Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Lord Beamish

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I am going to answer the hon. Lady’s point if she is patient.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the electorate, the hon. Member for Richmond Park said it is necessary to have 51% of the electorate. No, it is not. In Colorado the recall election had a turnout of 36%, and under what is being proposed by the hon. Gentleman and his supporters it is only necessary to have 51% of the turnout. A small number of people might turn out, and a huge swathe of people in a constituency who might have strong views on other issues but not the issue in question might not be mobilised and might not vote. So to the idea that somehow this would be democratic, I say there could be a situation where there was a 60%, 65% or 70% turnout at a general election, and then a much lower turnout for a recall election—as low as 10% if police and crime commissioner elections are anything to go by—could determine the future of that Member of Parliament. It would take a very strong individual then to stand up before the electorate after the damage done in that process, because we all know what would happen with that individual.

The idea that somehow large numbers of people would give power to the mass of people is therefore complete nonsense. In the United States this gives power to large numbers of small groups of well-organised individuals. People should google the Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council—which is actually the libertarian wing of the Tea party and is where this proposal is coming from. I think this is very dangerous for progressive politics both in the United States and this country.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that I received an e-mail a few days ago from the British equivalent of the Tea party: the front organisation of the right wing of the Conservative party, the TaxPayers Alliance, which is supporting these proposals?

[Mr Jones]

That does not surprise me.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park has not even thought about finance and spending limits for recall, or about the work that would be done to undermine someone in the lead-up to it.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Lord Beamish

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I accept that; it is another valid argument.

The second amendment I want to comment on is amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor. His position is that the referendum should be held in October 2014, five weeks after the referendum on Scottish separatism. I believe that there are problems with that date, because of the proximity to the other date, but I also believe that he is making the same point that I am making about the futility of having a hypothetical renegotiation. The Government have ruled out renegotiating now—the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that there was no intention of starting any renegotiation in advance of a general election. This is therefore a status quo “as we are” alternative to a complete withdrawal. It is similar to the argument I have just made about holding the referendum a few months later, on the same day as the general election.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is more politically honest than what has been put forward by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister in that it would allow people to vote on whether we should be in or out of the EU and might force the Prime Minister to concede to saying which way he would vote in such a referendum?

[Mike Gapes]

I can see some of the attractions in that. Moreover, the fact that the hon. Member for Windsor added his name to my amendment 22 is indicative of the fact that he is not firmly tied to the date in October 2014; he would just like to hold the referendum before the end of 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

Absolutely—and it is not just Nissan; it is any major international company that wishes to locate within the European Union to get access to the single market population of 500 million and wishes to be based in a country with a high level of education where large numbers of people speak the English language. Because there is an excellent education system in the Netherlands, that counts as one such country; the Irish Republic would also provide an easy alternative for location if, because of the uncertainty created by a potential referendum and renegotiation leading up to 2017, they chose not to invest in the United Kingdom.

I was dealing with amendment 23, but amendment 24 would allow a little bit more time for the renegotiation. It is not as good as holding it earlier because of the uncertainty and the issues to which I have just referred. Nevertheless, this would allow less uncertainty—one year less uncertainty—than this private Member’s Bill, supported by elements of the Government, would allow.

Given the questions over whether this issue should be properly considered and some doubts about how long the renegotiation might take, I have also tabled amendments to provide an alternative date after the next general election, going beyond 2017. I have suggested—although I shall not press amendments 26 and 27 to the vote—2018 and 2019 as alternatives to allow more time. With 27 other EU states, this renegotiation, if it were to happen, would be extremely difficult. If, of course, the renegotiation is going to be a modest figleaf-type negotiation, it could be done quite quickly. If, however, it is fundamental and has to meet all the demands of the people who want to leave behind all the aspects of the present European Union and go back to being a free trade area or a common market, it would involve a complete disintegration and disentanglement of the UK relationship, requiring an à la carte approach that the other 27 countries are not likely to—I would say, will not—agree to. That would be a problem, so we would need a long time to persuade those other countries of our case.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend believe that we would be better informed and able to make a more informed decision on his amendments if the Prime Minister and the Government told us and the British people exactly what type of renegotiation they have in mind—whether it be the all-day breakfast, the à la carte or simply a cheap snack?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman makes my arguments for me on amendment 58, so I will not repeat them. There are strong arguments to get the correct date through consultation, rather than there being an arbitrary decision put forward by elements within the Government. Better for there to be a commission and, as my amendment 12 says, for there to be consultation with faith organisations to make sure that the dates do not clash with religious festivals and holidays. We are a multicultural, multi-faith country now, so the Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Zoroastrians, Muslims and Christians will all need to be consulted.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Zoroastrians!

[Mike Gapes]

Five years ago, the mayor of my borough was a Zoroastrian. It is a long established, very old religion that came originally from Persia.

[Mr Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Gapes]

I do not want to give way any more, as I want to make progress. I want to conclude my remarks soon.

We need to avoid the prospect of the date clashing with other elections. Amendment 13 deals with that issue because there are regional, local and national elections, by-elections and other elections. It is important for there to be clarity about the date.

Finally, in amendments 9, 10 and 11, I make the case for us to get into the 21st century. Gone are the days when we should vote on only one day—Thursdays. We no longer live in a world in which there is no flexitime or different hours, and in which most people live and work very close to the same place. Those days have gone. Like other countries, we should get into the modern world and allow voting on more than one day—Thursday, Friday and Saturday, or Saturday and Sunday. We need to be more flexible, more open and more democratic. It is crucial that we take account of the modern age. If we are to have this epoch-making referendum, we should at least consider it reflecting the situation in the 21st century.

I have introduced my amendments. I do not wish to delay the House any longer, but I would like to have votes on amendments 3 and 77.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Lord Beamish

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting a large number of amendments that I tabled and for your ruling that they are entirely valid and not frivolous.

It is important that this parliamentary democracy asserts the primacy of Parliament and its democratic processes. I have received a large number of tweets over the past few days from people who seem to believe that we should move to a plebiscitary form of decision making in this country.

I do not want to diverge from the substance of the debate, so I will concentrate on the new clause and amendments in the group. It is important to understand why there are so many amendments on the franchise to be used in a referendum: because this short Bill is woefully inadequate. It would create a referendum held on the basis of the franchise for parliamentary elections, not European elections, even though it would have enormous implications for the 1.4 million British people living in other European Union countries. It would also affect British people who live elsewhere in the world, perhaps working for companies based in the UK, with families still living in the UK. Their prosperity depends on our membership of the EU.

There would also be enormous implications for the 14 British overseas territories and their populations. New clause 1 rightly addresses the question of Gibraltar, and I am pleased that the Government have clarified their position on that in recent weeks. However, it is not sufficient, because people in other overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands, would be affected. Our relationship with the EU also has implications for the future of people such as the Chagossians who were expelled from Diego Garcia.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill also excludes citizens of other EU countries who may have been resident in this country for many years and have made a huge contribution to its economy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I might be wrong, but I understand that London is the fifth largest French city. We live in a globalised world. People come to London to give to our country and contribute to our prosperity. One reason for the dynamism and growth in the London economy is that we have attracted the brightest and best people from many European countries, and yet we will not allow them to vote on the future of the place where they have their families and connections, and to which they have made a contribution.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is not just London. An individual in Durham who is an American citizen has lived here for 34 years. He runs a very successful business and his wife is English. Clearly, the Bill will affect his business, but he will not be allowed to have a say on whether the UK is part of the EU.

[Mike Gapes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no logic to the proposal; it is absurd. As I said in my introductory remarks, 1.4 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU. Only those who have registered as overseas voters may vote in the referendum. The law says that one must have been away from the UK for no more than 15 years and specifically register as an overseas voter. The figures I have seen show that there were fewer than 20,000 registered overseas voters in December 2012. The future of the 1.4 million British people living elsewhere in the EU could be seriously and adversely affected by the consequences of a referendum that leads to withdrawal, but they will not be given a say.

Some might register, but many may have been living abroad for longer than 15 years. Since I tabled my proposal, I received, on 5 November, an e-mail from Mr Brian Cave, who lives in France. He states:

“I, myself, have lived in France for over 15 years and thereby am disenfranchised. That of course is wrong. To further not be permitted to vote in any IN/OUT referendum is an appalling double insult for any British Citizen in Europe. We, who would be most closely affected, must have a vote in this.”

Millions of people could be damaged. More than 1 million British citizens live elsewhere in the EU—in Spain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has said, in Portugal, in France or elsewhere. Many are pensioners, but some live in France and work in London. Some have their families in France but contribute regularly to British companies and businesses. It is rumoured—I do not know whether this is true—that even Members of this House sometimes live in France. It is therefore important that we understand that the Government are not allowing a large number of British citizens to have a vote in the referendum. One of my amendments would make it possible for British people living in all EU countries to have a vote in it.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will have sold their houses here and retired to Spain, for example? I am sure a lot of people from Romford have retired to Spain to a better life and winter sunshine. Disfranchising those people is anomalous in the sense that they are the ones who will be directly affected if we withdraw from the EU.

[Mike Gapes]

That is absolutely true. The Government—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I meant to say the Minister. Given the earlier ruling, I assume he will speak for the Government. He will need to clarify why we are not allowing those British citizens to vote in the referendum. After all, the devolution referendums held by the previous Government in 1999 were conducted under the local government franchise, which allowed EU citizens to vote. My proposal would widen that so that British citizens everywhere could vote.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

The amendment states that the Chancellor should

“publish, within 3 months… an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.”

I will address my remarks to the scope of such an assessment. It is important not to focus solely on the narrow issues surrounding VAT, although they are important, or on the global increase in fuel prices, which is one of the factors causing the revolutions in north Africa and elsewhere in the world as people suffer from rising food prices as a result of rising fuel prices.

There is something very specific about how we in this country choose to tax fuel. Compared with other European Union countries, we choose to have very high taxes on fuel. One consequence is the problems from which our road hauliers have suffered in comparison with some of their competitors in European countries that have road pricing.

It is interesting to note that in the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats proposed to move towards

“a rural fuel discount scheme which would allow a reduced rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas, as is allowed under EU law”,

as well as to prepare for a system of road pricing to be introduced “in a second parliament”. That was the Liberal Democrat position. The Conservatives, of course, had a completely different view, promising a “fair fuel stabiliser”, presumably designed to help people in the rural communities.

I represent an urban area. My constituents suffer high fuel prices in London and, unlike some people in rural areas, they do not have the advantage of having to pay only 11.14p duty on a litre of so-called red diesel, instead of 57.95p duty on a litre of low-sulphur diesel. We know that there is abuse of the red diesel system by certain people who, when driving on main roads, use diesel that should be used only for off-road activities. That opportunity is not open to my constituents. People living in Ilford and elsewhere in Greater London do not have access to red diesel that they can abuse in order to avoid paying tax. However, people who are represented by the Liberal Democrats, who are in favour of giving priority to remote rural areas but not to those of us who live in urban areas, or by Conservative Members who are happy not to enforce adequately the provisions against abuse of the red diesel system, are not concerned about that. I want the review to examine the abuse of the red diesel system. I believe that a lot of money that should be going to the Exchequer is not doing so and that there is discrimination against people who live in urban areas and have no access to red diesel for their motoring purposes.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I take my hon. Friend’s point about the abuse of red diesel, but may I disabuse him of the fact that it is not available in urban areas? When I was chair of trading standards in Newcastle, the abuse of red diesel in urban areas was just as prevalent as it was in some rural areas. The fact is that certain criminal elements in London can gain access to red diesel fairly easily.

[Mike Gapes]

Obviously I am not as accomplished as my hon. Friend at making contact with the criminal elements in London. However, he has raised a serious matter: there are criminal elements who exploit differentials in duty. We have seen that in Northern Ireland, when terrorist organisations financed their activities by smuggling fuel across the border from the south to the north and vice versa, and we have seen it in other contexts.

If we are to have a policy on fuel taxation, we need to ensure that if we introduce measures that discriminate in favour of certain people in remote rural communities, we do not also create loopholes that will be used in a discriminatory way to undermine the sense of justice and fairness that our people want us to exercise. If we have high levels of fuel taxation in this country, which we do, and if that causes problems for our road haulage industry and discrimination between rural and urban areas, when the review is conducted—I hope that the Government will support the amendment, because it is vital that we look at these issues in—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

Red diesel is taxed at a lower level than other diesel. We are discussing the taxation of fuel and the need for a review of fuel taxation. Surely that is extremely pertinent to the terms of the amendment.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The amendment states:

“The Chancellor shall publish, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.”

I am sure that that includes diesel.

[Mike Gapes]

I entirely agree.

I believe that one of the difficulties in our economy, which affects our haulage industry, arises from our tax levels compared with levels in other European Union countries. We all know that if we drive across to France and fill a tank with diesel, or “gas oil” as they call it, it is possible to pay—depending on where we are—40%, 50% or 60% of the amount that we would pay in the United Kingdom. The haulage industry based on the other side of the channel therefore has a competitive advantage. The great lorries with Polish and other countries’ number plates that we see bringing goods into this country have a competitive advantage over those of our own haulage industry.

We need to look at these matters. I have to say that I think the Liberal Democrats were right. [Interruption.] Yes, occasionally they are right, and I think they were right when they said we need to look at road pricing. Unfortunately, the only person who has done anything serious about road pricing is, of course, the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who introduced the congestion charge, which the Conservatives have now accepted even though they opposed it when it was first introduced.