European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Lord Hain

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why I have tabled amendments that would apply either the local government franchise or the European Parliament franchise. That would meet his point about Scotland.

I was going to come to the question of prisoners later—not prisoners, Members of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] I said prisoners because, under our present law, Members of the House of Lords, lunatics and prisoners are excluded from voting in elections to the House of Commons. The Government propose to modify that to allow peers to vote in the referendum, but not lunatics or prisoners. I have tabled an amendment on prisoners—I was unable to get an amendment on lunatics on the amendment paper. My point is that the Government are making a constitutional change in the relationship between the Houses of Parliament and in the role of Members in the other place. Are the Government proposing that Members of the other place should vote in the referendum? I referred to the Government—I must apologise; I meant the part of the Government that is putting forward the proposal. They need to clarify why they think that it is appropriate to change that long-standing relationship.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is expertly disentangling all the anomalies and contradictions in the Bill and the franchise, but does he agree that in respect of Gibraltar there is another one which has wider implications? A quarter of a million or so British citizens live in Spain. Some may have served this country with distinction fighting in our armed forces; others may have been in receipt of an honour from Her Majesty the Queen; and others may be working for Britain in companies in countries such as Spain. A quarter of a million people living just across the water from Gibraltar will not have a vote, but Gibraltarians will have one. What is the logic of that?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

Indeed, I think the CER does some very good work, and again I hope that under sub-paragraph (j) it will be properly consulted by the Government. It is a serious analyst. By the way, Eurosceptic organisations should be consulted as well under that sub-paragraph.

A series of other organisations, some of them specified in the new schedule, including the Trades Union Congress, should be consulted, so that people can understand that the EU has brought with it policies to extend social, environmental and consumer rights. Without those, and despite the EU’s faults, we would not have as fair a society as we do today. Organisations such as Citizens Advice and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, specified in new schedule 2, could have their say as well.

Consultation would provide another opportunity to recognise that Europe has its faults but that the remedy is to get in there and argue for a stronger reformed Europe, not for Britain to turn its back and walk away. Although it has become fashionable to criticise Euroland, a consultation would reveal that its productivity per hour worked is far higher than Britain’s. The work force are, sadly, more highly skilled, and public services such as health and transport are superior. Under new schedule 2, whether under sub-paragraph (g) or others, organisations such as the National Council of Voluntary Organisations would be able to express their view and say whether they agree with that assessment.

Consultation would afford another opportunity. The continentals probably have something to learn from our better record on employability and our more flexible market. Equally, it would reveal that we need to acknowledge that our employees are far less protected and subject to much greater job insecurity than those on the continent. Consultation with the TUC and other organisations, including the citizens advice bureaux, would reveal the high social costs of the inferior rights and job security which, sadly, exist in Britain.

[Mike Gapes]

If there were to be a referendum on the basis that the Government, or at least the Conservative party is proposing, it would be on worse terms in respect of the rights of trade unionists, women and people on maternity leave. It would not be a question of the status quo or leaving. It would be question of a worse position or leaving, as was put forward by the Fresh Start Group and other Conservative Back-Bench groups.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I believe that a consultation would also reveal that the Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, about 1% of total public expenditure and equivalent to 0.4% of GDP—I am sure that the CBI would have something to say about this, because its report seems to suggest the same thing. Although leaving the EU and rejoining the single market would cost Britain less, it would not be much less. We would need to negotiate a relationship like that enjoyed by Norway, the largest of the nations in the European economic area, which we would presumably join.

[Mike Gapes]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hain]

I want to make some progress so that others have a chance to speak.

A consultation with the Institute of Directors, the CBI or the independent economic think-tanks would also endorse the notion that joining the EEA would cost Britain about £6 billion. Yes, that is about £1 billion —or 17% less than our membership of the EU—but it is still a large amount in comparison and assumes that our EU partners would, after our departure, be in an open frame of mind to accept us back into some kind of trading relationship. I am sure that the CBI and all the other business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce, would want to have a say on that.

As members of the European economic area, we would still be bound by the regulations that the anti-EU camp denounce. In return for access to the single market, Norway and all the other relevant countries, such as Switzerland and Iceland, must adopt nearly all European Union legislation relevant to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, together with laws in areas such as employment, consumer protection, environmental policy and competition.

There would, of course, be the chance properly to assess such a move. A report would be placed before Parliament and we would spend days debating on the Floor of the House whether to accept the report and the assessment. We would also be able to assess one point made by the CBI, which would also have a greater chance to have its say than it would during the compressed period of a short referendum campaign. That point is that we would also be bound by future European law in those areas, even though we were outside the European Union.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Lord Hain

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hain]

I do if the hon. Gentleman means by that the secondary mandate.

I remind the House that the last time the Commons voted on a very similar proposition to that put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister—the one put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in March 2007—it voted decisively for an elected Chamber. A 100% elected Chamber was favoured by 337 votes to 224, and an 80% elected one by 305 votes to 267. Surely this House of Commons, with hundreds of younger MPs of a new generation, is not going to backtrack on that vote? With new MPs of a new generation, we should be increasing the majority for reform.

One of our greatest parliamentarians, Robin Cook, told the House on 4 Feb 2003 that there was a real possibility of House of Lords reform becoming a parliamentary equivalent of “Waiting for Godot”:

“it never arrives and some have become rather doubtful whether it even exists, but we sit around talking about it year after year.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 152.]

For the very first time, all three parties have a manifesto mandate for Lords reform. To betray that mandate would be to betray trust even more. This House has a once in a political lifetime opportunity to bring down the curtain on what must rank as the longest political gridlock in the history of parliamentary democracy. It is high time we resolved this once and for all, and brought our democracy fully into the 21st century by an historic decision for a democratic second Chamber.

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

In response to an earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend referred to indirect elections. Would it not be sensible, and would it not have been sensible over the last 10 years, to have seriously considered the alternative approach, as in India, of having an indirectly elected second Chamber with a small composition to reflect the regions and nations of this country rather than bring in a party-list PR model of regional election?

[Mr Hain]

I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. What I favour is different proportions of party votes given to MPs then going into a regional pool, as the Bill envisages in its proposal for second votes to determine the numbers of party representatives in the second Chamber, subject to the specified transitional arrangements. This closed list mechanism is not one used in European, Welsh or Scottish elections, which quite properly have open lists, but it is not appropriate, in my view, for elections in which voters elect primary legislators in Europe, Wales and Scotland. However, a new democratic second Chamber would be unique among our institutions because a direct mandate from voters would compromise the primacy of the Commons. That is my view. If I win that argument in Committee, so be it. I hope to do so, but I will still vote for the Bill because it is vital to get it out of the House of Commons in good order so that it goes to the House of Lords. That is essential.