Lethal Autonomous Robotics

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me this debate to bring to the House’s attention the issue of lethal autonomous robotics, or LARs, which are sometimes referred to as “killer robots”. I have the privilege of being the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on weapons and the protection of civilians, and I wish to raise the issue of what plans the Government have to engage in international talks to try to limit, through means such as international regulation, the development and proliferation of such weapons. I believe that the UK has a key role to play in international talks and that without concerted international agreement and pressure it is unrealistic to anticipate that many individual states will pause in their drive for ever-increasing technological advantage.

This debate is timely because just over a fortnight ago, on 29 May, Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, presented a report on lethal autonomous robotics to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The following day, 24 states took part in discussions on the report, and with the exception of the UK, they all agreed on the need for further debate. Germany and the United States were among those who expressed a particular willingness for further international discussions. Brazil and France urged the need for an arms control forum, and suggested using the convention on certain conventional weapons. That is a framework convention with protocols on specific issues. It is the mechanism that was used to make an international legal agreement to ban the use of blinding lasers before they were ever deployed.

Before returning to the need for international dialogue, I want briefly to explain what we mean by lethal autonomous robotics and why we need to take action now. I also want to highlight some of the concerns raised in the UN special rapporteur’s report. The term LARs refers to

“robotic weapons systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator”.

The key element is that the robot has the power to “choose” a target independently and to “decide” to use lethal force against that target. That element of full autonomy means that LARs represent more than just a game-changing development in weapons technology. They represent a revolution.

LARs have sometimes been grouped with modern unstaffed weapons systems, such as remotely piloted aircraft systems, sometimes called unmanned aerial vehicles but most are more commonly known as drones. However, they go a considerable step further than drones. LARs are fully autonomous weapons systems which, once activated, can select and use lethal force against targets without further human intervention. The key departure from existing military technology—the factor that differentiates LARs from unmanned weapons systems such as drones—is the absence of human intervention once a fully autonomous weapons system has been activated. A robot would be able to make the decision to kill a human being, which has never been the case before. For that reason, LARs would constitute not an upgrade of the weapons that are currently in our arsenals, but a fundamental change in the nature of war. LARs explode our legal and moral codes that assume that the decision-making power of life and death will be the responsibility of a human being, never a machine.

It is the natural horror of a scenario in which a robot could decide to kill a human that has led to the description of LARs as “killer robots”. They are also sometimes described as “fully autonomous weapons”. Whatever the label, no lethal, fully autonomous weapons system has yet been deployed, but we need urgent action now, before further technological development and investment make a race toward killer robots impossible to stop. Make no mistake: technological know-how is widespread, and it is estimated that more than 70 countries have military robotics programmes. The United Kingdom is a leader in the field of sophisticated high-tech military industries, and is therefore at the forefront of development of the types of technology that could be used in LARs.

Inevitably, much of the development of LARs worldwide is shrouded in secrecy, including development in the UK. What we do know is that weapons technology is developing at an ever-increasing pace, and it is therefore very difficult to determine how close we are to the production of LARs that are ready to be used. Weapons systems with various degrees of autonomy and lethality are already being developed. One is the UK’s Taranis system, a jet-propelled combat drone prototype that can search for, identify and locate enemies autonomously, and can defend itself against enemy aircraft without human intervention. It is clear that LARs are not a fantasy of science fiction, or a technology belonging to the distant future; they are a real possibility for our time.

The considered, comprehensive and balanced report by Christof Heyns, which was published on 9 April, raised a plethora of concerns about LARs. First, it drew attention to the moral dilemmas presented by them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the gravest danger posed by these weapons is their perpetuation of the philosophy that might is right? Is it not the case that, while the use of sophisticated technology in certain countries against other, unsophisticated countries may secure victories in the short term, huge resentments will be built up because of that difference in technology, and will leave a legacy of continuing conflict?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend is right. There will be a huge imbalance between countries that have these technologies and the potential to use them, and countries that do not.

LARs increase the distance, physical and emotional, between weapons users and the lethal force that they inflict. Drones already offer the states that deploy them the military advantage of being able to carry out operations without endangering their own military personnel, and thus distance the operators from the action. LARs would take that a crucial step further by lessening the weight of responsibility felt by humans when they make the decision to kill. They could lead to a vacuum of moral responsibility for such decisions.

Secondly, LARs give rise to legal issues. Given that they would be activated by a human being but no human being would make the specific decision to deploy lethal force, it is fundamentally unclear who would bear legal responsibility for the actions performed by them. If the legal issues are not tackled, an accountability vacuum could be created, granting impunity for all LARs users. Furthermore, robots may never be able to meet the requirements of international humanitarian law, as its rules of distinction and proportionality require the distinctively human ability to understand context and to make subjective estimates of value. The open-endedness of the rule of proportionality in particular, combined with complex circumstances on a battlefield, could result in undesired and unexpected behaviour by LARs. It is clear that existing law was not written to deal with LARs.

Thirdly comes a multitude of terrifying practical concerns. The lowered human cost of war to states with LARs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, could lead to the “normalisation” of armed conflict. A state with LARs could choose to pit deadly robots against human soldiers on foot, presenting the ultimate asymmetrical situation. States could be faced with the temptation of using LARs outside of armed conflict, finding themselves able to eliminate perceived “troublemakers” anywhere in the world at the touch of a button. LARs could be hacked or appropriated, possibly for use against the state, and they could malfunction, with deadly consequences.

This report corroborates the revolutionary difference between LARs and any previous weapons system, and proves the following: that our current understanding of the nature of war cannot support them; that our existing legislation cannot regulate them; and that we cannot predict the effects that they may have on our future world.

What is called for worldwide in response is both an urgent course of action, and a mutual commitment to inaction: immediate action to ensure transparency, accountability and the rule of law are maintained; and agreement to inaction in the form of a global moratorium on the testing, production, assembly, transfer, acquisition, deployment and use of LARs until an international consensus on appropriate regulations can be reached.

Will the Minister explain the Government’s position on the recommendations in the UN report. It calls on all states to do the following: put in place a national moratorium on lethal autonomous robotics; participate in international debate on lethal autonomous robotics, and in particular to co-operate with a proposed high level panel to be convened by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; commit to being transparent about internal weapons review processes; and declare a commitment to abide by international humanitarian law and international human rights law in all activities surrounding robotic weapons.

At the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, a large number of states expressed the need to ensure legal accountability for LARs and pledged support for a moratorium. The UK was the only state to oppose a moratorium. Did the UK really consider existing law to be sufficient to deal with fully autonomous weapons, and was it completely dismissing the idea of national moratoriums on the development and deployment of LARs? What evaluation of the recommendations for an international moratorium, for transparency over weapons review processes, for discussion of the limits of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and for engagement in international dialogue did the Government carry out in advance of the debate in Geneva two weeks ago? I believe the UK should take a leading role in limiting the use of LARs, and use our considerable standing on the world stage to bring nations together to negotiate.

The UN report recommended a “collective pause”—time to reflect and examine the situation with open eyes, before the demands of an arms race, and of heavy investment in the technology, make such a pause impossible. Only with multilateral co-operation can an effective moratorium be achieved. As Christof Heyns observes, if nothing is done,

“the matter will, quite literally, be taken out of human hands.”

Turning to the UK’s own policy, in answers given by Lord Astor in the other place and a Ministry of Defence note, the UK has stated that

“the operation of weapons systems will always—always—be under human control”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 960.]

and that

“no planned offensive systems are to have the capability to prosecute targets without involving a human.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. WA411.]

This could form the positive basis of a strong policy, but further clarification and explanation are urgently required, and there has been no mention of a moratorium.

In November 2012 the USA outlined its policy and committed itself to a five-year moratorium. In a Department of Defence directive, the United States embarked on an important process of self-regulation regarding LARs, recognising the need for domestic control of their production and deployment, and imposing a form of moratorium. The directive provides that autonomous weapons

“shall be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgement over the use of force.”

Specific levels of official approval for the development and fielding of different forms of robots are identified. In particular, the directive bans the development and fielding of LARs unless certain procedures are followed. The UN report notes that this important initiative by a major potential LARs producer should be commended and that it may open up opportunities for mobilising international support for national moratoriums.

During a Westminster Hall debate on l1 December 2012, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the Opposition Defence spokesman, expressed support for the move by the United States to codify the use of UAVs. He suggested that the UK examines whether it should, in addition to existing law, have a code covering: the contexts and limitations of usage; the process for internal Government oversight of deployments; command and control structures; and acceptable levels of automation. The Minister who responded to the debate rejected that suggestion on the grounds of operational security—this may be one of the big stumbling blocks.

However, now that we are talking about the development of LARs, we do need greater clarity, both in respect of UK policy and on the international stage. Existing international humanitarian law and international human rights law never envisaged weapons making autonomous decisions to kill. Deciding what to do about LARs is not like simply banning a chemical agent—it is far more complex than that. We are talking about technological know-how that can be used in so many different ways, so we need to sit down with other countries to look at the limitations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said. Does she agree that the only way forward is an explicit ban, because international humanitarian law was, as she said, written before anyone could contemplate fully autonomous weapons? Does she agree that the most important thing is for human beings to make morally based decisions to stay within the law and the only way forward is a full ban?

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Lady makes a very valid point, which shows why the negotiations are so crucial. We need to define exactly what is meant by LARs and examine that international law to see what we can do to regulate all the appropriate weapons. If we are to make progress on banning LARs, nations need to be clear about exactly what we mean.

We then need to look at what mechanisms could be used. One suggestion would be to use the convention on certain conventional weapons, the mechanism used to make an international legal agreement on a pre-emptive ban on blinding lasers. Another option would be to use the process that led to 107 states adopting the convention on cluster munitions, five years ago last month. That treaty was groundbreaking for three main reasons: first, it banned an entire category of weapons; secondly, it brought a ban into existence before the use of cluster munitions had become widespread; and, thirdly, the treaty process was multilateral, shaped through the initiative and sustained leadership of the Norwegian Government, with a strong partnership between states and organisations working together towards a clear common goal.

The UK needs to be at the forefront of the debate on LARs. Now is the time for further international discussion. Now is the time to encourage a wide range of states to adopt a moratorium on the development and deployment of LARs until a new international legal framework has been developed that takes account of the potential of LARs and lays the basis for discussion on their future regulation or prohibition. I very much hope that we will see the UK taking a lead on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

We continue to encourage more UKTI missions to Tunisia. Through the G8 process, there will be a major investment conference later this year for all those countries involved in transition, at which UK companies will be able to look at the opportunities that are available to them in Tunisia. We want UK companies to be prepared to take more risk. We are sometimes told by nations abroad that they see more of other countries’ companies than our own, but we do not believe that that is necessarily the case. We want to encourage British companies to become involved, and Tunisia presents a series of fine opportunities.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

2. What recent steps the Government have taken to improve the prospects for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

5. What recent steps the Government have taken to improve the prospects for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

There is a clear need for the United States to lead an effort to revive the peace process. This was top of the agenda of my recent discussions with Secretary Kerry, and I welcome the focus that he has brought to bear on the issue since his appointment. We will make every effort to mobilise European and Arab states behind decisive moves for peace.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the starting point for negotiations should be the legal status quo—that is, that the whole of the west bank and east Jerusalem, within the 1967 borders, is Palestinian land, as agreed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council in resolution 242—and not the facts on the ground created by illegal settlement building?

[Mr Hague]

Across the House, all of us have commented clearly about illegal settlement building on occupied land, but I think the starting point for negotiations has to be a common political will. That needs to be there in Israel, where a new Government are being formed, and among Palestinians, who continue to discuss reconciliation among each other. The true starting point is a common willingness to enter again into negotiations and to develop the middle east peace process, with the leadership of the United States but with the support of us all.

Europe

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

We would also need to look at—I think—the Marine Act 1986 if we wanted to make that a consistent strategy. I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point, but we should not overlook the other legislation that governs our access to our waters.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, like the Welsh Agriculture Minister Alun Davies, we should be in there at the heart of the negotiations? If we are to get a proper deal on the CAP, we should be seen not as the country that is trying to leap out of the Union, but as a country at the heart of the negotiations.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is exactly right, and I think the Prime Minister has spelt out exactly how we are going to be at the heart of those negotiations. We are really talking turkey this time; we are saying that things have to change, and we are bringing the full force of this coalition Government behind that direction of change. The hon. Lady is right: we have to be in on the act; we have to be constructive; and we have to make sure that Europe nevertheless understands that we pack a punch. We pack a punch by eventually having a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think that I will be able to do that during my speech, in the next few minutes. It was a pleasure to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, whose wife I enjoyed working with as an MEP. I believe that he was working for her at the time and so was obviously feeding her some good lines, but it was a pleasure working with her none the less.

The fear of caucusing could cause the UK and others outside the eurozone to be outvoted in the Council in the very near future—the voting weightings are just about to change—possibly affecting our access to the single market. Most Members from all parts of the House are keen to ensure that that access remains, so we need to have, at the very least, what the Prime Minister called “new legal safeguards” to protect us from that problem.

I am not as defeatist as many Opposition Members have been. I was getting concerned about the idea of a European banking regulator, which came out of the blue last year as a new thing that Europe desperately needed to correct problems in the eurozone. I was worried about how it might affect our banking system, but Europe, as ever, managed to find a reasonable fix—one well negotiated on our behalf by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in the double-majority mechanism. Such a mechanism had not existed before, but it made sure that the UK position was fundamentally safeguarded. I am a great believer in the fact that these things that I and other Conservative Members might be calling for are achievable and that Europe will find solutions to problems if we enter the negotiation with a broad mind.

I am a founder of the Fresh Start group of Conservative MPs. Some Opposition Members are keen on detail, and we have detailed some of the areas where we think it would be worth while negotiating. In a way, we are making the Conservative political pitch, so I expect disagreement from Opposition Members, but I will try to explain why it is important at least to look at these areas, which include justice and home affairs. We highlighted a number of areas, and some Opposition Members might agree on some of them.

The first such area relates to a new legal safeguard to maintain access to the single market—I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree that we need to ensure that the eurozone cannot prevent our accessing that. Secondly, we need an emergency brake that any member state can use on future EU legislation affecting the financial services market. That market is important to the United Kingdom, as a huge amount of our GDP is created in financial services. The single market has been important to that, by always providing an opportunity, but it is beginning to look a bit more like a threat, because of the 48 directives and regulations coming down the track at the moment.

Thirdly, we need the repatriation of competences in social and employment law. That is a controversial area for many Labour Members, but I was in the European Parliament when Labour Ministers appeared before its employment committee and were begging people to understand the different, liberal nature of the UK work force and were asking them not to put in extra measures on the working time directive and the temporary workers directive that would directly affect the number of people getting into employment in the UK.

Fourthly, we need to opt out from existing policing and criminal justice measures, as some of them are not working, some of them are defunct and some of them are based on mechanisms that no longer exist. Europe does not repeal things and it really should; there should be sunset clauses in some of the legislation.

[Nia Griffith]

Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman says that he is very much in favour of a common market and economic union, but has reservations about other aspects? What sort of referendum is he therefore suggesting? Should we have an in/out referendum, or is he suggesting that any question would have to be worded differently and address whether people wanted to stay in one thing but not another?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

This is a fairly simple matter, and I tend to agree with what the Prime Minister says: we should renegotiate, get our deal and then go to the British people and settle this question. We should end the uncertainty by putting our trust in the British people and asking them, “Do you want this on the basis of the package that we have renegotiated or not?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Business needs certainty. What business wants to know is, “Where are we going to be in the next 10 years?” It does not need a situation where it does not know whether we will be in or out of the Common Market or European Union.

In Wales we depend heavily on foreign direct investment. We want to be part of the European Union that allows us to be a country where goods can be manufactured and then exported to the European Union. We forget how very complicated it was before the days of the Common Market. We forget the number of bilateral trade agreements that were necessary and the number of different safety standards. We take it for granted that we now have common standards and free trade, and we lose that at our peril. Instead of investing in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, firms such as Tata Steel will say, “Well, we’ve already got a plant in IJmuiden in the Netherlands. We know that that will stay securely in the European Union. If we make further investment, that is where we’re going to put our money.” That is a very real risk for people working in the steel industry, the car components industry and in the many other industries whose products are exported to other countries in Europe.

Of course we want reform of agricultural policy. Our Agriculture Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government, Alun Davies, is discussing common agricultural policy reform at the heart of Europe, and also consulting Welsh farmers so that we get the right sort of reforms. On consumer protection, yes, we want to move forward together. Consumer protection and employment legislation are two sides of the same coin. As well as protecting the worker, such measures protect investment in this country because we are competing on a more level playing field if we expect the same standards of rights, pensions, welfare and so forth to apply to workers in the countries with which we may be competing.

We in the Labour party delivered devolution to Scotland and Wales. There will always be a discussion about the level at which certain decisions are best made, but we forget at our peril the important decisions made at European level in respect of issues such as the pollution of rivers and acid rain. Borders are not respected by the elements and we have to get it right for all of us. The same applies to the emissions trading scheme. Again, it is about creating a level playing field so that businesses and industries can compete on the same terms.

When we look forward to where we are going to be by 2017, we seem to be looking at a huge Pandora’s box, and we do not know where the Prime Minister is leading us. Instead of showing real commitment to Europe, he is showing a lack of commitment. Unfortunately, instead of such commitment being a bargaining tool, some of the countries of Europe might be quite pleased to see us go. One of the big problems is that we do not know what the referendum will be about—whether it will be about the Common Market, the state that we were in pre-Maastricht or pre-Lisbon, or something else. That is the uncertainty that business does not like to operate in.

We would like a much clearer commitment from the Government to a proper pro-European policy and to getting the very best for the country from our membership of the European Union. Of course there must be accountability and scrutiny. We will always be able to say, “That could have been done better,” or “Money could have been spent more wisely,” but that is the same at every level of government. We should be at the heart of Europe, fighting for our cause.

Arms Trade Treaty

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Caton]

I completely agree; my hon. Friend has made it unnecessary for me to give part of my speech, but I will mention an alternative option, if the worst comes to the worst, for trying to get something really valuable.

I am chair of the newly formed all-party group on weapons and protection of civilians. We have made it our first priority to work for an arms trade treaty that is robust and workable. We were persuaded to do so by the group of non-governmental organisations that make up the Control Arms Coalition—organisations that have been working for many years to try to achieve the objective of such a treaty.

What do we mean when we call for a robust and workable arms trade treaty? We can achieve it by bringing together countries’ existing obligations and commitments, and other widely accepted norms of state behaviour, under international law and applying them to the trade in conventional weapons.

In practice, that means establishing in international law a binding obligation to prevent transfers of weapons if the arms would pose a substantial risk of being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law, or to undermine socio-economic development and poverty reduction goals. States should be required to conduct rigorous case-by-case assessments of all proposed imports, exports and international transfers of conventional arms to enable them to prevent those that breach the criteria of the treaty.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I know that he recognises the excellent work done by NGOs on this issue. Does he agree that any treaty needs to address the whole issue of resale? An awful lot of arms get transferred to countries that use them inappropriately.

[Martin Caton]

That is absolutely right. As I am sure that the Minister will report, there is a real danger in negotiations at present; some states are trying to reduce various things that should be covered. We want a comprehensive treaty.

The treaty needs to cover all types of conventional weaponry, munitions, armaments and related articles used for potential lethal force in military and law enforcement operations, as well as their parts and accessories, machines and the technologies and expertise for making, developing and maintaining them. It must have strong and effective implementation systems, including a public and transparent reporting mechanism, good monitoring, reporting and verification procedures, and provisions for settling disputes over suspected violations of the treaty. To achieve that, the treaty must also provide institutional support and periodic review for those states that do not have experience of enforcing a high standard of arms transfer control. That will require both resources and technical assistance.

The treaty must create an international framework of legal obligation, but it must be implemented nationally. Arms transfer decisions will still have to be decided by national Governments, but under the treaty they will be obliged to deny any transfer that breaches the arms trade treaty criteria.

When the all-party group decided to prioritise securing the treaty, we set ourselves the task of convincing the UK Government to fight for the sort of robust agreement at the UN that I have just described. We secured a meeting with the Minister, who is leading on the issue, and his diplomatic team, along with the NGOs that I have mentioned. We were very pleased to learn at that meeting that we did not have to convince the Minister or his team; it became apparent that their objectives for a strong, effective treaty mirrored ours pretty well. That has been further confirmed at a joint public meeting in Westminster, at which the Minister spoke, organised by our all-party group and the all-party United Nations group, chaired by Lord Hannay of Chiswick.

The Governments of some other nation states are, however, either opposed to such a comprehensive treaty or, at best, sceptical about it. The objections and reservations vary from state to state, so there is a real and challenging job to be done at the UN in the next couple of weeks if we are to secure our shared, progressive objectives. Given the nature and structure of treaty conferences, it is difficult during the process to get an accurate overview to help to assess the prospect of a successful outcome, but from the reports that I have received, the signs appear to have been positive and less positive so far.

The Control Arms NGOs are pressing for what they describe as a bullet-proof treaty, and they have presented a 600,000-signature petition to Ban Ki-moon. Parliamentarians for Global Action has delivered a petition signed by 2,053 Members of Parliament from 96 countries, including, of course, from this Parliament. However, a small minority of sceptical states have managed to get the NGOs excluded from a substantial part of the conference.

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, showed appropriate leadership in his opening statement to delegates when he said:

“You will need to agree on robust criteria that would help lessen the risk that transferred weapons are used to commit violations of international humanitarian law or human rights. You will also need to define the scope of the treaty to cover an extensive array of weapons and activities and that leaves no room for loopholes. Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding ATT that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence.”

European Union Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

He has been friendly. He has been a model of charm and ministerial competence, but he has not yet produced any credible reason why we cannot have a vote in Parliament to decide whether something is significant enough to trigger a referendum, as opposed to leaving it simply to a Minister. What is wrong with trusting Parliament?

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the amendments standing in the names of my Labour Front-Bench colleagues. People elect their MP to speak up for them in Parliament and that is what they expect us to do. They expect us to speak up, to do business for them and to do certain work for them because they have put us here and they cannot spend every minute of every day looking at every detail that they want us to look at. They expect the party in government to tackle the problems of the day. When I say that the general public do not want numerous referendums on technical matters it is not because I doubt their ability to study the issues and make up their own minds—they could of course spend their time doing that. What people tend to say to me is, “Nia, it is your job. You’ve been elected to do this. We want you to look at these things and tell us the best ways forward.” That is not because they cannot do this themselves. They expect us to do the nitty-gritty work on the legislation.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I understand where the hon. Lady is going with this argument, but is what she is describing not exactly what she is asking the people of Wales to do in a certain referendum in March?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. I shall be dealing with that point shortly, because it is very important. There is a huge difference between the attitude now in Wales and the one prior to 1999, when people were very excited and enthused about the setting up of a new institution, there was a lot of media coverage and a lot of people were talking about it. With five weeks to go before the vote on 3 March, people are not particularly interested. They are saying, “This is a technical difference. If it is a matter of making the process better and simpler, so that things can be done in the Assembly rather than in Parliament, could you not just get on with that and do it?” That is not because people are not interested, because they do not appreciate what the Assembly is doing or because they do not accept that we have different ideas about how to run the health service and education and about how to protect the education maintenance allowance; it is because referendum fatigue is setting in. People are saying that on the big issue they want to have a vote—they want to say that there is going to be an Assembly—but on the technical issue they are saying, “You are telling us that there are better ways of doing things. We would like you to look at the detail, rather than for us to have to do that all the time.”

[Mr David]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important issue is involved in the case of the Welsh referendum? It concerns whether the Welsh Assembly will have primary or secondary powers, which is an important constitutional issue. Despite that, it is very difficult to get people engaged and to encourage them to make a decision according to the arguments on that constitutional point.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the problem. The referendum is about the technicalities and that is why it is so difficult to get the media and press interested and so difficult to make it the ordinary subject of conversation in pubs.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that when it comes to issues that are in the national interest, both the public and the media will be engaged?

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. That is the important point and that is why we are calling for a committee to be set up. That would provide the opportunity for the issues to be discussed. If the subject were important and interesting, there would be media interest and lots of lobbying and, as with any work that is done in Committee, the issue would become one that people considered. The whole point of having any committee is that it can make that difference. Committees can do the work on the detail. An innocuous little detail can turn out to have a major impact and that point can be uncovered in Committee. Likewise, something that seems quite big to start with will, when it is considered in detail, be shown to do not much more than maintain the status quo.

[Stephen Gilbert]

As I understand the Opposition’s proposals, there will be one committee comprising Members from both Houses, who will then separate and go back to their relevant Chambers to carry the argument in favour of or against a referendum. Perhaps the hon. Lady can enlighten me given that her Front-Bench spokesman was unable to do so. What will happen in the event of a clash between the Houses?

[Nia Griffith]

It is very clear. The idea is that if one Chamber does not think there is a need for a referendum, there will be no referendum. If both Chambers think there is such a need, there will be a referendum. Clearly, the committee’s recommendations will be considered and we will ask whether the matter is of major significance. One would expect any matter of major significance to create excitement in both Houses.

[Stephen Gilbert]

So whereas the coalition proposes to legislate to ensure that the people have a referendum, the Opposition are proposing a committee of Members of the two Houses, both of which have a veto, which will mean that we might not have a referendum at all. Is that the position?

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman has to understand that the committee will make recommendations and it is not about what the committee will say. When the committee comes back, we will not all automatically do what it says; it will make recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) talked about collective memory, what it is and how important it is. The people on the committee might well have an enormous amount of experience and the people who are likely to want to be involved or to consider the detail will have done so previously. As she pointed out, ministerial teams often change and have to pick up a brief very quickly, so they will not necessarily have that knowledge.

The idea is that the committee should consider the detail, sift out what really matters and make a recommendation, but the Houses will not have to take that recommendation at face value. If the issue is of major significance, surely by that time some interest will have arisen, people will be doing their own research and people will be coming to the Chamber with plenty to say.

My constituents are saying to me, “You do the nitty-gritty and sort out the bits and pieces. When you have done that, you can tell us whether you think that this is a matter of major significance.” That is the idea—the committee would bring that information to the House, and this House and the other place would make the decision.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My understanding of the hon. Lady’s position is somewhat unclear. Is she saying that her constituents have delegated to us the responsibility and have therefore no interest in the outcome of a debate on the referendum?

[Nia Griffith]

I am saying that my constituents say that there is often detail to be considered before we can decide whether a change will have a major impact. In the Bill, there seems to be great confusion about what a power actually means. We do not seem to have clarity in the Bill. My constituents are saying, “This is the sort of work that you need to do. When you, in Parliament, can tell us whether you think an issue is significant the door is open for a referendum if that is what you think best.”

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

On the point about when the decision is made, will the hon. Lady enlighten me on the time scale over which the joint committee would report? It is part of a ratification procedure and there needs to be some defined time scale that I do not see in the amendment.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman raises a significant point. One difficulty about European legislation is that dealing with these issues often takes an enormous amount of time. Often, developments take place over a considerable amount of time whereas a referendum gives a snapshot of the mood of the country at one time. That might mean that people vote on different issues. It is important that the committee would have the opportunity to go through the issues and decide what is and what is not important. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the situation in respect of Europe, what has to be decided and how it has to be ratified.

[Martin Horwood]

Given that we are all agreed that any change would be subject to an Act of Parliament, what is to stop Parliament as a whole subjecting the change to such scrutiny and even possibly suggesting an amendment on a referendum as the Act went through? I am sure there would be many volunteers on the Government Benches to draft the amendment.

[Nia Griffith]

Perhaps it would be better to have a cross-party committee and to take the matter away from the partisan approach. There are many areas on which there is cross-party agreement on Europe and many issues on which feelings are not particularly partisan. I suspect that there are more differences between Members on the Government Benches than there are between Members on the Opposition Benches and others on the Government Benches.

[Graham Stringer]

Is not the constitutional position normally that this House is superior to the other place on manifesto commitments, on finance and on secondary legislation where the law is already decided? Is it not a flaw of new clause 9 that we are giving a veto to the other place on whether we consult the electorate? That is an extraordinary position.

[Nia Griffith]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will enlighten us a little more on his position later. The important thing is that we are talking about the sovereignty of Parliament and the opportunity for us to have that debate and to have a say. Frankly, I think we all agree that there is a role for a committee to sort out the detail.

In many areas, there is general consensus that we do not want to see swathes of power wafted away to Europe. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has always made a very forceful case for keeping out of the euro and I dare say that many Government Members agree that that is a good position to take. We are trying to provide the opportunity for greater safeguards and for a committee to consider matters that would sift out the unnecessary and trivial, focus on the issues that matter and ensure that we have the discussions that we need.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous in taking interventions. As I understand it, she is saying that she was sent here by her constituents to do the detail, work out the complicated stuff and then tell them whether they need a referendum. Were she selected by Mr Speaker—by an entirely independent process, and not by the Whips, as would seem to be the case—to be on that committee, what sort of detail would there need to be to make her say, “Yes, I vote for a referendum on this issue”? What kinds of subjects does she think would merit referendums?

[Nia Griffith]

We have spent a considerable time in the European Scrutiny Committee listening to experts on particular issues. We would need to ask what powers are being given away, what would not be the same as it is now and where the qualified majority vote would become a simple majority. We would need to ask, “Is that acceptable? Is there an issue of sovereignty? Would we be giving away something that we have always had in this Parliament to a European super-structure?” Those are the things that we would want to consider in detail. The whole point is that the committee makes a recommendation; the committee does not simply live by its own views. I have had few letters or e-mails from anybody about a referendum, even during the last Parliament when there was quite a fuss about it in the media. I must have had three or four letters or e-mails throughout the five years of the previous Parliament, when the matter was quite an issue in the press, so I do not think it is such a huge and exciting topic out there as the hon. Gentleman might think.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again; it is very kind of her. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), the hon. Lady said that the shadow Chancellor had kept us out of the euro. He has ensured that we will never be able to go in, because of our massive level of debt. Would a debate on entering the euro go before the committee before anybody could decide on it in either House?

[Nia Griffith]

I will address my remarks to the question before us. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is much wider and would merit full debate in the House before any decisions were made. It may well be outside the remit of the Bill. It is a matter that any Government would want to discuss thoroughly. I can hardly see it being a popular move without proper discussion and consensus.

We need to remain in Europe. We do not want the label that Giscard d’Estaing threw upon us in the Lisbon treaty discussions, when he said that the UK would opt out of this and opt out of that, and that we were for ever opting out. We got a reputation as the country that cried wolf all the time and did not engage with the serious issues. It is important that we do not become the spoilt child of Europe. We must take our part; we must stand up and be counted; and we want a mature and sensible approach to what merits a referendum and what does not.

In conclusion, I fully support the idea of a special referendum committee being set up, which would have as its remit to look into the necessary factors and then make a recommendation to both Houses about whether a referendum were needed.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I see the Bill as a ground-breaking and essential force for good. It is important to understand that the context of the Bill is the reaction of many people throughout the land against the denial of a referendum on an EU constitution renamed and rebadged as the Lisbon treaty, but not changed.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), and a privilege to hear from a Member of Parliament who has not had the ire of constituents come down upon her head for not standing up for a referendum on Europe. I congratulate her on having a constituency which is clearly full of people who are delighted with the European Union and delighted never to be consulted by means of a referendum. It is a fine constituency that she has. No doubt she has the odd housing claim—