east is due to receive about £800 million from the European Union.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east of England has benefited tremendously from inward investment, of which the most successful recent example is Hitachi in County Durham? I pay tribute to him for his role in securing 700 well-paid jobs building trains not just for the UK market, but for Europe.
Phil Wilson
My hon. Friend is right. Hitachi has come to the north-east of England for two reasons: it has an excellent workforce and is the gateway to Europe. We know that its business model for that investment— £82 million in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency—was predicated on the fact that we are part of the EU. Those who support the leave campaign say that we should not worry about losing the £800 million that we would get from the EU because they will find the money themselves.
Aleppo
Kevan Jones Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister was diverted from the path of virtue by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). No doubt the intentions were good, but we were straying somewhat from the terms of the UQ. As the Minister and others know, I have facilitated much discussion on the matter of refugees. I rather imagine that there will be more, and no doubt people will think, “And so there should be”, but it would be best today if we could stick to the terms of the UQ that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) applied for and that I granted.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister quite rightly spoke about the influence of Russia, but what pressure is being put on Iran, which has equally supported the Assad regime, both directly and through proxies such as Hezbollah? Has the Foreign Office or the international community opened up that dialogue with Iran and, as part of the Iran deal, put pressure on it to make sure that it actually responds?
Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia
Kevan Jones Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Ellwood
Saudi Arabia is an important ally in the region, not least for the reasons I articulated in my previous response, and also from a regional and historical perspective. Because of that strong relationship, this Government and previous ones are able to have frank conversations that are able to effect change. We want change to happen at a pace, but it has to happen at a pace that will work. The frank conversations I was able to have when I was there covered a range of issues, not least human rights, and not least Ali al-Nimr, the juveniles and even women’s right to drive. Those are the issues that we are able to discuss and try to move forward on.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Tens of thousands of workers’ livelihoods in this country rely on exports of defence equipment around the world. I am proud that a Labour Government introduced the arms Export Control Act 2002, which regulates our defence exports. Will the Minister use his good offices to take up the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) that the quadripartite Committee should take up those investigations? Will he resist any attempt to boycott arms sales to Saudi Arabia before the evidence is looked at? All that would happen is that the gap would be filled by other countries exporting those arms when they do not have our robust regulation.
Christopher Rochester
Kevan Jones Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
This is the fourth Adjournment debate that I have secured on the case of Christopher Rochester in the past 13 years. I and his family wish that it was unnecessary, after 14 years, to raise the case again.
Christopher Rochester, a 24-year-old constituent of mine from Chester-le-Street in North Durham, died in the Andreas Papandreou hospital on the island of Rhodes in Greece following a fall from the apartment complex in which he was staying on holiday. Despite falling from a balcony on to the concrete patio below, he survived, but he was allowed to die a slow, painful and lingering death due to the negligence of doctors at the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes.
Christopher’s mother, Pam Cummings, and her family have fought a long and persistent campaign to secure the truth about the events that led to his death in 2000. This fight finally led to three doctors being found guilty of manslaughter through neglect. That was clearly down to the tenacious way in which Mrs Cummings and her family pursued the case. I again want to put on the record my admiration of their tenacity in having pursued the case to find out the truth about his death.
Unfortunately, that was not the conclusion of the case. The family have not been able to get closure because of a separate issue about what happened to Christopher’s kidney once he had died. When his body was returned to the UK for burial, it was discovered that one of his kidneys had been removed and was missing. At the time, Mrs Cummings contacted my predecessor Giles Radice—now Lord Radice—to ask why that was the case. He, with the help of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British consulate in Rhodes, got the Andreas Papandreou hospital to send the kidney back to the UK via the consulate. I thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its staff for their work on this case because, over the past 14 years, they have been helpful in trying to move things on. They do not often get thanked, so I would like to put my thanks on the record.
For some unexplained reason, Mrs Cummings was convinced that the kidney that had been sent back from Rhodes was not that of her son Christopher. She therefore asked for the DNA to be tested. That was done by NorthGene, which is a leading genetic research agency in the north-east of England. To her horror, her suspicions proved to be correct. The DNA test confirmed that the kidney that had been sent from Rhodes was not Christopher’s.
Representations were made to the Greek authorities. Their ludicrous suggestion was that the British consulate in Rhodes had somehow mixed up the kidney and returned the wrong one. I am not sure how many kidneys the consulate in Rhodes deals with on a daily basis, but clearly that was a ludicrous suggestion. I pressed the case, with the help of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Greek authorities finally suggested that an independent test should take place in a third country to verify the facts surrounding the kidney that was returned to the UK. The family agreed to that and it was decided that Belgium would carry out the test.
The Greek authorities then insisted that in order to get a DNA sample from Christopher, his body would have to be exhumed, despite all the leading experts arguing that it was not necessary. That included Professor John Burn, who is not only one of the UK’s leading experts on genetics, but a world-renowned expert. I thank Professor Burn for his assistance with the case. It has been greatly appreciated by the family. Clearly, this was yet another tactic on behalf of the Greek authorities to put more pressure on the family. I also think the Greek authorities thought that the family would not agree to it.
It was a difficult decision for Mrs Cummings and her family, but they agreed that Christopher’s body should be exhumed. That took place on 27 June 2011 in the presence of officials from the Greek Ministry of Health. At this point, may I put on the record my thanks and the thanks of the family to Durham police for their assistance, in particular DS Ken Donnelly and DI Steve Murray, who assisted the family throughout the process? DNA samples were recovered from the body and sent to Belgium. Durham police also took samples from the body, which they still retain as part of the evidence in the case. Likewise, samples of the kidney that was sent to Durham were sent to Belgium for analysis.
A common problem in this case has been the length of time the family have had to wait for any kind of information. They had to wait another year, until May 2012, before receiving any news on the results, which they only received following a letter that I wrote to the Greek ambassador in London and representations from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Foreign Office was simply advised by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the DNA analysis supported the conclusion that the kidney almost certainly belonged to Christopher. That is completely at odds with the tests that have been carried out in this country and with the review of Professor John Burn of the analysis of the kidney that was sent back, which showed that it was clearly not that of Christopher Rochester.
On 18 June 2012, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was advised by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs that a full report could be obtained only if an application was made by the family to a Greek court. Professor Burn has offered to have a look at the report and see what tests were carried out. However, making representations to a Greek court would clearly involve huge expense for the family, so they are unable to do so.
On 10 March this year, I wrote to the public prosecutor’s office in Rhodes and to the Greek Ministry of Justice with a signed letter of consent from Mrs Cummings authorising me to act on her behalf. Despite two follow-up letters, I have had no response to date. On 25 July, I wrote separately to the Greek ambassador in London, asking him to ask the prosecutor’s office to respond to those letters. The embassy confirmed by telephone that it would make representations, but to date we have heard nothing from it.
The case raises serious questions about how a British family can get legitimate answers to questions about the death of one of their loved ones in a fellow European country. Without a copy of the report of the DNA test that took place in Belgium, which Professor Burn has agreed to look at, the family cannot draw this sad case to a conclusion. I am not quite sure what the Greeks have to hide by not producing that report for the family, but will the Minister make representations to the Greek authorities about the issue? Will he also raise it directly with the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and separately with the Greek ambassador in London? I have tried to do so through faxes, letters and e-mails, and I seem to get no answers. As I said, a common thread throughout the 13 years I have been dealing with the case has been that they seem not to reply to any representations on behalf of the family.
This is obviously a very sad case, but it also demonstrates the persistence and courage of a loving mother who will not let the case go despite the objections and obstacles that Greek officialdom puts in her way. I assure Mrs Cummings and her family that I will continue to do what I can to get them the justice that they deserve, so that they can have final closure on this very sad case.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate my old friend the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to him for the strong support that he has given Mr Rochester’s family over what is now a long period. As he said, his predecessor Lord Radice did the same before him.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised a number of issues relating to the case with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I thank him for expressing his gratitude to officials for all the work that they have done over the years. I know I would have done precisely what he has done—at least, I like to think I would—had I been in his position. This is an extraordinary and unsatisfactory case. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has taken a close interest in it and met the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions to discuss it. I welcome this opportunity to respond on his behalf and on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
First, may I restate our deepest condolences to Mr Rochester’s family, who, as the hon. Gentleman explained, have lost someone dear to them in tragic circumstances? The death of a loved one is painful under any circumstances, but I am conscious that when a death occurs overseas, the cultural differences, the language barrier and the systems used by foreign authorities can be difficult to comprehend, making the grief felt by the bereaved family all the more acute.
As the hon. Gentleman set out in detail, the loss and grief suffered by Mr Rochester’s family have been compounded by the challenges that they have faced, not only in their pursuit of justice against those they see as responsible for contributing to his death, but through the damaging confusion over the repatriation of one of his organs. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm for the record the sequence of events as we understand them and the consular assistance that we have provided to the family.
After a series of court cases, both Greek and British authorities agreed that Mr Rochester did not receive adequate medical treatment following his fall. That was confirmed following the retrial in Rhodes on 5 February 2008 of the medical staff who treated Mr Rochester immediately before his death. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the court found one of the medical assistants guilty of homicide by negligence and sentenced him to 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. The other two accused were acquitted.
When Mr Rochester’s body was repatriated, the post-mortem examination in the UK found that he had been returned without his left kidney. At the family’s request, staff at our consulate in Rhodes helped to arrange the kidney’s return to the UK by liaising with all the relevant authorities, and funding its safe delivery to Dryburn hospital in Durham. On its return to the UK, however, the DNA testing requested by the family threw into doubt the identity of the kidney. I cannot begin to imagine the additional distress that that must have caused Mr Rochester’s family at that time.
Consular staff urgently sought clarification, and at the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman and Mr Rochester’s family, in 2002 the Greek authorities agreed on an independent DNA test to be carried out by a third country at the National Institute of Criminalistics and Criminology in Belgium. In order to complete that test, the Greek authorities stated that three samples were required, including one from Mr Rochester’s remains, as the hon. Gentleman has said.
Despite our representations on behalf of the family to explain their distress, Greek authorities remained firm on that point. They did not accept that it would be possible to determine once and for all the identity of the kidney unless the sample was taken from the exhumed remains. They would not accept skin samples that had been previously taken from Mr Rochester for an unrelated reason in the UK some time before his death, and they would not take samples from a next of kin.
It is testament to the fortitude of the family that, despite their concerns, they agreed to the exhumation of Mr Rochester’s body. The DNA test could then proceed, and in May 2012 a summary of the results was passed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the office of the hon. Gentleman and the family. The summary stated that the kidney that was originally repatriated on 14 August 2000 did, with almost certain probability, belong to Christopher Rochester. The Greek authorities had initiated a criminal case based on the Greek organ trading Act, following reports that the kidney did not belong to Mr Rochester, but the case was then closed.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the family have since made it clear—quite understandably—that they would like to see a full version of the results to assure themselves that they are valid. Our understanding from the Greek authorities is that those results would be disclosed in full only to someone with a vested legal interest in the case, such as a family member as next of kin, or their appointed lawyer in Greece. That would mean a family member either travelling to Greece, or appointing a legal representative there.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a signed letter from Mrs Cummings authorising him to act on her behalf, but as I have said, my understanding is that that can be done only by a legal representative in Greece.
Mr Kevan Jones
What the Greek Ministry of Justice has been asked for is a Government document. Will the Minister make representations to his Greek counterpart to see whether there is some other method? This family is not in a position to get the finance together to do what has been suggested by the Greek authorities, but without that, and without a full copy of the report, as I have said, they will not get closure.
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman is right—of course they will not get closure until they see the whole report. However, the Greeks are standing firm on this matter and have said that the results can be disclosed only to a next of kin or legally appointed representative. We will raise the case again although I suspect we will not get very far on that particular point.
It is not for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to interfere with Greek law on this point. But it is right that the Greek authorities should respond to the hon. Gentleman directly, and I am more than happy to write to the Greek ambassador. I am incredulous that the ambassador has not replied to the hon. Gentleman and I can only think that it is the result of an oversight that I am sure the ambassador will wish to right at the earliest opportunity. I shall point out to him as soon as possible that the hon. Gentleman still awaits a response. I will also ask our embassy in Athens to press the Rhodes public prosecutor’s office for a response to the hon. Gentleman’s letter and, of course, we can provide updated details for lawyers in Greece if that would be helpful.
Once again, may I say that my deepest sympathies go out to the family? It is only natural and understandable that they should seek closure on what must have been a terribly distressing period of uncertainty over Mr Rochester’s body—an uncertainty that has gone on for far too long. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to give all appropriate support to the family as they pursue this, and we will also give what support we can to the hon. Gentleman, who has been so dogged in his determination to get justice for his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I remember with fondness the time when my hon. Friend was the Friday Whip—he was a very good one. Would the debate not be better if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) at least made an intervention or speech in it?
Jim Fitzpatrick
It is not for me to respond on behalf of right hon. or hon. Members. When I was a private Member’s Bill Whip, I used to advise colleagues on a Friday. I would say, “Stay in your seat and don’t be provoked by anything Opposition Members say.” The hon. Member for Stockton South is showing admirable restraint. Some of the things that have been said during the debates on these Fridays will have irritated the life out of him, but he is keen to get to the conclusion of the debate. He has made a tactical and strategic decision, but I understand Opposition Members who would rather have engaged in a fuller debate with Government Members.
In conclusion, I support the EU. We have nothing to fear from a referendum. I support the Bill in principle and will vote for it on Third Reading. I look forward to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister explaining why I should support the two amendments he has tabled, which I suspect he will do shortly.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend has made his point, and he is accurate.
I wish to speak to amendments 84 and 64 in my name. I may want to press amendment 64 to a Division.
First, let me address speedily the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. Although referendums are—in this country, at least—unusual, there have been several in recent years, and a noticeably higher number under Labour Governments. Not for us the dismissive attitude to some of the British people of Conservatives such as Boris Johnson—we instinctively trust the British people. Under Labour we had the 1975 European Communities membership referendum. We have had the various Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution referendums, and the referendum that proposed a devolution of powers to London—the Greater London authority referendum in 2000. We have also seen a number of referendums on directly elected mayors. There is a considerable amount of experience to draw on in getting any future referendums right.
Referendums are substantial undertakings. Their administration is a sizeable cost to the state. There is also substantial inconvenience to the public; schools get closed for the day. Rightly, therefore, great emphasis is placed on getting the conduct of the referendum right. We do not want to waste precious resources or the time of those involved. We need to ensure that the result is legitimate, valid and fair. With that in mind, a proper plan for the arrangement of the referendum is sensible. Clause 3(1) is helpful in that regard, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South pointed out, the absence of a timetable or deadline for the publication of the Electoral Commission’s report is problematic.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the single piece of legislation on Europe that centred powers in Brussels and led to the open market and the flood of immigrants that we have today was the Single European Act, which Mrs Thatcher signed and did not put to a referendum in this country?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend is right. The Conservative party has taken through this House and the other place a number of major pieces of legislation on Europe on which it has not wanted a referendum. One can only conclude that Conservative leaders in the past were more willing to stand up to their Back Benchers than the current Prime Minister is.
Let me discuss the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. Amendments 52 to 55 relate to the report that the Electoral Commission would publish under clause 3. As other hon. Members have said, the Electoral Commission’s recent report on the Bill, published last month, provided us with invaluable advice on the potential wording of a referendum question, and the consequential difficulties that the poorly worded question that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is proposing could cause. I do not want to dwell on that particular Electoral Commission report, but it is clear that further advice in the form of a report from the commission would be invaluable should a referendum go ahead.
The important reference back to the previous Electoral Commission report is that it had only almost four months to complete its work on what the question should be. It made it clear then that it was not long enough for it to offer the House of Commons a definitive view on the wording of the question, so the clear lesson that we need to draw in the context of this grouping of amendments is that it must be given longer to do its work. Amendment 55, implying a minimum six months being needed for the Electoral Commission to do its work, is clearly sensible. It would have been useful to hear a little more of the Minister’s thoughts on that particular amendment.
There is also the obvious point that such a report needs to be delivered in time for the advice in it to be given due consideration by the Secretary of State, and crucially by Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I can see the case that my hon. Friend makes, in particular for amendment 55. We know that the Conservative party is divided on the timetable for this legislation. We had the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). Some want the referendum next year, others want—[Interruption.]
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fridays are for private Members’ business, and that is what we are dealing with today. Is it in order for the Government deputy Chief Whip to be orchestrating the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) in what he should be doing?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Chair has power over many things and many people, but the Government deputy Chief Whip is not one of them.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Gapes
I accept that; it is another valid argument.
The second amendment I want to comment on is amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor. His position is that the referendum should be held in October 2014, five weeks after the referendum on Scottish separatism. I believe that there are problems with that date, because of the proximity to the other date, but I also believe that he is making the same point that I am making about the futility of having a hypothetical renegotiation. The Government have ruled out renegotiating now—the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that there was no intention of starting any renegotiation in advance of a general election. This is therefore a status quo “as we are” alternative to a complete withdrawal. It is similar to the argument I have just made about holding the referendum a few months later, on the same day as the general election.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is more politically honest than what has been put forward by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister in that it would allow people to vote on whether we should be in or out of the EU and might force the Prime Minister to concede to saying which way he would vote in such a referendum?
Mike Gapes
I can see some of the attractions in that. Moreover, the fact that the hon. Member for Windsor added his name to my amendment 22 is indicative of the fact that he is not firmly tied to the date in October 2014; he would just like to hold the referendum before the end of 2014.
Mike Gapes
Absolutely—and it is not just Nissan; it is any major international company that wishes to locate within the European Union to get access to the single market population of 500 million and wishes to be based in a country with a high level of education where large numbers of people speak the English language. Because there is an excellent education system in the Netherlands, that counts as one such country; the Irish Republic would also provide an easy alternative for location if, because of the uncertainty created by a potential referendum and renegotiation leading up to 2017, they chose not to invest in the United Kingdom.
I was dealing with amendment 23, but amendment 24 would allow a little bit more time for the renegotiation. It is not as good as holding it earlier because of the uncertainty and the issues to which I have just referred. Nevertheless, this would allow less uncertainty—one year less uncertainty—than this private Member’s Bill, supported by elements of the Government, would allow.
Given the questions over whether this issue should be properly considered and some doubts about how long the renegotiation might take, I have also tabled amendments to provide an alternative date after the next general election, going beyond 2017. I have suggested—although I shall not press amendments 26 and 27 to the vote—2018 and 2019 as alternatives to allow more time. With 27 other EU states, this renegotiation, if it were to happen, would be extremely difficult. If, of course, the renegotiation is going to be a modest figleaf-type negotiation, it could be done quite quickly. If, however, it is fundamental and has to meet all the demands of the people who want to leave behind all the aspects of the present European Union and go back to being a free trade area or a common market, it would involve a complete disintegration and disentanglement of the UK relationship, requiring an à la carte approach that the other 27 countries are not likely to—I would say, will not—agree to. That would be a problem, so we would need a long time to persuade those other countries of our case.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend believe that we would be better informed and able to make a more informed decision on his amendments if the Prime Minister and the Government told us and the British people exactly what type of renegotiation they have in mind—whether it be the all-day breakfast, the à la carte or simply a cheap snack?
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman makes my arguments for me on amendment 58, so I will not repeat them. There are strong arguments to get the correct date through consultation, rather than there being an arbitrary decision put forward by elements within the Government. Better for there to be a commission and, as my amendment 12 says, for there to be consultation with faith organisations to make sure that the dates do not clash with religious festivals and holidays. We are a multicultural, multi-faith country now, so the Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Zoroastrians, Muslims and Christians will all need to be consulted.
Mike Gapes
Five years ago, the mayor of my borough was a Zoroastrian. It is a long established, very old religion that came originally from Persia.
Mike Gapes
I do not want to give way any more, as I want to make progress. I want to conclude my remarks soon.
We need to avoid the prospect of the date clashing with other elections. Amendment 13 deals with that issue because there are regional, local and national elections, by-elections and other elections. It is important for there to be clarity about the date.
Finally, in amendments 9, 10 and 11, I make the case for us to get into the 21st century. Gone are the days when we should vote on only one day—Thursdays. We no longer live in a world in which there is no flexitime or different hours, and in which most people live and work very close to the same place. Those days have gone. Like other countries, we should get into the modern world and allow voting on more than one day—Thursday, Friday and Saturday, or Saturday and Sunday. We need to be more flexible, more open and more democratic. It is crucial that we take account of the modern age. If we are to have this epoch-making referendum, we should at least consider it reflecting the situation in the 21st century.
I have introduced my amendments. I do not wish to delay the House any longer, but I would like to have votes on amendments 3 and 77.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I want to speak to amendments 68 and 70 and new schedule 2. Before we have a referendum on whether to stay in or come out of the EU, it is important that we consult bodies and organisations. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) should have undertaken such a consultation before assembling a Bill that was designed more to keep his own party together than to better the prospects of his Stockton South constituents in the north-east of England. Let me explain why consultation is so important.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has spoken a great deal in the north-east on television and to the newspapers. Does my hon. Friend not find it odd that, despite championing a Bill around the newsrooms and the newspapers of the north-east, he has been completely silent throughout this entire debate?
Phil Wilson
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman intends to speak later. I know how vocal he has been in the region on this issue, but not in the Chamber.
One area that we could consult on is foreign direct investment in the north-east, which is important to the region. Let me explain why we should consult those organisations that promote such investment. Since 1992, inward foreign direct investment flows to the EU have doubled and the UK has become an attractive investment, with the second largest stock of foreign direct investment in the world, although it has fallen since 2010. I will come on to that later and explain why this Bill undermines future investment.
Phil Wilson
I do not agree with a referendum in four years’ time given that nobody knows what the question will be. That will create a lot of uncertainty which will threaten jobs not just in my constituency but everywhere else in the country. Those are the issues that I believe the hon. Gentleman should recognise.
The hon. Member for Stockton South turned up to the launch on 1 November. As The Northern Echo said the next day:
“Mr Wharton is the Conservative MP for Stockton South, whose private member’s Bill will see MPs vote this Friday on whether to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership with the EU.”
The report went on:
“It’s ironic that the Tory backbencher was happy to celebrate the investment Hitachi is making in the North-East, while championing a cause that jeopardises the region’s chances of securing similar job boosts in the future.”
I could not agree more.
Mr Kevan Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of what The Northern Echo said. Would it not be greatly advantageous not only to the House but to his constituents, the people of the north-east and The Northern Echo if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) at least made a contribution to the debate? This is yet another occasion on which he has remained silent.
Phil Wilson
There is certainly a deafening silence from the hon. Member for Stockton South.
Phil Wilson
I would like to make some progress.
Total exports from the north-east to the EU last year were worth £6.5 billion, which was nearly half the region’s total. In a survey for Business for Britain, 6% of businesses said that they would close if we left the EU. That would mean the loss of 1.5 million jobs in Britain, including 40,000 in the north-east, at an average of 1,300 per north-east constituency. I am pleased that I am not jeopardising those jobs by supporting the Bill.
Foreign direct investment is important to the UK economy and the north-east. FDI has fallen in the north-east since 2010, but let me explain why the Bill, given the lack of consultation on its creation, would make matters worse. A recent Ernst and Young report on FDI called “No room for complacency” said:
“The number of FDI projects secured by most English regions, excluding London, declined in 2012. Investments in England outside of London were 24% below their level in 2010—a decline that has coincided with the closure of the Regional Development Agencies…and the switch to Local Enterprise Partnerships…If it continues, the weakness of the English regions could damage the UK’s overall ability to attract FDI in comparison to countries such as France and Germany”.
It states:
“56% of investors in Western Europe feel that if the UK were less integrated into the EU it would become less attractive for FDI”.
It also says:
“the position of London is now so pronounced that if the UK were to be considered without London, it would be placed joint third alongside Spain in attracting new investment.”
All that underlines my basic point that at a time of difficulties in attracting foreign investment, it is absolutely ridiculous to create even more uncertainty by proceeding with the Bill.
Perhaps there are other people whom the hon. Member for Stockton South should have heard from, because if he had consulted more widely than just the various factions of the Conservative party for whom coming out of Europe is an anecdote for the loss of empire, he would not have touched this Bill with a bargepole. He should have spoken to people such as Paul Everitt, the chief executive of the ADS group, who says:
“UK exports are crucial to rebalancing the economy and last year alone, aerospace sales to Europe were worth £7.5 billion. But the EU is more than just a large market for ADS’s sectors. It’s also a significant source of additional funding for R&D investment in the UK and plays an integral role in shaping the regulatory environment for the sector’s key customers and suppliers...The priority must be to maintain these opportunities for exports, investment and influence in Europe in order to support the UK’s growth and global competitiveness.”
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that one European success story has been Airbus? This week’s announcement by the Emirates airline of its order of 50 A380 aircraft is a good sign that Britain benefits from EU membership, but such benefits could be jeopardised if we were not part of a single market.
Phil Wilson
Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That proves the importance of our role in Europe now and in the future.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could ask the House authorities to investigate the Division bell. Before amendment 3 was moved, the Division bell outside the Chamber started ringing at least 10 or 20 seconds before you put the Question. There is clearly a disconnect between the people observing the House and those setting off the bell. Could that be investigated?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to my attention. I will immediately ask for an investigation into the workings of the Division bell.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Is it in order for a Government Whip to be standing up having a long, detailed conversation with the Minister while my hon. Friend is moving his amendment?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. I expect that the hon. Gentleman in question meant to be sitting and will do so from now on.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is some concern about the amendment, because the question would read:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”?
We tabled an amendment last week to include Gibraltar. Does he think that there should be some reference to Gibraltar on the Gibraltar ballot paper?
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I think was raised in evidence to the Electoral Commission by the Plain English Campaign. It pointed out that in response to a yes/no question, as is traditional, there would be a yes campaign and a no campaign. In response to what appears to be the Electoral Commission’s preferred question, we would have to have a remain campaign, and a leave campaign—I do not particularly fancy carrying placards stating, “Remain”. There are some problems with the preferred wording in the commission’s report, and the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point that underlines the fact that the issue requires more consideration. I would like that consideration to be led by the Electoral Commission and to inform the wording of the Bill. If the Minister is unhappy with the wording from the Electoral Commission, and thinks we are being rushed into a decision on that—just as the Bill appears to be rushing us towards even less adequate wording—the solution is in his hands and those of the Conservative party and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). They could pause the Bill and wait for the Electoral Commission to consider the question more fully, and satisfy itself that it has the best possible question to put to the British people.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. Would it not help the House and the debate if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) made a contribution to the debate or was in the Chamber to hear it?
Martin Horwood
It is rather extraordinary that only one Conservative Back Bencher and one Liberal Democrat are in the Chamber at the moment. Perhaps Members are following the Prime Minister’s injunction not to bang on about Europe—at least at the moment, if not generally.
Amendment 37, tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South, would replace a Welsh “version” with a “translation”. I think that is a little superfluous; I am not really sure of the precise difference between a version and a translation, and even after listening to the hon. Gentleman I did not quite pick up the nuanced difference. I think the Minister made a reasonable response to the amendment, which is that we are following precedent by using “version”.
There is more of a problem with amendments 39 and 40 which mention Gaelic translations, and a bit of a linguistic pickle is going on. As I understand it, Gaelic covers a family of languages that include Manx and Irish, and not just Scottish Gaelic, which is the normal term used to describe the Celtic language in Scotland. The Scottish Government are promoting the status of Scottish Gaelic on the basis that it should have equal respect with English, and that there should be language rights for its tens of thousands of native speakers, but not that it is based on a perceived lack of understanding of English. No one is really expected not to understand a question in English—for instance, there is no requirement to have a Scottish Gaelic version of the independence question in the independence referendum, and that appears to be the intention of both the Scottish and UK Governments. Amendment 39 is a wee bit superfluous.
The hon. Member for Ilford South gets into even more of a linguistic pickle with amendment 40. It mentions Gaelic, although I think the accepted terminology in Ireland is Irish, not Gaelic. This is becoming a bit of an attempt to find various things to talk about, which obviously I am not sure we in this place would entertain.
Amendment 38 has slightly more weight because the hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to include in the Bill the requirement to consult
“with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government.”
There is much more precedent for using the Welsh language, but then the Welsh language is already mentioned in the Bill, and I am not sure whether we need that sensible requirement for consultation in the Bill too. Such a consultation is something that the Government would seem to be perfectly capable of doing, and if the Electoral Commission is looking at the wording of the question, it should be the body that leads on our Welsh version of the question, as well as the English language version.
That leaves amendment 71, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). His amendment is an attempt to tackle a fundamental problem with the Bill, namely its curious approach to the timing and the curiously delayed nature of the referendum question that it would put to the British people. Amendment 71 provides a small antidote to that by emphasising that we are not binding our successors. [Interruption.]
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week we had the Government advisers in the Box communicating via Back Benchers and even with the Bill’s promoter. Today I notice that another Back Bencher is doing the same thing. Is this really in order?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
People are allowed to come and speak. I think everything is in order. If it was not, we would have stopped it.
Mr Bain
I am pleased to speak to amendment 71, which stands in my name, and to other amendments in the group.
An unusual aspect of this Bill is that it purports to hold a referendum on the question of whether to remain part of the European Union, without specifying the date on which such a referendum would be held. That is most unlike the practice that we have seen when this House has passed similar legislation to create the opportunity for referendums to take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, indeed, for the referendum held two years ago on the alternative vote. It is also unlike what is happening in the process for a referendum in Scotland. The great danger that the Bill in its current form presents is that it gives the Executive too much power in the setting of the referendum date. The Bill gives the Government a blank cheque for the setting of that date, and who knows what sort of factors will be considered when the Government come to set it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend really think that is a surprise when the Bill is not about whether we should be in or out of Europe, but about papering over the internal cracks, seen in previous contributions, within the Tory party?
Mr Bain
Indeed; my hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
Given that this referendum is being pursued through a private Member’s Bill, it is perplexing why the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) seeks to give such discretion to the Executive. Amendment 71 would limit that discretion quite substantially. If we look at the wording of clause 1, we see that it is technically possible for this House and the other place to pass a resolution, setting a particular date for a referendum, and there could be a general election in the interim. In the increasingly—by the day—unlikely event of this Government being returned to office at that election, they could come forward with an order in the next Parliament with a different date for the holding of the referendum.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, if this Bill were passed, any date specified in a resolution passed by this House and the other place for the holding of a referendum would be the same as the date in the final order. In so doing, it would reassert the sovereignty of this House and the other place and restrict the ability of the Executive to play the sorts of games in respect of this referendum that, sadly, those of us who represent constituencies in Scotland know that the Scottish Government have been guilty of playing in respect of the Scottish referendum. I will be testing the House’s opinion on the amendment, which is important in providing safeguards, to the House and those we represent, against the Government’s playing fast and loose with any timetable for setting a date.
Mr Bain
Given my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area, he is enormously well placed to make that point in such a powerful way. It is bizarre that many of those who support the Bill are the very same people who oppose the idea of Parliament being bound by its successors. One reason why they want to withdraw from the European Union, and would encourage people to vote no to staying in in any such referendum, is that they do not believe that sovereignty should be affected.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Would it not be better if the promoter of the Bill, instead of taking a vow of silence that would be the envy of any monastery in the land, actually answered some of the questions about why he has put it forward in such a way?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Throughout the entire passage of the Bill, neither the hon. Member for Stockton South nor the Minister representing the Government or the Conservative party—hon. Members are not sure about his status—have been able to answer the important questions about the implications of a yes or a no vote. Neither has there been any indication of the precise date on which the Government propose to hold the referendum.
As I said, from my experience in Scotland, that issue is critical. It is not simply a matter of process; it will come into the heart of the entire debate. I do not believe that leaving the Bill in its current form, and letting it give the Executive the powers that it does, does this country or Parliament any service. It is important that we improve the Bill, putting in clearer safeguards for Parliament and the country.
On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Harrow East.
Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme
Kevan Jones Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. There have been five speeches in the debate, which is topical because of the past week’s events in Geneva. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—although we disagree on nuclear weapons, I respect his position—made a thoughtful speech that put the present situation in its historical context. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) recognised that much of the suspicion in Iran is down to the history that our country and others have in the region. That is important when we are looking at a possible solution to nuclear weapons in the ongoing talks.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly raised the possibility of proliferation throughout the region. He mentioned Saudi Arabia and other nations that might wish to acquire nuclear weapons if the Iranians were to develop their capability. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said on nuclear deterrents vis-à-vis this country, but I do not agree that if Iran developed a nuclear weapons capability, it would somehow offer a balance of terror with Israel. The clear way forward is to stop Iran developing that capability in the first place.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) warned the Government not to look at this process through rose-tinted spectacles, and I agree. No one should look at the history or the actions of the present regime in Iran and think that we are dealing with people who have not committed atrocities on their own people or have not exported terror to other parts of the middle east. When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I was aware of the involvement of Iran in attacks on our troops in southern Iraq and its support for insurgents against those forces.
We on the Opposition Benches see Iran as a threat—if it acquires nuclear weapons—not only to security in the middle east, but to global security. A nuclear-armed Iran would not only change the balance of power within the region, but, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham argued, it would also lead to other nations wishing to acquire a nuclear capability. Many of those nations have the funds to do that.
If Iran gained a nuclear capability, that would be a blow to the United Nations goal of a nuclear-free middle east. It would also be a step away and against the goal that we all share of ensuring that new countries do not acquire nuclear weapons. We in the UK and on the Opposition Benches—well, some of us, anyway—are committed to the retention of our nuclear deterrent, but it is important that we encourage others and ourselves to reduce our nuclear weapon stockpiles. Allowing the Iranians to have a nuclear weapons capability would be a severe blow to that non-proliferation position, which I think all parties in this country would want to protect.
The Opposition agree with the Government’s twin-track approach to Iran, with the imposition of strict sanctions and the encouragement through diplomatic channels to ensure that we can get an agreement that ensures that Iran does not acquire a nuclear capability. Much has been said this afternoon about the election of President Rouhani. I accept the points that hon. Members have made about him and some of the atrocities that have been carried out by the Iranian regime. He stood on a platform of reform, and the sanctions imposed by the international community on Iran are having an effect on the Iranian community and the Iranian people. It is important that we continue our diplomatic efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North discussed the UK’s diplomatic relations with Iran. I welcome the appointment of the chargés d’affaires and hope we will see the embassy in Tehran opening to commence that dialogue in the not-too-distant future. That dialogue will be so important in steering the Iranians away from developing nuclear weapons and in raising some of the points about human rights and their support for terrorist activities—both in the region and more widely—that have rightly been mentioned.
This weekend’s talks were positive. It is a disappointment to us all that the next step has not been taken, but, overall, we are moving in the right direction and the Iranians are taking a more positive tone and stance. I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kettering, that there are two options. One is to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear capacity and take some type of military action against them. The other is to have talks, to give Iran a chance to disarm and to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Given what the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North said, that would be the preferred option.
Doing nothing is not an option. The Opposition support the continuation of strong and tough sanctions while, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, not looking at Iran through rose-tinted spectacles. We have to recognise that the negotiations on ensuring that the Iranians give up their capacity to develop nuclear weapons will be tough and hard. I wish the Government and our international partners well in arriving at that international settlement. It will make not only the middle east, but the world, a safer place.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Gapes
First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting a large number of amendments that I tabled and for your ruling that they are entirely valid and not frivolous.
It is important that this parliamentary democracy asserts the primacy of Parliament and its democratic processes. I have received a large number of tweets over the past few days from people who seem to believe that we should move to a plebiscitary form of decision making in this country.
I do not want to diverge from the substance of the debate, so I will concentrate on the new clause and amendments in the group. It is important to understand why there are so many amendments on the franchise to be used in a referendum: because this short Bill is woefully inadequate. It would create a referendum held on the basis of the franchise for parliamentary elections, not European elections, even though it would have enormous implications for the 1.4 million British people living in other European Union countries. It would also affect British people who live elsewhere in the world, perhaps working for companies based in the UK, with families still living in the UK. Their prosperity depends on our membership of the EU.
There would also be enormous implications for the 14 British overseas territories and their populations. New clause 1 rightly addresses the question of Gibraltar, and I am pleased that the Government have clarified their position on that in recent weeks. However, it is not sufficient, because people in other overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands, would be affected. Our relationship with the EU also has implications for the future of people such as the Chagossians who were expelled from Diego Garcia.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill also excludes citizens of other EU countries who may have been resident in this country for many years and have made a huge contribution to its economy?
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that applies to other British overseas territories that have associate status with the EU and that benefit from trade, sustainable development and regional co-operation. Is he aware, for example, that the Falkland Islands receives, €4 million a year directly through such arrangements? How will their people’s wishes or intentions be considered in this process if they are not included in the franchise?
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that we are considering a private Member’s Bill, but is it in order for its promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to be taking advice from Foreign Office civil servants in the Box?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is normal for Ministers to approach the Box, and only Ministers. I did not see anyone approach the Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I know where the hon. Gentleman is now thank you, Ms McCarthy, but I am saying that I did not see him approach the Box and I am sure he will not do that. It is supposed to be for Ministers. Having eyes in the back of my head is not a skill I have yet developed, but I am sure the protocol will be observed.
Mike Gapes
I might be wrong, but I understand that London is the fifth largest French city. We live in a globalised world. People come to London to give to our country and contribute to our prosperity. One reason for the dynamism and growth in the London economy is that we have attracted the brightest and best people from many European countries, and yet we will not allow them to vote on the future of the place where they have their families and connections, and to which they have made a contribution.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not just London. An individual in Durham who is an American citizen has lived here for 34 years. He runs a very successful business and his wife is English. Clearly, the Bill will affect his business, but he will not be allowed to have a say on whether the UK is part of the EU.
Mike Gapes
I agree with my hon. Friend. There are huge implications for the economy and our people should we leave the EU. However, the debate is on the Bill and not the wider issues, so I will not be drawn down that path.
Mike Gapes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no logic to the proposal; it is absurd. As I said in my introductory remarks, 1.4 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU. Only those who have registered as overseas voters may vote in the referendum. The law says that one must have been away from the UK for no more than 15 years and specifically register as an overseas voter. The figures I have seen show that there were fewer than 20,000 registered overseas voters in December 2012. The future of the 1.4 million British people living elsewhere in the EU could be seriously and adversely affected by the consequences of a referendum that leads to withdrawal, but they will not be given a say.
Some might register, but many may have been living abroad for longer than 15 years. Since I tabled my proposal, I received, on 5 November, an e-mail from Mr Brian Cave, who lives in France. He states:
“I, myself, have lived in France for over 15 years and thereby am disenfranchised. That of course is wrong. To further not be permitted to vote in any IN/OUT referendum is an appalling double insult for any British Citizen in Europe. We, who would be most closely affected, must have a vote in this.”
Millions of people could be damaged. More than 1 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU—in Spain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has said, in Portugal, in France or elsewhere. Many are pensioners, but some live in France and work in London. Some have their families in France but contribute regularly to British companies and businesses. It is rumoured—I do not know whether this is true—that even Members of this House sometimes live in France. It is therefore important that we understand that the Government are not allowing a large number of British citizens to have a vote in the referendum. One of my amendments would make it possible for British people living in all EU countries to have a vote in it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will have sold their houses here and retired to Spain, for example? I am sure a lot of people from Romford have retired to Spain to a better life and winter sunshine. Disfranchising those people is anomalous in the sense that they are the ones who will be directly affected if we withdraw from the EU.
Mike Gapes
That is absolutely true. The Government—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I meant to say the Minister. Given the earlier ruling, I assume he will speak for the Government. He will need to clarify why we are not allowing those British citizens to vote in the referendum. After all, the devolution referendums held by the previous Government in 1999 were conducted under the local government franchise, which allowed EU citizens to vote. My proposal would widen that so that British citizens everywhere could vote.
Mr Lidington
I am speaking as a Minister at the Foreign Office and, as always, as a member of the Conservative party to make clear my view of the amendments and, in particular, to respond to the points made in Committee by Members representing different political parties about extending the franchise to the people of Gibraltar.
Mr Lidington
I have taken advice on this matter, including legal advice, so that I can be confident of giving the House an accurate commentary on the effects of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).
Mr Lidington
In Committee, I undertook to review this question, in response to points made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I do not think is in his place any longer, and by other Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who argued that Gibraltarians should receive the franchise, in view of the fact that Gibraltar was perhaps uniquely affected among our overseas territories by the question of Britain’s membership, or otherwise, of the EU.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
It had better be a point of order, Mr Jones.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Jones, you know full well that that is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the Minister or the Member who has the Floor to decide to whom they give way, but perhaps the Minister could indicate to the House whether he wishes to make some progress.
Mr Lidington
I intend to continue with my remarks and respond to the points made about new clause 1 and then to respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), so I do not intend to give way to those who are seeking to intervene at the moment.
Under the 2006 constitution of Gibraltar, the United Kingdom is responsible for Gibraltar’s external relations, including its membership of international organisations. For example, the United Kingdom would be at risk of infraction proceedings if the Government of Gibraltar failed to implement EU legislation. Gibraltar’s association with the EU is itself founded on the UK’s membership and the terms of Gibraltar’s association are set out in declaration 55 attached to the treaties of the European Union. To those hon. Members who have asked, “What would happen if in 2017 the UK voted to leave the EU?”, the answer is that in subsequent negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the future relationship of Gibraltar with the EU and the acquis would have to form one aspect of those considerations.
Mr Bain
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. In this Parliament, I and many of my hon. Friends have already voted in the referendum on electoral reform to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. My support for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South is consistent with that line of thinking and with my voting record in the House.
Amendment 69 raises an important question. The Minister has already conceded that there is a need to extend the franchise to the people of Gibraltar, but there is another group of individuals who would be significantly affected by the result of any referendum held under the Bill if it became law. They are the 260,000 people living in the British overseas territories, which include Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Those territories’ relationship with the European Union is connected to our membership of the EU.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) moved the new clause on Gibraltar. Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 26 January 2012, the hon. Gentleman made comments in the press calling for all overseas territories to be represented here at Westminster? I wonder why he now wants to exclude them from this important EU vote.
Mr Bain
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) will be accountable for his own statements, but given the consistent line of reasoning that he takes in his politics, I should have thought that he would want to be consistent by showing his approval of amendment 69 later.
Article 198 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union sets out the relationship between many of the British overseas territories and the EU. That provision allows them to form association agreements and to opt into the provisions on the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment within the EU. All of that would be affected if the result of the referendum were to take the United Kingdom out of the EU.
The British overseas territories are not part of the EU, but EU law applies to them indirectly. It is important in regulating the trade relationships that many of the territories have with the EU, for example. Many of the islands are relatively small, and they are highly dependent on what they can export. Import tariff levels are also a significant factor in their economies. The overseas territory agreements with the EU benefit the territories through non-reciprocal preferential trade boosts and through the most generous form of tariffs. The territories’ associate status could be severely affected by the votes of people in the United Kingdom, but at present the Bill provides no ability for them to consent to such an arrangement. They would not be given the franchise in the referendum. That is a real anomaly, and the hon. Member for Stockton South must address it.
Part 4 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union applies to the British overseas territories. The territories have regular tripartite meetings with the EU, as well as partnership meetings. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, under the current multi-annual financial framework, many of the territories receive money directly from the EU. They could suffer severe financial losses as a result of the referendum, yet the Bill in its current form does not allow them to consent to a change in their relationship with the European Union. The Falkland Islands receives €4 million a year as a direct result of its associate relationship with the EU. Anguilla receives €11.7 million a year and Montserrat receives €15.66 million a year. Does the hon. Member for Stockton South believe that the UK Government should indemnify those territories for the loss of that funding? Has he even raised the matter with the Minister?
These are crucial questions, and the hon. Gentleman and the Minister must satisfy the House that the people of those territories, who will be significantly affected by the Bill, will have an opportunity to be consulted and to have their say; otherwise, a gaping anomaly will remain at the heart of this deeply unsatisfactory Bill.
Mr Thomas
It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). We have had a really interesting debate, with a helpful opening contribution from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is not in his place at the moment, and similarly helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Indeed, the Minister’s contribution was enlightening on some things, although not on others. Of course, there was the short but rather special contribution from the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), too.
I shall speak to amendment 63, in my name, and to amendments 80 to 82, in the names of the hon. Members for Stockton South (James Wharton) and for Romford. These amendments relate to the electoral arrangements for the people of Gibraltar in the proposed referendum. I welcome the fact that Government Members have belatedly taken steps to address this rather glaring hole in their proposals. An apology might have been in order on behalf of the Conservative party, as it was a rather astonishing omission for Government Members to forget the people of Gibraltar in the referendum equation. Indeed, as the Bill’s promoter and Conservative Members consulted so few people before the Bill popped out of Lynton Crosby’s office, I suppose that I should not be at all surprised that the people of Gibraltar were not consulted before the Bill saw the light of day.
Perhaps this is not the only such occasion that Government Members have allowed the people of Gibraltar to slip their minds, but at least, thanks to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), for Ilford South and for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for Cheltenham, this issue was addressed in Committee. Sadly, despite being awakened in Committee to the concern about the omission of the Gibraltarians from the Bill’s franchise, the Minister for Europe and, indeed, the Bill’s promoter have been silent on this problem in the intervening weeks. So it is only now, thankfully, at this the eleventh hour, that it seems that Government Members have seen the light and are prepared to address this anomaly.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend think it strange that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) moved—belatedly, as my hon. Friend says—the new clause to enfranchise the residents of Gibraltar, but that even though he has called for overseas territory residents to have direct representation in the House, he should not feel it fit to add them to the new clause?
Mr Thomas
It is for hon. Members in all parts of the House to make their own judgment on that. Given that the Minister has already spoken and has shown no sign of wanting to intervene on me to clarify the position in relation to the 1865 Act, I look forward to the hon. Member for Romford or the promoter of the Bill, when winding up the debate, giving us a little more clarity about what causes such concern that the Act needs to be added.
In my time as a Member of Parliament, I cannot remember another piece of legislation that needed provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 added to it. Perhaps the Minister or the Bill’s promoter could illuminate the House with details of when the Act was last used and when its provisions were last added to a Bill. In that way, some of my concerns and some of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South about the necessity or otherwise of the Act’s provisions might be addressed. The last thing we want is to over-regulate the Bill, as I fear the Minister and the hon. Member for Romford might be seeking to do.
For those in the House not familiar with the situation with regard to Gibraltar, it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made clear, a British overseas territory which has been ruled by Britain since 1713 under the terms of the treaty of Utrecht. Gibraltarians are British citizens. They elect their own representatives to the territory’s House of Assembly and our British monarch appoints a governor. Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy, and it is home to an important British military garrison and naval base. The particular difficulty thrown up by the Bill is that should a referendum take place under the original terms of the Bill, a vote in Britain to leave the European Union could occur without the people of Gibraltar having any say at all in this huge constitutional change. The people of Gibraltar would be entirely disfranchised—ignored, in effect.
Thanks to the CBI’s work earlier this week, we know that the Prime Minister is willing to risk the possibility of a £3,000 drop in the living standards of the British people were Britain to leave the European Union. I fear that there would be an even bigger hit to the living standards of the citizens of Gibraltar if the Prime Minister’s reckless gamble, all because his party is so divided, were not to pay off. Taking away from Gibraltarians the benefits of European Union membership without giving them any say in the matter would be a cruel act against them by this Parliament.
There is certainly precedent for the inclusion of Gibraltarians in British votes concerning Europe. As I think the hon. Member for Romford and certainly the hon. Member for Cheltenham made clear, the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 provides for Gibraltar to be enfranchised for elections to the European Parliament. As many hon. Members may recall, the Act required the Electoral Commission to propose a region in England and Wales with which the citizens of Gibraltar could participate in European parliamentary elections. The region chosen was the south-west. I understand that in European elections since that Act Gibraltarians have been enfranchised appropriately and have taken part enthusiastically in those elections. Indeed, they will have the opportunity to vote again with the south-west region in the upcoming European elections next May.
Given how deeply divided the Conservative party is on Europe and how little influence Tory MEPs have, I hope that Gibraltarians will vote Labour, and that they will remember that it was only because of the intervention of Labour’s Front Bench in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and certain Back Benchers—I should give an honourable mention in dispatches to the hon. Member for Cheltenham—that their situation got any recognition at all.
After the Committee stage of the Bill had begun, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East wrote to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar explaining why she had tabled amendments to the Bill over the summer. The Chief Minister recently wrote back to her suggesting a slight tweak to the amendments. That is why her amendments were withdrawn earlier this week and I tabled amendment 63 to probe further the intentions of the Bill’s promoter and the Minister. I welcome the fact that, albeit very belatedly, the Bill’s promoter has tabled amendment 80. Given that the Minister for Europe has confirmed his support for that amendment, I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division.
I turn to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred at some length to the amendment, too, as well as to his own similar amendment regarding the position of the citizens of Britain’s overseas territories. Britain has some 14 overseas territories encompassing a diverse range of cultures and communities across the world. They range from the tiny Pitcairn Island, with its 47 inhabitants, to Bermuda, with a population of over 62,000.
Some overseas British territories will be particularly familiar to Members in all parts of the House; others less so. The Falkland Islands, for example, is well known to many in this House and is itself very familiar with the business of referendums. At the referendum on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands this March, 99.8% of its people voted to remain a British territory. An astonishing turnout of 92% meant that only three votes were cast against the Falkland Islands staying with the UK. One could not then argue that Falkland islanders were disengaged with the political process. Yet should this Bill become law, the Prime Minister will be putting at risk the benefits that the Falkland islanders get through Britain’s membership of the European Union. I say again that we know from the CBI’s work this week that the Prime Minister is putting at risk more than £3,000 of every British household’s income in order to try to hold his party together.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend, who is a London MP, takes The Northern Echo newspaper, but I recommend it to him. The Deputy Prime Minister has this morning rightly congratulated Nissan on its new generation of vehicles, but he has also pointed out that if we leave the EU, Nissan’s investment would go, too.
Mr Thomas
I apologise to the editor of The Northern Echo because I do not take the paper regularly, although I have heard it is a very good read. I am aware that Nissan’s boss has said that if the UK leaves the EU, the company would have to reconsider its future strategy and investments. It is astonishing that the Prime Minister is willing to put at risk Nissan’s investment. I suspect that if Britain exits the EU the risk for the living standards of Falkland islanders, like those of Gibraltarians, will be even greater than that for British households.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just Nissan’s investment that will be put at risk, but Hitachi’s excellent new investment in the north-east of England for making trains? Does he also agree that it is ironic that, when the groundbreaking ceremony took place at the Newton Aycliffe site last Friday, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) showed up for a photo opportunity? It is blatant that if this Bill progresses and we leave the EU, that investment and those jobs would not be in the north-east.
Mr Thomas
Let me make a little progress. There is an old adage that young people grow up too quickly these days, but I think we must consider fairly the responsibilities that already rest on some young shoulders at 16. Young people are old enough to go to work, join our armed forces and have children—they even have to pay full fare on the bus unless they are still in full-time education. If they earn enough, they have to pay tax. With all those responsibilities, we suggest that they should also have the right to vote and have their say along with the rest of the country in any elections and referendums.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you follow the rules of the House closely, and clearly the rules on photography in the Chamber are very strict. As you know, this morning I have been keeping a close eye on the Box, and I was aware that a minute ago one of its occupants was holding up his mobile phone. I do not know whether he inadvertently did not know the rules on filming proceedings, and I ask for your guidance on that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
It is quite simple: photography in the Chamber is not allowed by anybody. I am sure that those on the Treasury Benches are capable of ensuring that that includes civil servants in the Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am advised that we can ask a Doorkeeper to undertake that should it be necessary.
European Union (Referendum) Bill (Money)
Kevan Jones Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I accept that there is an important piece of legislation to consider after this, but it is important to highlight the fact that the British taxpayer will be faced with a bill of £75 million, as the Minister said, for what is basically an internal debate within the Conservative party. I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) earlier, because I would like to know what he would do if he were given £75 million to spend in his constituency. I am sure that there are many projects there that have been cut by the Government and that could more justifiably be argued for than the proposed referendum.
The Minister said that the referendum would cost £75 million, provided that the Bill was used in relation to the voting system, but it could cost a lot more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has already demonstrated. If we include Gibraltar, and I can see no reason why we should not—I do not know what the hon. Member for Stockton South has against it—because it votes in European referendums, that would add to the cost. We also should not forget the overseas territories, which have the access rights that others have in the EU. Why should they not be consulted on their future status? I argue that they should, but again that would add to the costs.
Another debate, which I know is taking place in Scotland, is whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote. If they are, that would add more costs. Another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred to is the fact that in 1975 the Government provided money to the yes and no campaigns. Is it proposed that Government money will be given to the yes and no campaigns for this referendum? If it is, that will mean the cost will be more than £75 million. We can clearly see that, in addition to his point about whether the referendum will be on the same day as other elections, that will lead to a great deal more than £75 million.
The important point for the hon. Member for Stockton South is this: can he really say to his constituents—I know Stockton South very well, as he knows—that in excess of £100 million of Government money should be spent on this referendum, and all to solve an internal debate in the Tory party, rather than our relationship with Europe? Can he or any other Member who supports the referendum really justify spending more than £100 million on it? I know what I would do with the money in my constituency: I would replace the money that has been taken out of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Once we explain to people that the Bill will use well in excess of £100 million, I am sure that most of them would agree that it could be spent a hell of a lot better.
Emma Reynolds
Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, given that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said the day before his name was drawn at the top of the ballot that there were issues much more pressing than an EU referendum, such as the economy and jobs, that he suddenly changed his mind 24 hours later?
Mr Jones
The hon. Member for Stockton South has a small majority, so he might be promoting this Bill to endear himself to the selection panels of future safe Tory seats, rather than to the electors of Stockton South who, as my hon. Friend is right to say, would have many more priorities for spending in excess of £100 million.
Will a referendum solve the problem? No, it will not and some hon. Members try to paper over the real issues that will face the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, has argued in favour of membership of the EU, but the big question for him is which way he will vote—yes or no. Will he support state funding for this referendum? We will then see cracks opening up in the Conservative party between those who are pragmatists in Europe and those who represent the more extreme section of his party. That is the question that will face the Prime Minister, and it will not change between now and 2017.
A lot of questions will obviously—and rightly—be explored in Committee, but as the Minister for Europe said, the Bill has passed Second Reading and private Member’s Bill money resolutions are usually supported. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to such a process, but I conclude with a question. The cost will be in excess of £100 million. I know that many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, will ask how we could spend £100 million in a better way. There are many ways better than wasting it on this Bill which, as I have said, is about the internal politics of the Conservative party, rather than what is in Britain’s best interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Marriage (Same sex couples) bill: programme (no. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 5 February 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme)) and 20 May 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Robert Syms.)
Question agreed to.
Iraq War (10th Anniversary)
Kevan Jones Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War.
I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling me to secure this debate, which has the support of colleagues across the House. It gives us a chance to reflect not only on the Iraq war but on Parliament’s role in that war. It is a debate that I believe our constituents would expect us to hold as we pass the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion.
All of us will have in mind today the 179 members of our armed forces who have lost their lives in this conflict. I pay tribute to them and to their bravery, and my sympathy goes out to their families for their terrible loss. Other service personnel have suffered physical and mental trauma as a result of the war which, for many, will be with them for the rest of their lives. We also have in mind the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who were killed during the war or who have died since in military operations, bombings, acts of terrorism or through sickness and disease.
Possible estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the invasion and occupation of Iraq vary wildly. A Lancet survey between March 2003 and June 2006 pointed to over 650,000 excess deaths, while an Opinion Research Business survey put deaths as a result of the conflict at over 1 million up to 2007. The Iraq Body Count, or IBC—an independent US-UK group—reports 112,976 documented civilian casualties and points out that further analysis of the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs may add 12,000 civilian deaths to that the number. The IBC has always said that its number is an undercount because proper records have not been kept by the coalition forces, a fact that tells its own story.
Whatever the true number, there is no dispute that there has been a grave civilian price, one that continues to be paid and threatens to get worse. For most of us today, this 10th anniversary of the invasion is largely history, but for the people of Iraq it is a state of continuing war. Iraqis are being hit by almost daily attacks, with tensions growing between the Shi’a Muslim majority and the minority Sunnis, raising fears of a return to the worst level of sectarian violence. Just this week we have seen harrowing reports of at least seven people killed in a single day in a wave of bombings and attacks in central and northern Iraq. Last month was the bloodiest since June 2008, with over 1,000 Iraqi civilians and security officials killed, according to the UN.
It is a grim understatement to say that the Iraqi people do not have security. There are deep concerns about human rights, massive corruption, unemployment and miserable basic services, such as electricity and water supplies. But even if Iraq finds a way out of its current difficulties, as we all fervently hope it will, there is the legacy of the last 10 years of warfare and terrorism as well. Part of that legacy is the deeply disturbing cases being taken to our High Court, involving more than 1,000 killings and acts of torture committed in Iraq by UK forces. We must have public scrutiny of the systemic issues arising from these cases and look to reform the training and oversight of our armed forces.
What of our own country? Do we feel more secure? Is the terrorist threat diminished because of those 10 years of bloodshed and chaos? In fact, the contrary is true. According to the former head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Iraqi invasion increased the terror threat in Britain, radicalising a generation of young British Muslims and substantially increasing the risk of a terrorist atrocity on UK soil. A major unprovoked attack without UN authorisation took place with dire consequences. These terrible and deeply troubling outcomes add real substance to the argument that this was the biggest foreign policy failure of recent times.
As an individual, I opposed the war in Iraq because it was my view that the burden of justification for undertaking a major unprovoked attack had not been met. I joined the anti-war protest in February 2003, which saw between 1 million and 2 million people marching in London, the biggest political demonstration in history. In successive polls by different and reputable agencies, around two thirds of British citizens say the Iraq war was a mistake.
Ultimately, Parliament was responsible for that decision to go to war. It was MPs in this House who questioned, debated and voted on the decision, both on 26 February and 18 March 2003. But if this war was a mistake, what should Parliament do now? If it were a public body—a school, perhaps, or a hospital or local authority—we would expect an admission that things had gone wrong and a pledge to learn the lessons so that it could not happen again. That, I believe, is at the heart of today’s debate. Not a blame game or resignations; not heads on platters or humble pie; not a chorus of “I told you so.” What I want to focus on specifically is the role of Parliament. How was it that, with some very honourable exceptions, parliamentary scrutiny failed? How was it that the intelligence could be so misinterpreted and misused? How was it that facts clearly in the public domain were ignored or dismissed?
These are not academic questions. Their relevance and consequences are all too real today. We cannot simply leave them to others to answer. The Hutton inquiry and the Butler inquiry had their own terms of reference. Hutton’s remit was the death of Dr David Kelly; Butler’s was a panel, handpicked by Tony Blair, that was insufficiently independent and held far too many hearings in private. Shamefully, we still await the results of the Chilcot panel fully five years after it was established, while battles continue over declassifying material. I know of at least one freedom of information battle that is still being had with the Foreign Office; the sticking point is not national security, but national embarrassment.
All of these processes can play a useful part in revealing some of the truth of what happened in the lead-up to the war and beyond. But it is not the job of these men, however eminent or well intentioned, to stand in judgment on Parliament. Parliament is sovereign, and must remain sovereign even when it comes to considering its own failures and necessary reforms. As parliamentarians in 2013, we can and must ask, and answer, whether sufficient evidence was available in the public domain to allow Government Back Benchers and Opposition MPs to both question and oppose the Government’s case for war in 2003.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I have always found that hindsight in politics is a great thing and makes things a lot easier. The hon. Lady should look at the evidence that came not from the Government or the security services, but from Hans Blix in his final report. I had the honour of meeting him in New York the night before his final report was published and he clearly said to me and to Bruce George—a right hon. Gentleman at the time—not that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, but that he needed more time, with full co-operation, to determine whether Saddam did.
Caroline Lucas
I can only ask why, then, did we not give Hans Blix more time? I, too, have met Hans Blix and I, too, have heard him say that were the weapons inspectors given more time, they could have established the answer without the bloody war that happened.
Caroline Lucas
I absolutely recall that and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It was in the interests of this country for the weapons inspectors not to go back into Iraq so that the Government could make that case.
Mr Kevan Jones
Last night, I looked at the notebook that I had at the time. [Interruption.] No, it is in my own handwriting. What it said is not that Hans Blix needed more time, but that he needed more time if he was going to get full co-operation from Saddam, and at that time he clearly was not.
Caroline Lucas
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I will come to other quotes from Hans Blix, who made it clear that to a great extent Saddam Hussein was co-operating and that with more time we could have avoided the war.
We as parliamentarians have the role and the job of scrutinising the available evidence that was in the public domain. I entirely take the point that hindsight is a wonderful thing. The point I want to make is that plenty of information was in the public domain.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was saying that many people will say that if they had known then what they know now, they would not have supported the war, and I said that that was not an adequate justification, precisely because of those Members of Parliament who were not taken in by the spin. Members of Parliament could have known then much of what they know now. A vast amount of the evidence available now was in the public domain then. We know this because of those hon. Members who did see through the lies and the deceptions, who asked the right questions, who trawled through the documents, who stood up in Parliament and said that the war was based on a false prospectus, and many of those hon. Members are in the Chamber today.
Let me give an example of three others, starting with an hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber, the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones. She saw that Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made the misrepresentation of the French position a centrepiece of their efforts to win the vote on 18 March 2003. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France had the power to veto a second UN resolution. In an interview on 10 March 2003 President Chirac indicated that, as things stood, France would use its veto in the unlikely event that a second resolution authorising military action got the necessary majority of nine members of the Security Council.
I quote from the transcript of the interview. Chirac says:
“My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.”
But by selectively quoting the words “regardless of the circumstances” when describing the French position on authorisation of the use of force, proponents of the war blamed France for blocking military action against Iraq, no matter what evidence emerged of a breach of resolution 1441. Tony Blair even included the selective and misleading quote in the motion in support of military action that was put to the House on 18 March 2003. [Interruption.] I want to finish this section. The importance of the inclusion of this misrepresentation in the motion was huge. Some MPs have stated that it alone changed their minds on whether or not to vote to go to war.
Giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, the right hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that President Chirac’s use of the phrase “this evening” did not describe the French position on the evening of the interview, thereby indicating that this could change in the future, but was simply an introduction to what he was going to say that evening. He put that argument to the panel by specifically stating the order of Chirac’s phrasing, down to where a comma is used. However, the transcript shows that he did not give the phrasing in the right order. The phrase “this evening” came after “regardless of the circumstances”, but he said that it came first, changing the meaning of Chirac’s words to suit the argument. The right hon. Gentleman said:
‘I know there has been some textual analysis of the use by President Chirac of the word “Le soir”, but I watched him say this and I took this as no more than saying, “This evening”, comma, and then he announces, “France will, whatever the circumstances”, he says, right?’
Well, that was not right. In fact, the transcript shows that Chirac explicitly ruled in the possibility that military action might be needed, stating in the same interview that if the weapons inspector reported after more time that they were unable to do their job, war would be inevitable. To quote directly, he said:
“But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn’t today.”
The French position, then, was that progress was being made on the weapons inspections and that France was therefore opposed to replacing the existing inspections process with an ultimatum that would lead to war in a few days’ time. The phrase “regardless of the circumstances” was not helpful, and it was unfortunate that Chirac used those words, as they were easily taken out of context. However, that does not detract from the responsibility of those, including Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who—I argue—misinterpreted, and continued to misinterpret, President Chirac’s interview of 10 March in order to blame France for the failure to obtain a second UN resolution. The reason that it was not possible to obtain UN authorisation for the use of force is that there was no evidence showing Iraq to be an active and growing threat; it was not because of French intransigence, as UK Ministers said.
Hansard shows that Lynne Jones was ridiculed when she tried to raise the misrepresentation of Chirac’s interview in the House, but the fact that she raised it shows that there were hon. Members who bothered to get the transcript of what was actually said before the vote and that it was not necessary to accept the interpretation being given by the Government at face value. It was not a detail; President Chirac’s words were placed at the heart of the motion that Parliament debated and voted on.
Mr Kevan Jones
I got on well with the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who was a very good Member of Parliament, but I think that the hon. Lady is reading far too much into this in order to support her conspiracy theory speech. On the same visit to New York, I also met the French ambassador to the UN, and it was quite clear that there was no way the French would vote for a resolution that endorsed action, and they were working with the Germans, who took the same position. It is not the case that the French were somehow up for negotiation.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the point is the issue of when they were going to accept intervention—
Caroline Lucas
Well, I have seen the evidence from Chirac and the way it was treated when it came to the Chilcot inquiry, and I think that it is perfectly plain that Chirac’s intervention was deliberate misinterpreted. The words were taken in the wrong order and made to mean something different. [Interruption.] We can trade our beliefs across the Chamber, but the bottom line is that there was evidence out there that would have led Members to suspect that what they were being told at that point was not necessarily the case.