Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this timely debate. I do not agree with all the points he made, but he made some important points about, for instance, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium being among the considerations the negotiators must take on board.

The news that the Foreign Secretary brought to the House yesterday about progress in the negotiations, or the talks about talks, and about Foreign Minister Zarif proving to be someone whom western powers could do business with, was very welcome. We should reflect for a minute on how far we have come in a year and a half. I was looking back on some notes from May last year, and we were talking then about the risk of strikes on Iran and of a regional war being sparked by preventive strikes against Iran by the United States or by conflict breaking out over the strait of Hormuz. The situation now is not quite unrecognisable, but it has moved a considerable distance.

One crucial change is the election in the summer of President Rouhani. We may think that the electoral process was flawed, and we may think that the constitution of Iran is flawed and still gives too much power to the theocracy, but the election was undoubtedly genuinely contested, and it has undoubtedly changed the political landscape. We must therefore be a little wary of doing a reverse of the Whig interpretation of history: nobody naively believes that things will always get better, but we must never fall into the trap of thinking things can never get better. We must take advantage of the situation when someone such as President Rouhani is elected, because he is at least saying many of the right things, and he appears to be acting in many of the right ways.

In its statements over the past six months on President Rouhani and the situation in Iran, the Foreign Office has been very cautious and guarded, and it has talked about actions speaking louder than words. I have sometimes found that a little frustrating, and we could have seen a bit more enthusiasm for the reforming faction in Iran. However, if I am criticising the Foreign Office for going a bit too slowly, and others are criticising it for going too fast, it has perhaps got things just about right.

We should applaud the diplomatic efforts that have been made by British, international and, in this case, European Union diplomats. I was struck by the Foreign Secretary’s praise of Baroness Ashton in the House yesterday. She is, as a Brit, demonstrating not only the great British tradition of diplomacy, but the potential for the European Union to play a positive role in world diplomacy, not displacing, but complementing, national diplomacy. That is very positive.

There are three points that I would like to make. The first builds on my point about seeing the positive potential, rather than always accentuating the negative. I would ask the Foreign Office to be robust not only in pursuing the positive avenue of negotiations, but in standing up to anyone we traditionally think of as an ally who might try to stall the negotiations or prevent them from making too much progress.

There are two countries that I am particularly concerned about. One is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, made an interesting comment last month. He said that following Washington’s failure to strike Syria and its entering into nuclear talks with Iran, there would be a major shift in Saudi Arabia’s relations with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s perspective on American-Saudi relations and on our own relationships with Saudi Arabia, in the context of the Iranian nuclear talks. I hope we will not allow Saudi Arabia to stall our progress in this area.

Through the channel of this debate, I would tell the Saudi Government that if they look back to the 1990s, to the presidencies of Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami in Iran, they will see that there were much more cordial relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has been only since the election of Ahmadinejad in 2005 and then the coming to power of King Abdullah that the two countries have got into a regional cold war and have almost been fighting proxy battles as rival regional powers from Bahrain to Syria to other places across the middle east. That is regrettable, and they should perhaps realise that the presidency of President Rouhani offers a path back to more constructive engagement.

Like the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I also have concerns about Israel. We have not heard very constructive comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu about the E3 plus 3 talks. He has expressed real fear that they will result in a deal that

“will not work for Israel”.

However, Israel must also see its long-term interests. Surely, the most positive thing for Israel would be a process that ultimately leads towards a nuclear-free middle east and certainly one that has a realistic prospect of achieving a nuclear-free Iran.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for not congratulating him on securing the debate. Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) not think that the situation between the Israeli Government and the Palestinians is linked to this issue? That must be part of a solution in the middle east, because we cannot have a settlement with Iran in isolation. Does the hon. Gentleman also not think that the settlements Israel has been building have thrown some difficulties in the way of the road map to peace? Finally, despite what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, there were demonstrations two or three years ago in Iran, and the opposition came close to winning the election. Internally, that may be motivating the regime a lot more than the hon. Gentleman suggested.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we keep interventions short? I hope to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.40 pm.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, although we are also seeing positive engagement by Palestine and Israel in peace talks, so that is another area where we can accentuate the positive. My point is that we should be clear with our traditional allies in the region that we want to pursue this process with Iran robustly.

My second point relates to what the hon. Gentleman has just said: this has to be a regional process. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what the status is of the proposed plan to move towards talks on a nuclear-free middle east. That plan should include Israel as well as Iran. It could be revived in the new, more constructive atmosphere that is emerging. It might also connect with other disputes in the region. That plan was on the table quite seriously, and I would like to hear where the Foreign Office thinks the talks now lie.

My third and final point relates to the non-proliferation treaty. It is something of a rich irony that the E3 plus 3 could also be described as the N5 plus 1. Here we have six countries lecturing Iran on nuclear proliferation, but five of them hold nuclear weapons themselves—only Germany does not. It would send a positive signal if we discussed our own willingness to look at the nuclear threshold. There are countries around the world that have stopped short of it, even though, as in Japan’s case, they probably have the technological capacity to step over it. We are asking Iran to stop at the nuclear threshold or, ideally, to step well back from it, so perhaps we should be constructive in looking at whether we can step down the nuclear ladder; indeed, it is technically our obligation as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to look at progress towards disarmament. I will not get sidetracked into a debate on Trident like-for-like replacement, but the Liberal Democrat position is clearly that we could make a constructive contribution in that regard. I do not expect Ministers immediately to leap up to support that, but they should perhaps reflect on what we can do as part of a global process.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kettering that the talks must be robust and real, and that there must be a real negotiation that puts real demands on Iran. However, at the same time, we should reflect on the fact that all nuclear weapons are dangerous, and there are probably people in every country who are mad or bad enough to use them. The ideal that President Obama has set out of a world free from nuclear weapons and of a global nuclear disarmament process actually getting under way in the 21st century is one we in this country should do everything we can to support through our fast-improving relations with Iran and through our own attitude to nuclear armaments.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is to be commended on securing. He is right about the importance of the issue, which is on a different scale from other issues that we are involved in, in the middle east or elsewhere, important though those are.

I remind the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that the debate is about Iran, not Israel or Saudi Arabia—still less about nuclear disarmament. Disarmament combined with unreciprocated concessions to aggressive regimes did not always guarantee a brilliant outcome in the previous century. Iran is an aggressive regime. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the Iranian people and culture, which I distinguish from the regime. Many people in Iran are oppressed by it, and notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, it is still a long way from being a democracy. It was observed that there were 3,000 possible candidates, although I was told that 678 presidential candidates were disqualified by Ayatollah Khomeini as ideologically unsound. Only six were allowed to proceed—one of whom is now President Rouhani. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that an approach from any source in Iran must be engaged with constructively, and I support their way of proceeding. However, I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that we must not look through rose-tinted spectacles at President Rouhani.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even that flawed electoral process makes Iran rather more democratic than Saudi Arabia, which we traditionally treat as a close ally?

[Mr Clappison]

It is nothing like the democracy that I would like the Iranian people to have and that many of them would want. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that we should not see President Rouhani as a completely new broom. We must not be naive. He has been part of the present regime since its inception and has held high office in it. He has been involved in its nuclear negotiations in the past, and, as my hon. Friend showed in the quotation he used, has stalled and used other devices to further Iran’s nuclear intentions.

I believe that it is the resolute intention of the Iranian regime to acquire nuclear weapons. Why on earth would it have put itself through what it has gone through for so many years—sanctions, international opprobrium, all that has happened in the United Nations and all the economic problems that have been caused for Iran—if not because it wanted nuclear weapons come what may? Is the international community getting it all wrong, and have all the leaders over the years been completely mistaken? I think not. We must accept that the Iranian regime is determined to have nuclear weapons. We should not let them fall into its hands. No matter who else may or may not have them, that regime has demonstrated beyond peradventure its aggressive intent in the region and throughout the world, through the export of terrorism by proxy to other countries in the region, including Lebanon and Syria; through its involvement in propping up the Syrian regime now; through its export of worldwide terrorism against Israel and Israeli citizens; and through its leaders’ aggressive statements in the past. We can have no doubts about the nature of the regime and the fact that we should not let nuclear weapons fall into those hands.

It is right, however, to engage with the regime, and I support the Government’s approach, but we must take an exacting and resolute approach in negotiations. We must not exaggerate, as I think the hon. Member for Cheltenham was in danger of doing, any progress that has been made already. We are only at the interim stage and have not even concluded an interim agreement. Let us not rush to say that there is agreement before it happens. We need to apply exacting and rigorous conditions to the regime and should take the view that if there is any doubt or anything unsatisfactory in any negotiations it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement.

If the Government can reach an agreement that leaves Iran nowhere near the threshold of holding nuclear weapons, that rolls back the Iranian nuclear programme and that creates a framework in which peace can be achieved in the region, they deserve to be encouraged. They must have high expectations and I encourage them to be rigorous and, if necessary, cynical about the regime. In the past it has played for time, stalled and tried to reach a certain level. Iran must go back to the position it was in before it started its nuclear armaments programme; it must dismantle it and put itself far from the threshold of having nuclear weapons.

I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Islington North said, although not all of it. Human rights are human rights anywhere in the region; but human rights in Iran are at stake. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, if they get a chance, to raise the issue of human rights with Iran. The regime has an unenviable record on human rights in many respects. I have in the past taken up the issue of persecution of Christians by the Iranian regime, which included death or prison sentences merely for practising their faith. We should not go into the negotiations with any illusions about the regime.

Iran and Syria

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The E3 plus 3 meets regularly. The round of negotiations that we have just had is the third one in the past month. We also met as Ministers in New York. When there are new developments in proposals on the table, they must be discussed. As I have said, the E3 plus 3 is six sovereign nations, so of course there must be such discussions, but the end product of this weekend’s negotiations was that all six nations put the identical deal to Iran. When one considers that that includes Russia, China, America and the three European countries—we have put forward an identical position—one concludes that it is a remarkable degree of international unity. We should see it that way around.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s report that the Syrian national coalition will participate in the Geneva talks and that it will reach out to national minorities. That is important. Will he expand on what more we can do to support, both inside and outside the negotiating chamber, the moderate Syrian opposition, who are opponents both of the murderous Assad regime and of al-Qaeda and its local allies?

[Mr Hague]

We can do more to support the moderate opposition. I mentioned in my statement the £20 million-worth of support we have committed to them and civil society groups so far. I have also mentioned that I will be laying before Parliament a proposal to give additional assistance, particularly life-saving equipment, including communications equipment, which will help them. We will also help them practically and politically to prepare for Geneva II in terms of their ability to administer such a process and organise themselves for a very large and complex international conference. We will provide the expertise that helps them to do that as well as the practical, material support that we are already giving them.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot say I am very grateful for that point of order, for the simple reason that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is a point that he could and should, if he is so minded, raise in the debate, rather than detaining the House with a bogus point of order now.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope it is a genuine one.

[Martin Horwood]

Mr Speaker, your selection of amendments is obviously correct and beyond reproach, but perhaps you could shed some light on the non-selection of my amendment—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. He has been in the House long enough to know that the Chair is never required to explain or, as he puts it, shed light on the selection of amendments. The hon. Gentleman will have to rest content with the selection. If I were inclined to put it bluntly, I would say that he can like it or lump it.

New Clause 1

Gibraltar

‘(1) An order under section 3(2) or (3) which extends to Gibraltar may—

(a) provide for conduct to constitute a criminal offence under the law of Gibraltar;

(b) extend and apply to Gibraltar, with or without modification, the provisions of any enactment relating to referendums or elections;

(c) modify any such enactment so far as it has effect in relation to any part of the United Kingdom;

(d) modify or apply or incorporate, with or without modification, the provisions of any legislation in force in Gibraltar relating to elections, or referendums.

(2) The capacity of the Gibraltar legislature to make law in relation to any matter in relation to which provision may be made under section 3 is not affected by the existence of the power conferred by that section.

(3) Subsection (2) is not to be regarded as restricting the operation in relation to law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to provision made under an Act of Parliament).

(4) “Enactment”, and “modification” have the same meaning as in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (see section 160(1) of that Act).’.—(Andrew Rosindell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

Whenever the referendum is held, the people of Gibraltar will vote enthusiastically for or against their membership of the European Union. We can see from the results of European elections in Gibraltar that the vast majority of people—

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not be giving way.

The vast majority of people in Gibraltar, unlike people in the United Kingdom, choose to use their votes. In fact, the most recent European elections saw a 57% turnout—far higher than the turnout in the south-west region of which Gibraltar is a part. It is therefore right that they be given this opportunity. We know that they want the right to make the decision, along with the people of the United Kingdom.

The national anthem of Gibraltar says:

“Gibraltar, Gibraltar,

The Rock on which I stand,

May you be forever free,

Gibraltar, my own land.”

If the people of Gibraltar are to be free, if they are to choose their own destiny, and if it is to be their own land, they too must be given the right to vote in this referendum and in all elections. I commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

No? I am sorry about that, because it has been puzzling me.

I am keen on giving the people of Gibraltar an opportunity to take part in a referendum that will directly affect them. I regret that it has taken us so long to persuade the hon. Member for Stockton South to accept that obvious point about a flaw that has been in his Bill from the very beginning.

[Martin Horwood]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who is right to say that this omission—this flaw in the Bill—was pointed out at a very early stage and that the anomaly of the situation of the people of Gibraltar could have been rectified much earlier. That reflects the nature of the Bill, which in many respects—I am sure we will come on to them—is not very well thought out. It was, in effect, a public relations exercise to cover up the deep division in the Conservative party over the question of whether or not to remain in Europe.

That has been highlighted clearly in today’s edition of The Economist, the front cover of which has a road map that goes onwards and upwards to Great Britain, with a little cul-de-sac off to the right marked “Little England”, accompanied by an image of the European Union symbol with a cross through it. I think that the risk of the little Englander is the real issue behind much of the Bill.

The subject of new clause 1 is Gibraltar. It raises the obvious question of what would happen if Gibraltar exercised an expression of its destiny, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) eloquently put it, and voted to remain in the European Union but the UK voted to leave, perhaps with the votes of people in Scotland, which may by then have voted, in theory, to leave the United Kingdom. I am not clear where that would leave Gibraltar. It is included in the European Union only by virtue of the UK’s membership of the EU. It is represented in the European Parliament, not in its own right, but only by virtue of being a British Crown dependency.

[Thomas Docherty]

If I may briefly correct the hon. Gentleman on two points, he just referred to Gibraltar as a Crown dependency, but I am sure he meant to say that it is an overseas territory. I am sure he also misspoke when he said that it is represented by the United Kingdom when, of course, it has votes in the South West and Gibraltar constituency of the European Parliament.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was talking about representation and was about to point out that Gibraltar is part of the South West England and Gibraltar constituency, which also includes my constituency of Cheltenham and is ably represented by Sir Graham Watson. The point is that Gibraltar does not have separate representation in its own right in the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me on calling it a Crown dependency; it is, of course, an overseas territory. It has many of the same special arrangements as various other territories but, uniquely, it is part of the European Union while other overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not formally part of it.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has said he is not clear where this would leave Gibraltar. Is it not obvious that it would leave it between a Rock and a hard place?

[Martin Horwood]

That will probably get the hon. Gentleman “quote of the day” in somebody’s column, but I am not sure how well it will go down in Gibraltar. I do not think we should make light of the serious issue of Gibraltar’s future in the European Union, but I value the hon. Gentleman’s humorous contribution.

We could end up in a bizarre situation whereby Gibraltar votes to remain in the EU and the rest of the UK votes to leave it. We face the prospect of going to the effort of accepting this new clause and giving Gibraltarians their say and the ability to express their own view on their own destiny, but then expelling them from the EU against their wishes. I am not clear how that gives Gibraltarians a real say over their destiny.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting this completely back to front. The people of Gibraltar would vote in a referendum, just like anybody else in the United Kingdom. If the people of Essex chose to stay in the European Union—I am not sure that is going to happen—it would make no difference: we are treated as one country in terms of the EU. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of Gibraltar will want to stay with Britain.

[Martin Horwood]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Gibraltar is not equivalent to Essex in any respect. It is a separate territory and it has self-government. It is not represented in this Parliament. That is a fundamental principle of our relationship with Gibraltar. It is more analogous to Denmark’s relationship with Greenland, which voted in its own right to leave the European Union despite remaining a Danish territory. Greenlanders were given their right to have control over their own destiny, but the Bill does not explain how Gibraltarians would be given that same right should their conclusion in a referendum differ from that of the people of the United Kingdom. The Bill leaves a huge unanswered question, in that it appears, on the face of it, to offer a clear scenario whereby the voters of the United Kingdom could, in effect, expel Gibraltarians from the European Union against their wishes.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman and, as a Scot, I do not quite follow his logic. Under the new clause, which seems to have cross-party support, the people of Gibraltar will get a say in the referendum. If Scotland chooses to stay part of the EU, it would still be bound by the collective result and the same is true of Gibraltar, unless it chooses to cease being part of the United Kingdom. I am struggling to understand why the hon. Gentleman does not see it in that way. Perhaps he could explain further.

[Martin Horwood]

I will explain. The situation is different from that in Scotland, because Scotland, for the time being at least, remains part of the territory of the United Kingdom, has representation in this Parliament and is represented in Europe by virtue of being part of the UK, not of being a territory of the UK. Gibraltar has self-government and that is a cardinal principle of our relationship with it. Should it at any point decide to join the kingdom of Spain, it could take that step without having to leave the United Kingdom. In effect, we are saying that we would expel Gibraltar from the EU even if it voted to remain in it.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. I think he just said—perhaps I heard him wrong—that Gibraltar could join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing me. I do not think the hon. Gentleman meant to say that. He said that Gibraltar is self-governing. It has self-government on many issues, but not all. We still provide its international relations, Home Office functions and defence functions. I think the hon. Gentleman is misspeaking.

[Martin Horwood]

No, on this occasion I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right. Gibraltar is a UK territory but, like other overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is not actually part of the United Kingdom. The test is whether there is direct representation in this Chamber.

[Thomas Docherty]

I really am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity to talk to the many Members throughout the House who have a close interest in overseas territories. Overseas territories have a great deal of self-governance, but they still rely on the UK for many of their functions, including defence and foreign affairs. It is not mutually exclusive to say that they have self-governance but that the UK provides many of their functions.

Would the hon. Gentleman also like to take the opportunity to correct the record? It has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that he said that Gibraltar could choose to join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.

[Martin Horwood]

The reason why Gibraltar could decide to join the kingdom of Spain should it ever want to—obviously, there is no prospect of that in the near future—without leaving the United Kingdom is that it is not formally part of the UK at the moment. We would respect the wishes of Gibraltarians if they ever expressed that desire. They would not have to leave, because they are not formally part of the territory of the United Kingdom itself. They are an overseas territory.

[Thomas Docherty]

That’s semantics.

[Martin Horwood]

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

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

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

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

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

[Martin Horwood]

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

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

All right—one last time.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the most important benefit of the European Union. We have a bully in Spain that has been trying to force its will upon the people of Gibraltar. One of the huge advantages of the European Union, as the people of Gibraltar know, is that it allows them, following the representations of the Minister for Europe and others, to stand up with the United Kingdom to that bully. That would not be happening if they were outside the European Union.

[Martin Horwood]

I will not rise to that point. It takes us away from the core subject matter of the new clause.

I want to make it clear to Members on both sides of the House that I support the new clause because it aims to correct the anomaly. There are some reassuring parts to it. It is great to know that subsection (2)

“is not to be regarded as restricting the operation in relation to law made by the Gibraltar legislature of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (under which colonial laws are void if repugnant to the provision made under an Act of Parliament).”

I am sure that that will be a massive reassurance to the people of Gibraltar. It is a serious point that it will reassure them that the overall constitutional framework is being respected and not changed by the fact that we are passing legislation in this Chamber that relates to the constitutional position of Gibraltar.

I am happy to support the new clause, although I would be interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) thinks the position would be for Gibraltarians in the event of their voting yes and the United Kingdom voting no. Where would that leave them constitutionally? Would they be able to renegotiate their own separate membership of the European Union? If so, would their membership carry on automatically or would they be in the position that it has been suggested Scotland might be in if it voted for independence, whereby it would leave the European Union automatically and have to reapply as an independent country?

I will not go through the raft of amendments that we are considering in this group one by one. I am sure that that is to the relief of Members behind me. However, some of the amendments, although addressing issues that are critical to the future of the UK and its position within the European Union, run the risk of looking a wee bit frivolous. It is important for those of us who are in favour of a debate on Europe and in favour of European Union membership to retain some credibility.

[Mike Gapes]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to amendments that you have selected as valid for this debate as “frivolous”?

[Mr Speaker]

The substance of the amendments is a matter for debate. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who has erred rather seriously once already, is not suggesting that it was inappropriate for the Chair to select the amendments. If he thinks that their content is not up to his high standards of intellectual argument, that is a matter for debate. That they were proper amendments to be selected is not a matter for debate, because I selected them. That is the end of it.

[Martin Horwood]

Heaven forfend that I should question the selection of amendments once again, having been appropriately chastised at the beginning of the debate.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) if I suggested that he was being frivolous. I am sure that that is not true. I am sure that he was well-meaning in tabling the amendments. What I was highlighting was that those of us who are on the pro-European side of the debate and who want to move on from arcane discussions about the minutiae of referendums to the real issue, which is whether Britain should be in or out, do ourselves no favours if we run the risk of being seen as putting forward anything that might be interpreted as frivolous. If I may put it in those guarded terms, I hope that he will respect my slight warning that we are getting close to dangerous territory.

The one amendment that I will single out is amendment 44, which raises the issue of the voting age. We debated that matter in Committee, but it was not fully resolved. I want to put on the record the long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment to extend democratic voting rights to those of 16 or above. It is important to young people and to the future of our democracy that people who are younger than 18 are given the vote and are engaged in political debate, if possible while still at school. Yesterday, I was at Balcarras school, which is an outstanding comprehensive school in Cheltenham. I had a long, gruelling debate with the sixth-formers, who were really engaged in the issues. It must be a frustration to such well-informed observers of the political scene that they cannot vote. We should take every available opportunity to advance the arguments for votes at 16 and this is a good opportunity to do so.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman as perplexed as I am that the Government can justify reducing the voting age for a referendum in Scotland on the basis that the young people there will be determining the long-term future of their country in deciding whether it should be in or out of the UK, but will deny them that privilege in a referendum that will determine the long-term future of the entire UK in deciding whether we should be in or out of Europe? Where is the logic and consistency in that?

[Martin Horwood]

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

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

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

[Martin Horwood]

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

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

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman has understandably focused the majority of his remarks on Gibraltar on the entitlement of its people to vote. May I bring him back to new clause 1 and the intention of the Bill’s promoter to refer to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in the Bill? Does he think it would be helpful if the Minister explained to the House why it is necessary to have a piece of outdated, colonial legislation in the Bill?

[Martin Horwood]

I have already invited the Minister to comment on the new clause in general. In fact, I should really call him the right hon. Member for Aylesbury in this context, not the Minister, since he is not speaking on behalf of the Government. We should be mindful of the issues raised by including such colonial legislation in the Bill, although the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is probably technically incorrect in calling it outdated, as I believe it is still valid legislation. As I said earlier—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That is the situation—a Minister who speaks from the Treasury Bench is speaking for the Government.

[Martin Horwood]

That raises an interesting issue that perhaps the Government—both sides of the coalition—should reflect on. I stand corrected for the second time in the space of an hour or so, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) for that point of order.

I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion. The key issue is not whether the new clause is right, because I believe it has wide support throughout the House, but the anomalous position in which Gibraltar could be left if it voted to remain in the European Union, but then faced involuntary expulsion from it as a result of the vote of the rest of the United Kingdom—or of the United Kingdom, depending on whether we regard Gibraltar as technically being part of the UK. I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion about that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and I have had many discussions, and we were both at the United Nations in Washington last week with the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is my near neighbour; my constituency, like his, is in Greater London and in Essex. I am afraid that we have not discussed the details, but no doubt we will at some point over the next few days or weeks.

Let me return to the reasons behind the many amendments that I have tabled. There is a major problem with the Bill. For example, because the choice has been made to have a franchise based on parliamentary elections, people who would be able to vote in a European election in this country will not be able to participate in the referendum. That means we are in the absurd situation whereby the citizens of some European Union countries will be able to vote in our referendum, but others will not.

For example, a French person living in the UK who is married to a British person and has children at school, growing up, or at university in this country, will not be able to vote in the referendum. Someone from the Republic of Ireland, Malta or Cyprus will be able to vote, however, because Malta and Cyprus are in the Commonwealth, and Commonwealth citizens, along with British citizens, are able to vote in parliamentary elections. Because of our long-standing arrangements with the Irish Republic, even though it is not in the Commonwealth, citizens of the Republic of Ireland are able to vote in parliamentary elections and to stand for Parliament in this country. The measures in the Bill mean that we will exclude people who are settled with families in the UK, and who have a long-standing relationship with this country, from voting on whether to wrench apart the UK from their European country, yet we will be allowing other people who are not British to vote in our referendum.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman’s interesting point raises an intriguing prospect. If the referendum were to be as finely balanced as other referendums around the world have been, it might be the votes of Irish citizens, Scots who may have voted to leave the United Kingdom, Commonwealth citizens and others that actually change the result.

[Mike Gapes]

Absolutely. A large number of my constituents come from many parts of the world. There are British Pakistanis, British Indians, British Bangladeshis, British Somalis—all kinds of people. When they get British citizenship they can, of course, vote in our elections, but some choose to retain citizenship of another state. I have a close friend who is a local councillor in my constituency. He has a British passport, but his wife has kept an Indian passport, even though they have sons who are in their 30s and they have been living in this country for decades. Because his wife is an Indian citizen, that facilitates them when they go back to India, rather than meaning that there are problems with visas. She is able to vote in British elections and, as a Commonwealth citizen, she will be able to vote in this referendum. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a constituent is married to someone from a non-Commonwealth country, such as Somalia or the United States. They are not allowed to vote in our parliamentary elections, so they will not be able to vote in the referendum. The Government are increasing the number of anomalies. European Union rules allow citizens of any EU country to vote in European elections; indeed, they allow people to stand for the European Parliament in any EU state, whatever their nationality.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

In response to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I wish to make it clear that, in respect of this Bill, as has been the case with at least one or two other Bills since the 2010 general election, the two governing parties have agreed to differ in their approaches to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

I want to address the various points made about Gibraltar.

[Martin Horwood]

Given the point of order raised by the sage and right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), will the Minister clarify in what capacity he is now speaking?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I am about to name-check him—and to answer his question.

The City must be properly consulted, as new schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide, and its concerns, like those of CBI members, need to be understood by the electorate well in advance of a short and compressed campaign so that voters are not bamboozled by newspapers and stampeded into a referendum.

[Martin Horwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is making important points. I suspect that we probably agree on whether Britain should be in or out of the European Union, but he must accept that we do not really need a formal consultation exercise to find out what the CBI thinks. It said clearly, in a definitive report published on Monday:

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

The CBI clearly wants us to stay in. Do we really need a consultation to establish that?

[Mr Hain]

What we need is for the Government to consult the CBI properly, not just stick a copy of its report into the Library. We need a report to Parliament, as amendment 68 suggests. It is a serious report by a serious organisation—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I agree completely. All that social protection would be dispensed with under the Conservative nirvana.

New schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide for consultation on the common agricultural policy, a matter that was briefly raised earlier. I would like not only the National Farmers Union to be consulted under sub-paragraph (b) of new schedule 2 but the Farmers Union of Wales and NFU Cymru under sub-paragraph (j), because the CAP is wasteful and works against the interests of the world’s poor. However, a Britain on the margins of Europe would not be in a strong position to reform the CAP—I am sure that that would be revealed by a consultation—and nor would it be able to create more sustainable agriculture and rural communities. Without a full commitment to the EU, we will have less influence, too, on determining European negotiating positions in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. I am sure that farmers’ unions and organisations would endorse the position that I have just advanced in a consultation.

If we exited from the EU, we would have less influence on CAP reform. The fact that we are on the border of the rest of the EU means that we are affected by the CAP whether we like it or not. We would disadvantage our own farmers by not having the ability to influence what was going on in Brussels and the policies that flow from that. A consultation would reveal that. Overwhelmingly, farmers’ unions and organisations would favour remaining in the EU. The consultation would reveal the arguments in detail and test them in a way that will not be possible in a short referendum campaign.

[Martin Horwood]

I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the way our influence on many of these issues would be reduced if we left the EU. However, if I may draw him back to his new schedule, is there not a problem with such a prescriptive list of organisations? If the NFU is included, why not the Soil Association or the Country Land and Business Association? If Universities UK is included, why not the Russell Group or the Gazelle group of FE colleges? If the Association of Chief Police Officers is included, why not GCHQ—that would be topical? There is a problem with having such a prescriptive list.

[Mr Hain]

I am at a loss to understand what exactly the Lib Dem role is in all this. If the hon. Gentleman looks at new schedule 2, he will see that sub-paragraph (j) provides for “other organisations”, and that includes all the organisations that he mentioned and many more that I am about to mention.

On the question of a proper, concerted approach to the environment in the whole of the EU, the consultation could seek the views of Friends of the Earth, which is mentioned in sub-paragraph (h), the Local Government Association, which is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature. All those organisations would be able to confirm in a consultation that Britain on its own would be unable to guarantee a sustainable future for our citizens. We are so close to the continent of Europe that clear skies, pure water, clean beaches and a healthy environment can be delivered only through co-operation at European level. A consultation on the environment would reveal the case for staying in the European Union and why the Bill is so irrelevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

Indeed. A consultation should be held, and one of the first organisations that should be consulted under paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 is Nissan. With its 6,500 workers in Sunderland, it is a major European car manufacturer. What did its chief executive, Carlos Ghosn, say today? He said:

“If anything has to change,”

Nissan would

“need to reconsider our strategy and our investments for the future”—

that is to say, if Britain were to leave the European Union.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hain]

I will make progress. I have let the hon. Gentleman in a number of times.

The point that I was about to make about consultation is that inward investors, particularly Japanese companies such as Nissan, come into the European Union bringing with them tens of thousands of jobs—direct jobs and indirect jobs—and a great deal of wealth. They come here because they will be part of the single market of the European Union. Again, under new schedule 2 we would be able to consult them. We would be able to consult Ford, which has plants at Bridgend and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Such companies are in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere in the European Union because we are members of the EU and part of the single market. We would want to consult them, as well as Sony, Toyota—[Interruption.] We would want to consult Airbus, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) reminds me. That is a really important company, right on the Welsh-English border in the north-east of Wales. It would need to be consulted as well.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate both the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing this debate and hon. Members on making such passionate speeches, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who raised the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights across the Commonwealth. That is the subject of a major Liberal youth campaign this year, and I am sure that he will join me in welcoming that.

In 2009, we saw a time of relative hope in Sri Lanka. The civil war had just ended and the decision to host the CHOGM was optimistic, but understandable. As many of us now realise in retrospect and with hindsight, it was the wrong decision, but it is one that is impossible to reverse at this late stage. I also understand the Government’s reasons for wanting to attend the CHOGM. The Government argue that it is an opportunity to advance human rights and democracy, and the values set out in the Commonwealth charter, through dialogue and friendship. That is true, but the Government must understand the risk of undermining the credibility of the Commonwealth charter if Sri Lanka takes up the chairmanship of the Commonwealth over the next couple of years.

The Prime Minister has also argued that the summit is an opportunity to shine the spotlight on human rights issues. If that is the case, then he should certainly follow the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that that spotlight should also shine very precisely on the issue of the victims of the violence who have disappeared.

In general, such a spotlight is also dependent on media access and transparency. I suggest to the Government that even at this late stage, we should question whether the Prime Minister should attend, and we should make that attendance conditional on four things. First, full and unhindered access to all parts of the country, including the north, is needed by not only Ministers and officials but the international media. Secondly, adequate safeguards and guarantees are needed for those who speak to international media, Ministers and officials. Thirdly, we need a rapid assessment of whether we think any progress at all is being made on, for instance, the recommendations of Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission. The fourth condition is about whether the British Government should raise the issue of the chairmanship of the Commonwealth going forward to 2015.

My strong inclination is that the Prime Minister should not attend the summit if those conditions are not met. I urge the Government, even at this very late stage, to look carefully at the matter. We have heard from many hon. Members that there is evidence that torture, harassment and the curtailment of human rights are, if anything, increasing. In January, we saw the impeachment of the Chief Justice, Dr Bandaranayake, and in August, we saw Navi Pillay’s critical report. It is not too late, even at this late stage, to rethink the Government’s plans.

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

Order. I am grateful to colleagues for their co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Since the detentions were announced by the Russian authorities, we have sent a team of British officials each week to Murmansk to ensure that the detainees’ consular needs are being properly looked after. We have taken up with the prison authorities, or with other Russian authorities as appropriate, all the concerns that the detainees themselves have expressed to us about the conditions in which they are being held. At the moment, they are telling us that their conditions are “broadly acceptable”, but we stand ready to take up any further concerns that they may have.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Given the unjustifiable detention of British citizens, will Ministers follow the example of Councillor Wendy Flynn, mayor of Cheltenham, which is Sochi’s twin town, and refuse any offers of hospitality or visits in connection with Sochi’s winter Olympics in 2014?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that the Government rules on accepting hospitality are already strict and limit what Ministers can do. The key point is that the Sochi winter Olympics will provide an opportunity for people from this country, including journalists and editors, to meet and engage with Russians of all backgrounds and to stand up for the values in which we believe.

Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing the debate. He was, to some extent, tactful in what he said about Russia, and he did not mention some of the other significant human rights cases, such as those of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and the late Sergei Magnitsky, and the disproportionate treatment meted out to members of Pussy Riot. I understand his reasons for being tactful, but there is an issue for Russia to take notice of: its reputation for human rights abuses, and the damage being done in that regard, is significant and cumulative. It is doing more and more damage to its international reputation through disproportionate responses to events such as those that we are discussing.

Russia’s response is disproportionate, as the hon. Gentleman also, less tactfully, said. There is a level of irritation that comes with politics; he conceded that he is sometimes irritating to me. His ability to remind everyone that we went to school together is one of his more irritating habits, although I suspect that the fact that he went to Cheltenham college does him more political damage in Rhondda than it does me in Cheltenham.

We in this Parliament have been subject to Greenpeace actions. Members of Greenpeace were on our roof in 2009, unfurling banners about climate change. They climbed Big Ben—or the clock tower, in deference to the hon. Gentleman’s reputation for pedantry—in 2004.

[Mr Gray]

The Elizabeth tower.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Indeed, but then it was still the clock tower. Those protests were met, in large part, with good humour, even though they were probably more significant security breaches in one sense than anything that the Arctic 30 have done in the waters close to Russia. However, they were met with good humour and a proportionate response by the authorities. People were arrested, but they were not charged as terrorists. It was understood that they were peaceful political protests. That is what the Arctic 30 were also engaged in.

The hon. Member for Rhondda was absolutely right to draw attention to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Article 101 has two fundamental aspects to its definition of piracy. The first is use of violence, and the other is, as he quite rightly pointed out, the fact that it is done for private means. Piracy is a criminally violent act, and that, as even President Putin clearly said, is quite clearly not what the Arctic 30 were involved in.

I will go a little further than some other hon. Members and say that there is an environmental issue in addition to a human rights one. That is, after all, what Greenpeace was seeking to highlight. As we turn to more and more novel means of extracting fossil fuels, and go into more and more extreme environments in our pursuit of them, we are taking higher and higher risks with the environment. The lessons from the gulf of Mexico are clear, and there are lessons to be learned not only by Russia, but by this and other western countries, about novel means of extracting fossil fuels. My comments are therefore not directed solely at Russia. If the Arctic 30—certainly those placed under arrest—have inspired future generations of environmental activists to highlight such issues, and if they have helped to generate a debate about the risks of more extreme extraction of fossil fuels, their action will not have been in vain.

The Minister made a written ministerial statement on 9 October, which was welcome. However, it had the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s traditional consular emphasis; the FCO is diplomatic, but I think it is occasionally diplomatic to a fault. There seemed to be, in the statement, something of a reluctance to pass judgment on whether it was appropriate to prosecute these people for the act of piracy. There seemed to be great reluctance, as there was in other cases, to contemplate any kind of sanctions against Russia for its actions. There was the rather significant inclusion of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in lobbying the Russian Government, but not of the Prime Minister. When British citizens are involved, I think it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to have some personal involvement.

The FCO always puts a great premium on discreet persuasion, but there are limits to that. At some point, we need to hear from the Government what further concrete and proactive steps they are taking to make progress on the issue—most obviously in partnership with our European Union friends and other like-minded democracies—and how they will try more strongly to encourage Russia to take a different path.

Many hon. Members and people involved in politics the world over were deeply inspired by Russia’s transition from communist dictatorship in the 1980s and ’90s. It is a matter of immense sadness that Russia’s reputation, particularly in human rights, seems to be slipping backwards towards that era. I hope that, collectively, we and supporting organisations such as Greenpeace can encourage Russia to make this issue a turning point, and not to carry on treading this dangerous path.

Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

On the specific question about whether the aid goes to those in Syria, British aid reaches into all 14 governorates of Syria. The international effort, which we support and help to finance, is of course hindered by the fighting, and has sometimes been hindered deliberately by the regime preventing supplies—including much-needed medical supplies—from reaching opposition-held areas. That is the importance of the presidential statement by the Security Council, backed by Russia and China, on improving humanitarian access, including cross-border supplies of aid, and meeting the request of Baroness Amos who leads for these matters at the United Nations. We will follow that up very much indeed, and I hope our ability to hold discussions with Iran will lead to improvements in the situation in Syria. That is another area where Iran will need to change its policies on the ground, which currently include supporting a regime that is murdering and oppressing its own people in huge numbers.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the good news that the Foreign Secretary has brought to the House, and strongly echo tributes to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), which are richly deserved. The Foreign Secretary said that the matters of mutual concern he is discussing with Iran include Syria, which is welcome. Does he agree, however, that talks are sometimes better without preconditions, and that it would be positive for all concerned if Iran could be drawn into the Geneva II peace process and talks on Syria?

[Mr Hague]

Of course it is best to have the broadest base possible internationally for the Geneva II process, but, as I said to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), it is important that that starts from a common assumption and that we are at least able to start from the same starting line. We agreed in Geneva I last year that there should be a transitional Government in Syria with full executive power, formed by mutual consent. That is the position of Russia, China, and all five permanent members of the Security Council. The regime is ready—it says it is ready—to appoint representatives for talks on that basis, and the opposition National Coalition is ready to take part in talks on that basis. It should be possible for Iran—and any other country that has doubts about this—to say that it supports talks on that basis, and that if it participates it would be on that basis. That is what we are looking to Iran to say.

European Union (Referendum) Bill (Money)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I would never intend to depart from the path of virtue, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Thatcher said that the 1975 referendum had been introduced as

“a tactical device to get over a split in their own party.”—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 306.]

Those are the words she used to describe the policy put forward by the then Labour Government, and I believe that they are completely appropriate to describe the policy now being put forward by the split part of this split Government—the Conservative part of the coalition.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am in broad sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but since he is now repeating things I said on Second Reading, I wonder, given the historic vote on equal marriage that we are waiting to cast, whether it would not be better to stop banging on about Europe just for a bit.

[Mike Gapes]

Yes, of course. Had I not taken the previous two interventions, I would have finished by now. I was just about the give the House the benefits of Margaret Thatcher’s words of wisdom in 1975, but I was faced with two interventions, and now I have taken three. I am happy to conclude my remarks and hope to return to these issues later in the year if the Bill reaches consideration on Report.

Middle East and North Africa

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I have a lot of sympathy with those points. Half of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world are now in Africa. There is economic success, and many democracies are becoming established, which is to be welcomed and respected. That is why I was clear last Wednesday night that the United Kingdom does not support military interventions in democratic politics. We should always be prepared to state that clearly, I think, and to state what I just said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary: that the Muslim Brotherhood must not be driven out of democratic politics in Egypt, or any other country. I think that across the House we can uphold those things very strongly.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The faltering peace process remains the best hope for the people of Syria. If, as he says, Iran is implicated in that conflict, is it not now essential to reach out to the new regime of Dr Rouhani and involve Iran in the Syrian peace process, including Geneva 2? Doing otherwise is beginning to look unhelpfully dogmatic.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of Iran, given the scale of its intervention in Syria. The extent to which it can be involved in a peace process will be heavily up to Iran, however; it has not, hitherto, expressed support for the outcome of last year’s Geneva conference and the creation of a transitional Government with full executive authority. Without agreeing with that, it is very hard to see how a success can be made of participation in negotiations over the coming months. Of course, however, those negotiations have to be conducted in circumstances that will produce the maximum success, and a judgment about how Iran can be involved must be guided by that objective.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

I want to make a little more progress, if I may.

We know that the European Union has changed from the European Community that was voted on in 1975. We know that generations did not get a choice. But what of the question of having a referendum itself? This was once seen to be alien to the British political system. It was not what we did. Well, I would contend that we live in the age of the referendum. We have had referendums on whether Scotland should have its Parliament and whether Wales should have its Assembly, and on the alternative vote. We had a referendum on whether we should have a regional assembly for the north-east of England, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) came up to the north-east and campaigned in that referendum. He campaigned against and he was remarkably successful. I would like to give him the chance to campaign in a referendum again, not on an issue of regional government, but on one of national Government that affects us all.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On the subject of consistency within the coalition that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, we both voted for the European Union Act 2011 only two years ago. I am still happy with it. Is he?

[James Wharton]

Yes, I am.

It is important when we look at referendums to understand what they mean. They go to the heart of what democracy is about. They go to the heart of giving the British people their say on fundamental matters of importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I think the Bill sends the message that we are a robust democracy too. We welcomed Croatia into the European Union, and it had a referendum about whether to join. Therefore, it does not find discussion about referendums in other parts of the European Union surprising. That is why every Member of the House who is a true democrat can and should unite behind the Bill. It is about letting the people decide.

Those who like the EU just as it is—not me, but evidently some Labour Members—can campaign to see the EU regain its democratic legitimacy in this country. Those, like me, who want to see Britain succeed in reforming the EU can see what success we have in changing it, and then put the choice to the people. Those who want Britain to leave the EU come what may will also have the chance to persuade the British people. Ultimately, it would be up to the voters to decide, and that is the essence of democracy. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that

“in 2015”

we

“will ask for a mandate from the British people…to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.”

The Conservative party is ready to trust the voters with this Bill, and we are happy that the Democratic Unionist party is of the same mind. The Scottish National party is not here but it is content with a referendum next year, which means that the people of Scotland will vote twice on whether to leave the European Union. It is completely open to Members of other parties to support this Bill. Liberal Democrats can support this Bill. They are democrats and I remind my hon. Friends in the other part of the coalition of their last election manifesto, which stated:

“The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British Government signs up for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”

[Martin Horwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is a fine Foreign Secretary and he bangs on about Europe very eloquently indeed. He will recall that at the time of the Lisbon treaty, the Liberal Democrats voted for an in/out referendum, not in four years’ time, the next Parliament or at some point in the future, but then and there. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind me whether we were supported by a single Conservative MP at that time?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend must remember that had our Liberal Democrat colleagues voted with us for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there would have been a referendum in 2008. Some Labour Members support a referendum. We have heard from some of them already, and this Bill is their chance; it is the best chance currently available to make it happen. Not only would it be a badge of honour for them, but it would help to show their weak leadership some real leadership that is sorely needed.

This is not the first time that the question of whether to consult the people has caused unmitigated dither, muddle and confusion in the Labour leadership. When the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was trying to decide whether to call a general election in 2007, he asked the current Leader of the Opposition, the current shadow Foreign Secretary and the current shadow Chancellor, resulting in the decision taking so long that they never made a decision at all and never held a general election. The impulse to trust the people is not exactly their hallmark.

Now we wonder: what is Labour’s policy? The shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who is not here, said in October:

“I think at some point there will have to be a referendum on the EU. I don’t think it’s for today or for the next year, but I think it should happen…My preference would be an in-or-out referendum when the time comes.”

In January, the Leader of the Opposition told the House,

“we do not want an in/out referendum”—[Official Report, 23 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 305.]

The shadow Foreign Secretary said that Labour will not commit to an in/out referendum now, but might do later—apparently that is the way to avoid uncertainty.

The shadow Chancellor said:

“I don’t think we should set our face against a referendum and I certainly don’t think we can ever afford to give the impression that we know better than the voting public”—

although that was never a problem for him when squandering tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Will Labour make up its mind or not? Its chief strategist, the noble Lord Wood, said the week before last on whether Labour would offer a referendum:

“It’s conceivable because we are going to make up our minds before the next election.”

Last week, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “No, no, no. There’s no change of policy and there’s no prospect of a change of policy”.

With some in favour, some against, some adamantly in favour of not having a referendum, some adamantly for deciding later, at some point, perhaps before the general election but who knows?—with such a shambles of confusion and weak leadership, no wonder Labour Members are wondering what they are here for and where their leader is today. One day Unite will give them their orders on how to vote on these matters.

The Leader of the Opposition and his closest friends are being asked to make a decision—to vote one way or another and be held accountable for it. The position of the Labour party on this vital national and international issue is that Labour Members would rather not be asked and they would rather not be here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s childish remarks about the Liberal Democrats, I can tell him that he has lost one member of Unite today. I am holding up my trade union membership card, which I have stuck to religiously since my days in the charity sector, but I can give it to him after the debate and he can do what he likes with it.

[Mr Davidson]

Well, I suggest the hon. Gentleman does not tempt me to do what I like with it, because what I might like to do with it is not necessarily what he would enjoy, unless he is not the man I think he is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I hope I will set an appropriate example, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my brief speech.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I agree with what he said and it is worth noting that he leads at Westminster a completely united party on matters relating to the European Union. I also commend and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on coming first in the ballot and proposing this excellent Bill.

It is surprising how quickly things change in politics. Members will recall that less than two years ago, I moved a motion on holding a referendum on our membership of the European Union. On that day, all parties had a three-line Whip against my motion. Today, my party has a three-line Whip to support a referendum on the European Union and the official Opposition are so weak and divided that they cannot even make their minds up what to do.

The Bill will be welcomed warmly by my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. It is nearly four decades since they have had a say on this country’s relationship with the European Union. That means that many of them have never had a say at all. Since that time, the nature of what was then the European Economic Community, which was widely called the Common Market, has changed out of all recognition. As the stated aim of the treaty of Rome of “ever-closer union” has gradually been achieved, the tentacles of what is now the European Union have been felt in a growing number of areas of life, in a way that was never envisaged by the British people when they voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975.

[Martin Horwood]

On a point of information, the question in 1975 was not about the European Economic Community, but the European Community. The words “Common Market” were inserted by Eurosceptics in Harold Wilson’s Government. A lot of that historical debate, which I have been looking at over the past couple of days, was about the political, social and international aspects of the European Community. Those aspects were in Harold Wilson’s official leaflet that went out.

[Mr Nuttall]

I did say that it was widely referred to as the Common Market. It was called the European Economic Community, then the word “Economic” was dropped and it became the European Community, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. It then changed from the European Community to the European Union as ever-closer union began to take effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

This has been a thought-provoking debate—and, in some places, just provoking! I would say to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) that I am afraid my Unite membership card has suffered irreparable damage during the course of this debate, but I thank him for his graphic advice on what I should now do with it. After recent events in Falkirk, I suspect there might be a few other people taking very similar advice.

It is good to see the House so full on a Friday. I gather that it has something to do with the provision of hog roast by the Prime Minister last night. One participant told me that burgers were being served by him, but they were a little bit rare. Perhaps that explains why so many left the Chamber so fast after the Foreign Secretary’s speech!

As a Liberal Democrat, I like referendums—and we have been consistent supporters of them. We supported all the referendums on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We were quite happy with the referendum on the European Community in 1975, and we even went along with the referendum on AV—the alternative vote system—although we obviously cannot win them all. At the time of the Lisbon treaty, we alone supported an in/out referendum for this country—not at four years’ remove, not for some future Parliament, but at that time. We got absolutely no support from the Conservative party at that stage.

I am afraid that that was the completely consistent position through to the general election of 2010, and it is more or less our position now. The Deputy Prime Minister has set out our position, the only difference being that in the meantime we have passed the European Union Act 2011, which rather watered down the Liberal Democrat commitment to an in/out referendum and adopted—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they have obviously not read their own manifesto of 2010. What is in the European Union Act 2011 is precisely the basis on which Conservative Members fought the last general election, which was the idea that there should be a trigger relating to the transfer of power. The Conservative manifesto stated that in the event of a transfer of power from the British level to the European level, a referendum on that transfer would be held. That is exactly what went into the European Union Act in 2011. We will quite happily use that to trigger—that is fine—but we are still committed to an in/out referendum, and I am still going to argue for one.

[Neil Parish]

If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on talking about Liberal Democrat policy on a former referendum, why is he not supporting us today? I also congratulate him on being the only one of an endangered species here in the Chamber today.

[Martin Horwood]

I was not, in fact, the only Liberal Democrat Member here, and my colleagues are probably focused on jobs, A and E departments, the good deal we are delivering for pensioners and promoting employment and economic prosperity in their constituencies, rather than spending an entire day banging on about Europe. I am reassured that so many Conservative Members are so confident that all the jobs are provided and all the A and E departments are safe and no green spaces need protecting that they are willing to spend an entire day here talking about the minutiae of European referendums. I am equally confident that at one stage we had the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and, I think, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions all in the Chamber for this debate, so I assume the Deputy Prime Minister must have been busy running the country at that point.

The consistent position the Liberal Democrats have taken is to be in favour of an in/out referendum either at a time of major, fundamental treaty change or at a time of a transfer of power, which also has to happen under treaty provisions. That is the consistent position we have taken, and that is the position we still take today. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) want to point out when we have said anything different? She does not; I thought as much.

The Conservative party, by contrast, has taken a bewildering variety of positions on referendums. I think it was the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who is no longer in his place, who pointed out that Margaret Thatcher opposed the original European referendum and she quoted Clement Attlee saying referendums were a device of demagogues and dictators. At that point she was a supporter of European Union membership, which at that stage was already identified as a discussion about social and political union as well as about access to an economic common market. That is clear from the literature produced in that referendum campaign. It talks about the new regional fund, the social fund, bringing the peoples of Europe closer together and promoting peace and freedom—so even the defence and security aspects of the EU’s work were already being debated. Margaret Thatcher said that for the Labour party the proposal of a referendum was

“a tactical device to get over a split in their own party.”—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 306.]

I think history might be repeating itself now.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is my neighbour, for giving way. He talks about history repeating itself. Some of us remember very clearly that when the Prime Minister stood up and announced he was going to renegotiate the EU budget so that it was cut, one of my hon. Friend’s distinguished colleagues described that as being an inconceivable act. Does he believe it would be inconceivable to renegotiate anything with Europe?

[Martin Horwood]

The point is that we can be in favour of reform, but not necessarily make that conditional on referendums. If we read the Prime Minister’s speech carefully, we can see that Liberal Democrats would disagree with very little of what he actually wanted to change in Europe. Indeed, we would enthusiastically support much of the reform agenda. We have gone along with Conservative colleagues in supporting the Government’s review of the balance of competences. I think that is a very important process, and I think it is an absolutely correct one to carry out, but I also think it was ill-judged to attach a time bomb to all this and say that unless we get what we want we will do this or that, and to try to negotiate on a unilateral basis. It is important now to try to achieve these reforms on a multilateral basis by co-operation with other European partners.

I was explaining some of the political background of the Conservative party’s position. In the 1990s John Major was in favour of a referendum, but only on membership of the euro. By 2001, that had changed and then we had an evolution of a policy that was really about—

[Tim Loughton]

rose—

[Martin Horwood]

I had better not give way repeatedly, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for one final time.

[Tim Loughton]

I am sorry that the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was not able to flip a few lentil burgers last night to entice more of his colleagues to take part in this important debate. Will he just clarify his position? In the highly unlikely event that we have a Liberal Democrat Government after the next election, and this Bill, as is most likely, has been passed in this Parliament, would they abolish the undertakings that this Bill would give to tie us to a referendum, and thus give the British people a say at last?

[Martin Horwood]

I have already spelled out very clearly our position, which is exactly the same one as we took at the time of the Lisbon treaty and of the last election: at a time of treaty change, fundamental change or a transfer of power from the British to the European level, we would want an in/out referendum, and we would legislate to make that possible in the event of our having a majority in Parliament.

The Conservative position has flip-flopped dramatically. The position in the Conservative manifesto was enacted in the European Union Act 2011, yet within a year and a few months the Prime Minister was expounding a completely different position. Even that has changed between his speech and this Bill, because the question has changed from whether to remain in the European Union to whether to be in the European Union. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Many conversations are going on. I know that not many people may be agreeing with Mr Horwood, but I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.

[Martin Horwood]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. The chances of the Conservative party getting as far as 2017 without changing its policy again are pretty slim. Let me reinforce that point. Only 19 months ago, the Prime Minister said:

“That, for me, in a parliamentary democracy, is the right use of a referendum. However, as we are not signing a treaty, I think that the whole issue of a referendum does not arise.”

He continued by saying that

“there is a role for referendums in a parliamentary democracy, but that comes at the moment when a Government or a Parliament proposes to give up power, rather than at other times.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 535-549.]

That is precisely the Liberal Democrat position and has been for some time.

We are not going to oppose this Bill, but we are not content to support it because there is a long list of problems with it. Legislation already in force—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—is supposed to lay down the procedure under which we hold referendums and, for example, the role of the Electoral Commission in helping to determine the question. This Bill is pre-empting any decision by the Electoral Commission and it does not even appear to comply or be consistent with the 2000 Act. I do not know whether the draftsmen had forgotten that that Act existed.

Then there is the question of the franchise, which has also been referred to—

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

I do not think I had better. I am really looking forward to seeing the variety of different Conservative positions being expounded in the remainder of the debate, and if I give way to everybody—[Interruption.] Somebody is telling me to keep it short, and I think that the best way to do that is not to give way on every point.

The Bill also needs to deal with a problem relating to the franchise. Some 1.4 million British citizens reside elsewhere than in the UK, but according to the terms of the Bill the referendum will be based on the Westminster franchise. As far as I can tell, that has only about 19,000 registered overseas voters, so more than 1 million Britons, whose lives will be fundamentally affected by this change—they are British passport holders resident in other parts of the EU—will be disfranchised in this referendum. By this formula, the Bill will give votes to Cypriot and Maltese citizens living in this country, because under the Westminster franchise Commonwealth citizens have the vote, but it will not give the vote to French, Italian or German citizens. So there are a lot of inconsistencies, and this issue has not been debated at all so far.

The House of Commons Library briefing also raised the question of whether or not the Bill is even legally binding. Even the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has conceded that this parliamentary vote would not bind its successor Parliament and further parliamentary votes, probably on secondary legislation, would be required to give effect to the referendum in any case.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman has now made one of the longest speeches. May I ask him, with all due respect: could he please cut it short, if only because a long list of Members also wish to speak?

[Martin Horwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice, which should probably have come from the Chair rather than him. There is a slight problem, however, as most of my time has been taken up responding to interventions from his colleagues, so perhaps he should encourage them to be a little quieter.

The problems continue. The uncertainty that the Bill creates for business is clear, even if we make a number of big assumptions about the referendum process: first, that the Conservative Front Bench will not change its position between now and 2017, but having changed it three times in two years, that is a big assumption; secondly, that the timetable for the referendum does not have to be changed in any case, although we may find in 2017 that we are in the middle of a renegotiation or treaty change process resulting from changes in the eurozone, and at such a juncture, it would be nonsense to hold a referendum, as another referendum might be provoked in only a matter of months or years, so we would not really know what we were voting for in those circumstances; and finally, if the political landscape had not completely changed in any case we might have a different Government with different priorities and there might be a recovery in the European economy, and we may find votes for the UK Independence party subsiding and that Europe is not quite such a big priority—it is not a terribly big priority for most voters according to existing polls—so the idea of spending yet more hundreds of hours of parliamentary time banging on about Europe might not seem quite as appealing.

Even if all of that is true, and we move towards a referendum by 2017, that still condemns British business and British jobs to four years of uncertainty—what a message to send to investors. The CBI is quoted in the Independent newspaper, i, this morning, and raises the problem of the uncertainty caused for British business:

“British businesses don’t want to find themselves at the margins of the world’s largest trading bloc operating under market rules over which they have no influence.”

That is the prospect that we are going to live with, unresolved, apparently for up to four years. That is one of the problems with the Bill. This morning, The Daily Telegraph, I think, quoted the leader of the Norwegian Conservative party, who pointed out that the supposed solution of the UK trying to have a status more or less equivalent to Norway’s was worse than being in the EU. Norway pays hundreds of billions of euros to the European Union for access to the single European market, and finds out about the rules through so-called fax democracy.

There are many, many problems with the Bill, which does not really resolve the main question. It is, as we all really know—rather like Harold Wilson’s Bill in the 1970s—about papering over the cracks in the Conservative party itself. It will not really work. The Prime Minister has spelled out a reasonably modest set of ambitions for renegotiation that will never satisfy many of his Back Benchers, who clearly want to use a much more ambitious and unilateral agenda for negotiation as something that will provide them with an excuse to campaign for exit.

UK businesses have access to free trade in the world’s largest single market, worth nearly £11 trillion in gross domestic product, with over 500 million consumers. One in 10 British jobs are linked to the single market. Some £495 billion-worth of British trade is with other EU member states. To put that in jeopardy—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can see frustrations building up in the Chamber. I think that Mr Horwood is trying to give us an encompassing view of why the referendum may be good or bad. I am sure that even he recognises that a lot of people wish to speak, and hopefully we can move on. In the meantime, it is Martin Horwood.

[Martin Horwood]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall draw my remarks to a close. Even if hon. Members do not listen to me, and even if they do not listen to the leader of the Norwegian Conservative party, or even the CBI, perhaps they should just listen to what the Prime Minister himself said in that speech. In the end he moved on to the main question, which is whether in an in/out referendum we would be campaigning to stay in or out. The Prime Minister said:

“Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State. But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?”

He went on:

“Continued access to the Single Market is vital for British businesses and British jobs...being part of the Single Market has been key to that success...There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland—with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours—but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market—and pays for the principle—it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.”

The Prime Minister obviously is not really willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. This is a delaying tactic to get us past the next election. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. Europe means jobs, and we should not put those jobs in jeopardy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

I am going to crack on and be quick. I want to speak for just a couple of minutes because I am conscious that other Members want to speak as well. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The EU is now seen as too meddlesome in our everyday lives, too burdensome for our businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and too costly for our taxpayers. Yet the political establishment in this country has, in essence, closed ranks over the past 30 years and denied the people their say. That is fundamentally wrong. They have not had a genuine choice about this at any of the general elections of the past 30 years or so. This arrogant and somewhat condescending approach by the political elite has not gone unnoticed by the electorate. I therefore congratulate the Prime Minister on being the first political leader to offer an in/out referendum; I am convinced that other leaders will follow suit. I also thank him for listening to his Back Benchers, the party faithful, and, most importantly, the country as a whole in embracing the idea of a referendum in the next Parliament and legislation in this one. This party has moved closer to the electorate, and it is now up to the other parties to decide whether they are going to step up to the plate.

Legislation is terribly important because it is more believable than election manifesto promises. There is a deep public scepticism when people hear promises being made by politicians about the EU, because too many have been broken in the past. They remember Blair’s promises on the EU constitution and Lisbon, when a referendum never materialised. They remember—or are constantly reminded, I should say—of Liberal Democrat promises at every general election on the need for a real referendum, which, strangely, never materialise even when they share power.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

No, I have spoken for too long already.

In conclusion, I take issue with the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who is no longer in his place. He claimed that, because I had suggested that this historic pledge by the Prime Minister was unbelievable—I have great respect for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), but I am afraid she was absolutely wrong about this—I was somehow criticising the Prime Minister. Let me make it absolutely clear for the record that, having congratulated the Prime Minister on his January speech, I then went on to say:

“However, where the Prime Minister’s pledge falls down is its believability. British voters are deeply sceptical of politicians making promises on Europe: too many have been broken in the past.

People bitterly recall Labour’s broken promise…on the EU Constitution…and they also remember…the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 Election manifesto.

Passing paving legislation in this parliament for a referendum in the next would be a concrete way of demonstrating serious intent.”

That was what I said in the article that the right hon. Gentleman took out of all context.

This is an issue not of trust between the Prime Minister and his Back Benchers—I have no doubt we will get an in/out referendum in 2017—but of trust between politicians in general and the electorate, for understandable reasons given our lamentable record in keeping good our promises.

This brings us to the nub of the issue. What will Labour and the Liberals do? Will they support this Bill? Will they honour past promises to the electorate? Will they allow the electorate their say, or are they still stuck in the mindset of the previous political establishment, which could not trust the electorate with this issue? Time will tell, but I say this to them: ignore the electorate at your peril. I suggest that they do what is best for the country and I predict that the Labour party in particular will change its position on this issue before the next general election.