Middle East and North Africa

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We do raise human rights cases with Turkey and I will certainly consider the cases that the hon. Gentleman has described. We will have many detailed discussions with Turkey because of the state visit of the President of Turkey in two weeks’ time. I will look at those cases ahead of that visit.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Are sanctions against Iran likely to work unless China and Russia both get involved?

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman had been studying the conclusions of last Sunday’s European summit rather than the brief from his Whips Office, he would realise that the summit agreed to give priority to EU action to benefit jobs and growth. He would also know that it called for full implementation of the services directive, completion of a digital single market by 2015 and a reduction in the administrative burden of European regulation on business by a quarter by next year. That is a European agenda that could have been written in London, and it was achieved because of the intensive diplomacy of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

European free trade through the single market is clearly a good thing for this country, apart from the fact that we have recently seen an alarming increase in this country’s trade deficit with our European partners. What can Her Majesty’s Government do about that?

[Mr Lidington]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that matter. I took note of the points that he and others raised in the debate yesterday evening, and I have looked at the latest figures. I am glad to be able to tell him that the trade deficit has narrowed since the figures that he and others cited yesterday were produced. The way to get the trade deficit down is, in part, through Government Ministers making every effort through commercial diplomacy to help our businesses to sell British goods and services in Europe and the wider world.

National Referendum on the European Union

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The big mistake that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has made is to believe that Euroscepticism is a right-wing phenomenon. I have news for him: Euroscepticism is a growing movement, with people of all persuasions—right, left and middle—getting increasingly fed up with how this country is treated by the European Union. The proof of that is some of the petitions that came to the Backbench Business Committee and that stimulated today’s debate. He is going down a blind alley if he thinks that this is just a right-wing cause.

I have the privilege to represent the residents of the borough of Kettering.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman says that people are concerned about how they are being treated by the European Union, and that may or may not be so. Does he accept, however, that the European Union is not some distant organisation over which we have no say? We are a powerful member state in the European Union, and we send MEPs, Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers there on our behalf. If we are not getting what we ought to out of the European Union, is not that due as much to how we are represented in Brussels as to anything else?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

Many of us would like the European Union to be even more distant than it is. The problem is that its tentacles creep into all aspects of the British way of life. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there are people in this country, from right, left and middle, who think it is outrageous that over the next five years, in this current Parliament, our membership fee will be £41 billion.

[Nadine Dorries]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hollobone]

I will give way when I have told my hon. Friend that in the previous Parliament the membership fee was £19 billion; it has more than doubled.

[Nadine Dorries]

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) touched on this point. If the House voted yes tonight, then when our Foreign Secretary, Prime Minister and Chancellor went to negotiate with our European partners, they would take with them the threat of the loss of £45 billion and would perhaps be treated slightly differently in the negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

[Mr Hollobone]

I do agree. They could not really treat us much worse.

From my perspective and that of my constituents, whom I have the privilege to represent, the EU is getting its hands on more and more aspects of the British way of life. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) spoke about the effect on this country’s fishing industry, which has been destroyed by our membership of the European Union. Our membership fee has more than doubled. Nine out of every 10 jobs in this country go to foreign migrants, most of whom come from the European Union. These issues are not of concern only to right-wing people; they are of concern to every person in this land.

This debate is exposing an increasing disconnect between our constituents—the residents we struggle to represent—and the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, who have tried to deny debate on this issue. One of the qualities of the Backbench Business Committee is that it chooses subjects for debate in this House that the Government would not otherwise allow. That is why the Backbench Business Committee chose this subject. We would not be having this debate if we had left it up to Her Majesty’s Government.

I have a confession for the House: I do not believe in ever closer union. I think it is wrong in principle and I think the British people do as well. I have another confession for the House: I believe that Britain would be better off out of the European Union altogether. I do not expect a majority in this House to agree with that, but I am privileged to put that on the record on behalf of my constituents in Kettering. I believe that if we were to have a referendum on in or out, most of my constituents would vote to leave because they have had enough.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman think we would be better off without the European arrest warrant, which brought home 145 suspects last year to face criminal charges in this country, and without Europol, which cracked the world’s largest online pornography ring last year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman and his Liberal Democrat colleagues are forcing this country not to have the right policy on Europe. If he wants to talk to me and other Members about justice issues, why does his party not do the decent thing and let us come out of the European convention on human rights? There are prisoners in this country whom we cannot repatriate to their country of origin because they claim spurious family life issues, which keep them here.

[Michael Connarty]

I hate to continue the process of lecturing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) did not like, but it is the Council of Europe, not the EU, that set the convention. In 1949, 49 countries came together to bring about human rights for all in Europe.

[Mr Hollobone]

With the increasing ratchet of the terms and conditions of European Union membership, that is now a condition of membership for new entrants to the club.

[John Hemming]

I do not agree with ever closer union, but I do believe in remaining in the EU and will oppose the motion.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to do that. Thanks in part to his good offices, we are having this debate about the future of Britain and Europe, which we would not be having without the Backbench Business Committee.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

If so many people in our country want to leave the European Union, why did the only party to advocate such a thing, the UK Independence party, get only 3% of the vote in the last general election?

[Mr Hollobone]

In my election literature in Kettering and in my campaign speeches and hustings, I made it quite clear that I am in favour of Britain leaving the European Union, and that if there were a referendum I would vote to leave. The majority over Labour in Kettering went up quite substantially as a result. The problem with the European issue at general elections is that there are a lot of other issues to discuss and it gets lost in the noise, in part because of the establishment view on the European Union, which often suppresses public opinion on this issue.

What has most worried me in the course of the past week is the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government. I know that we cannot talk about the amendments that never happened, but one of those amendments called for a White Paper on how this country would repatriate powers from the European Union. Her Majesty’s Government were not even able to support that. Is it any wonder that, on the ConservativeHome website today, a poll suggests that two thirds of Conservative party members do not believe that the Government have any intention of repatriating powers from Europe? I have to say to those on Her Majesty’s Government’s Front Bench tonight, “Shame on you.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman raises some important issues in relation to recent events in Syria. We absolutely deplore the continuing violence against protesters. Reports overnight from the city of Homs suggest that between 10 and 14 people were killed, including a 12-year-old child. We have condemned the attacks on the American and French embassies and we called in the Syrian ambassador last Wednesday to deliver our protests and to demand that Syria observes the requirements of the Vienna convention. The US and British Governments are united in saying that President Assad is losing legitimacy and should reform or step aside, and that continues to be our message.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Iran has been involved in training Syrian troops and providing materiél assistance, including crowd-dispersal equipment. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the dark hand of Iran in fomenting trouble in the middle east and in supporting illegitimate regimes?

[Mr Hague]

Iran has certainly been involved in the way that my hon. Friend describes, and I set out a few weeks ago that I believed it to be involved in that way. It shows the extraordinary hypocrisy of the Iranian leadership on this that it has been prepared to encourage protests in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries while it has brutally repressed protest in its own country and is prepared to connive in doing so in Syria.

Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which clearly highlights the issues. We will be asking the Minister and perhaps the all-party group to take the opportunity to raise these issues on behalf of people in Azerbaijan who are discriminated against.

On 12 June this year—the same day the Baptists were raided—Jehovah’s Witnesses in Gyanja stated that they were raided because they did not have compulsory state registration. An official of the state committee for work with religious organisations defended its officials’ participation in the raids, saying that they were working

“in accordance with the law".

However, it is an oppressive law and it is not right. The law on religion has been amended 13 times since 1992.

As I said, police and local state committee officials raided a church in Sumgait, near the capital, Baku, on 12 June, and they raided the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the same time. They were clear that they did not need the law of the land—they had permission and the warrant. Following both raids, fines are expected under the code of administrative offences for meeting for religious worship without state registration. The raids—the latest in a series on religious communities—came two days after Azerbaijan’s Parliament had adopted further restrictive amendments to the religious law. The Government are continuously moving the goalposts, and I am quite concerned about that.

A spokesperson said the law enforcement officers conducted these operations in accordance with the law, but he refused to give his name. When he was asked how raiding worship services was in accordance with religious freedom commitments enshrined in Azerbaijan’s constitution and the country’s international human rights commitments, he put the phone down—in other words, he had made his mind up about that.

Controversial and restrictive new amendments to the religious law have gone to the President, and this will be the 13th time that it has been amended since it was adopted in 1992. The amendments, which were given preliminary approval in a matter of weeks, on 31 May, raise the number of adult founders required for a religious community from 10 to 50, introduce new controls on religious education and increase the controls that the state requires religious headquarter bodies or centres to have over all communities under their jurisdiction. The amendments apply especially to the state-controlled Caucasian Muslim board, to which all Muslim communities must belong. Although I have outlined the raids on the Baptist church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there are also restrictions on those of a Muslim persuasion, so three religious groups are having problems in Azerbaijan.

Even before their adoption by the Parliament, the amendments have aroused concern among religious communities. In particular, those that had lodged re-registration applications in 2009, but which are still waiting for a response, fear that the new requirement for 50 adult founders will allow the state committee to reject their current applications. Potentially, churches that have been in operation for 20-plus years could have their activities restricted, and that would concern me.

In the Sumgait raid on 12 June, about 100 Baptists were at their Sunday morning worship service when about 20 police officers and men in civilian clothes broke in. The people in the church had been praying for about half an hour when the police burst in and they asked the police to wait until the end of the service before doing anything. Everyone present was told that it was up to each individual’s conscience whether they gave their name, as the police demanded. The police blocked all the exits out of the church and would not let anyone through without giving a name and address so, clearly, what they had said earlier meant nothing because they already had the details. Furthermore, police filmed the premises and the people attending on mobile phones and later on cameras. They confiscated all the religious books they could find—4,645 booklets, 9,229 individual books, 152 religious textbooks and 2,470 religious invitations—to have a wee look, to see if they were acceptable under Azerbaijan’s tight censorship of religious literature of all faiths.

Those raiding the Sumgait Baptist church refused to give their names, but the raid seems to have been led by state officials. Despite a number of phone calls, which went unanswered or were put down, there seemed to be a refusal to help those of a Baptist persuasion who wished to worship God in their church, their right to do so being enshrined in the constitution. Article 299 includes a wide range of offences, including meeting for worship without state permission. In December 2010, sharp increases in fines were introduced for all violations of article 299. Again, that will hit those who wish to worship God in their chosen way, and I am concerned that it has not been carried out as it should be. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to indicate what he can do to help those people.

The police were told that the church has no intention of applying for state registration because it believes that it does not need it and because it regards enforced state registration as an unwarranted intrusion into its internal affairs. Officers told the church that it would be fined. The Baptist pastor believes—as I do—that he has done nothing wrong. He adhered to the law of the land and to the wishes of a congregation who wanted to worship God on a Sunday morning and who have been worshipping in that building for a long time—some 20 years.

I am conscious of the time, so I will run through my remaining points quickly. The Jehovah’s Witnesses had a similar experience; 37 people were present during one raid, some of whom were taken away by the police for questioning for a number of hours and the rest given verbal warnings. Some were punished under the administrative offences code.

Earlier raids included three on Protestant churches in Sumgait over a three-day period in mid-May just past. Religious books were confiscated and two members of one congregation, a husband and wife, were each fined the equivalent of two weeks’ average wages. Other raids took place in Gyanja, where the Jehovah’s Witnesses had been raided, and those groups were banned from meeting for worship because they had not registered. At least one Star of the East Pentecostal church had a visit from the police and riot police to prevent worship. Even though the constitution says that such worshippers have rights, they do not. All the evidence points in a certain direction, and I am concerned about that. The state committee rejected the findings of a Council of Europe report, stating that

“it did not reflect the real situation in the country and bears a superficial character.”

However, I have talked about the evidence, which says something completely different.

In conclusion, Azerbaijan is a country rich in natural resources with which Britain has a special relationship. It has a wonderful people who are admired by those who have met them. At the same time, it has repressive laws that discriminate against those who want to practise their religious beliefs and against those of a certain racial persuasion. The Minister has an opportunity today, and I ask him and the all-party group to use their influence to ensure that those who want to practise their religious beliefs can do so without fear or discrimination.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We have 18 minutes left until I call the winding-up speeches at 3.40 pm. I will call Karen Lumley, then Martin Horwood and Stephen Hammond.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

Like others, Mr Hollobone, I welcome you to the Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate.

I thank the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) for his usual well-grounded and thoughtful contribution. I shall do my best to respond to as many of the issues that have been raised this afternoon as I can. Nagorno-Karabakh was mentioned by many. The economy and investment matters were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Karen Lumley) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). Students were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). A number of colleagues spoke about sport and Eurovision, but particularly the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe). The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised the matter of religious freedom and human rights.

I begin with an apology. My already exciting portfolio of north Africa, the Gulf, the middle east and south Asia, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran, now includes Azerbaijan—but only for today. I apologise for the fact that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), is not able to attend this debate. It is his region, however, and I shall faithfully report to him what has been said today. I hope that colleagues will excuse me if I am not able to deal with every question, but information will go back to my right hon. Friend.

We have a good bilateral relationship with Azerbaijan, which has a growing economy. We are a little worried about a slippage in transparency in recent years, but there is no doubt that a strong relationship has been built on a variety of factors, many of which I shall touch upon. I shall deal first with two of the lighter ones. The disproportionate impact of Eurovision could not be better demonstrated than by the fact that everybody in this debate has mentioned it. I share the excitement that must have been generated by it. There is no doubt that, as a focus of attention and as an opportunity, it will offer a terrific chance. We hope for its great success next year.

I should also mention the importance of sport, especially as football is the most popular game in Azerbaijan. Whatever Azerbaijan’s activities on the playing field, the hon. Member for Bradford South and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who share my devotion to Bury football club, will know that Azerbaijan’s greatest contribution to football was to provide the most clear-sighted linesman in the history of World cup finals. It was Tofik Bahramov whose eyesight distinguished Geoff Hurst’s goal in the 1966 World cup final—for ever an honoured gentleman in this country.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has clearly outlined his vision for our foreign policy. Our focus on building Britain’s prosperity and security provides an effective framework for today’s debate. Supporting Britain’s prosperity is one of the central themes of our foreign policy, and Azerbaijan is an increasingly important partner. There are shared benefits in co-operation; at a time when global economic recovery is still fragile, Azerbaijan’s economy is a driver for growth for a wide range of British businesses.

British expertise and industry has helped modernise and develop many sectors in the south Caucasus, including oil and gas, the development of infrastructure and information technology. The UK is well-placed in Azerbaijan, as a number of colleagues have said. We are the largest foreign investor, with 50% of direct foreign investment. Led by BP, British companies have invested more than $23 billion in Azerbaijan. Although the energy sector is the main focus for British companies, as was emphasised this afternoon, it is far from being the only one.

Azerbaijan and the south Caucasus region as a whole have increasingly dynamic and diversified economies that offer significant opportunities for UK business in financial services, retail, infrastructure, law, tourism and construction, among others. However, we need to do more to take full advantage of the opportunities that are available. I am therefore pleased to say that the Government and the private sector have increased activity there. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe led a successful UK trade delegation on a visit to Baku last year; and Lord Howell, a Minister of State, spoke at the launch of the Central Asia and South Caucasus Association. I shall take back to them the fact that Members have mentioned the increasing importance of trade.

The right hon. Member for Warley was right to mention European energy security. With its natural wealth of oil and gas resources, the region will play a vital role in ensuring Europe’s energy security. The transit of hydrocarbons to Europe via a southern energy corridor would give the EU a new and important source of energy. That would benefit not only the EU but the region itself, as it seeks to diversify its export routes. There are other opportunities for co-operation in the energy field. Working together on energy efficiency, creating more effective and more open markets, and addressing climate change are all areas on which we wish to engage more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned the importance of students. It is not the Government’s policy to discourage the brightest and best from coming here. There are numerical issues, which we all understand, but part of the process is to identify those whose future relationship with us will benefit not only ourselves but, importantly, the countries to which they will return. We all recognise that long-term relationships can be created, and my hon. Friend was right to raise the matter.

I want to talk particularly about Nagorno-Karabakh, as so many Members concentrated on it. The right hon. Member for Warley was right to speak of it in the general context of security in the area. I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I concentrate on that region for the moment. It is a complex matter. The conflict has left many dead and thousands of Armenians and Azerbaijani people displaced. Sadly, as colleagues reported, deaths still regularly occur along the line of contact. It is a human tragedy and a tragedy for the region. We are clear that there can be no resolution of this conflict through the use or threat of force; nor does continuation of the status quo offer an acceptable long-term prospect for the region. I assure the House on behalf of the Government that it is a conflict to which the UK and others in the international community pay close attention.

France, the United States and Russia are the co-chairs of the Minsk Group peace process, who lead on negotiating a settlement to the conflict. The UK fully supports that work. This coming weekend, the Presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia will meet in Kazan further to discuss the Madrid basic principles document, which aims to agree a starting point for eventual peace negotiations. In that regard, I fully support the recent statement of the co-chairs that urged the parties to avoid provocative actions or statements that might undermine the negotiating process during this critical period.

The line of contact has become the front line of this protracted conflict, and people tragically continue to die along it. The Minsk co-chairs have taken a significant, albeit symbolic, step towards opening up communication by crossing the line and travelling across no man’s land. They did this most recently earlier this month, as they did when they conducted a field assessment study in October not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but in the occupied territories that surround Nagorno-Karabakh. The parties have seen this report, and the Minsk Group’s assessment of the situation on the ground, but have agreed to keep the detailed contents to themselves in order to avoid heated media allegations of blame.

Does the process go far enough? Is it quick enough? These are always difficult questions, and in the circumstances everybody would like to push for more. However, the UK believes firmly that the process is making progress, albeit slowly, and it is important to back it as the most likely opportunity for peace. The peace process will need to address a number of sensitive issues. As was mentioned earlier, they include a mechanism for investigating any allegations of war crimes from both sides, a system for the return of displaced persons, and other issues. It will be no easy task, but it is right that we support Armenia and Azerbaijan in making the difficult decisions that are needed and in helping to create a conducive atmosphere to achieve peace.

I turn to the question of human rights. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the problems that he has discerned in that regard, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham made the connection with the Arab spring. Human rights are not the same as they used to be. It is not possible for any society to believe that these are purely internal matters in which the rest of the world is not concerned. They must address these matters on their own—they are sovereign issues—but regardless of whether it is about religious or media freedoms, the fact that the world pays interest is likely to be a fact of life. I am sure that the comments of the hon. Gentleman will have been noted. We raise these issues in our bilateral conversations, and we will continue to do so. The particular issues picked up by the hon. Gentlemen will form part of our next discussion with them.

Much more could be said; however, as the right hon. Member for Warley said, the fact that a delegation is able to go to Azerbaijan and come back well informed is of immense importance to Parliament—and to Ministers, who cannot be everywhere. The debate will be reported to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who I know cares about the area very much. I am indebted to colleagues for their advice and views, and I hope that I have answered some of their questions. I know that my right hon. Friend will pick up others in due course.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate, and I thank all who have taken part. Their contributions were most interesting and informative, and the debate was a real credit to the House.

European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of draft European Council decision EUCO 33/10 (to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro) and, in accordance with section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of draft European Council decision EUCO 33/10.

Under the terms of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, the House should approve this motion on the proposed change to the European treaties so that the Prime Minister can then support the adoption of the draft European Council decision to amend article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union at the European Council scheduled for 24 and 25 March. It is my belief that agreement to this, which is about the narrow change brought forward to enable the countries that use the euro as their currency to establish a permanent stability mechanism from 2013 onwards, is profoundly in the interests of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is the first time that the passerelle mechanism—in other words, a fast-track treaty amendment without an intergovernmental conference—is being used? Is this the first time that such a passerelle clause has been brought before the House?

[Mr Lidington]

We can debate whether or not it is a passerelle. It is certainly the first time that the provisions under the Lisbon treaty for a simplified revision procedure, rather than the full-scale procedure to which my hon. Friend alluded, has been employed.

European Union Bill

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is not exactly averse to opportunities to debate the EU. For hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that there needs to be a debate on the Commission’s work programme or any aspect of that, the way forward is to ask the Backbench Business Committee to use the time allotted to them for consideration of those matters.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Minister mentioned competence about a hundred times in his remarks, quite rightly, but subsection (3)(b) of the new clause mentions a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of any decisions made. Will the Minister address that point? Will Her Majesty’s Government at any point undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend pre-empts me, because I am about to come on to the question of cost-benefit analysis. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witham that the EU has to provide much better value for money. The Government are clear that the EU needs to change and can do things a lot better than it does at present. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has argued in the House and elsewhere that the EU cannot be immune to the budgetary realities that every member state Government in the EU and every family in the EU has to face. That is why it was the Prime Minister and this country that led the process to ensure that the 2011 EU budget did not grow in line with the unacceptable demands of the Commission and the European Parliament, and why at the end of last year the Prime Minister secured the important principle that over the next financial perspective the EU budget should reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Governments right across the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend seems to regard Margaret Thatcher as having sold out to Europe when she agreed to the single market. I ask him to talk to UK businesses, as he will find that they regard the single European market as a great boon. It was the combination of the UK being in the single European market and at the same time offering the best deal, with regard to regulation and low taxes, that led the UK, under the Conservative Government that he and I supported, to attract the lion’s share of foreign direct inward investment into the entire EU.

[Mr Hollobone]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way, but I am conscious that we have another important new clause to debate and do not want to get drawn too far away from this new clauses’s content.

[Mr Hollobone]

We will have plenty of time to enjoy ourselves with that this evening. The Minister is stressing the benefits, as he sees them, of our membership of the EU, so I will return to the point I made some moment ago: why will Her Majesty’s Government not undertake a comprehensive audit of the costs and benefits of our EU membership?

[Mr Lidington]

There are some elements of EU membership that could be put into such a calculus, but we cannot measure, in the way my hon. Friend wishes, things such as the diplomatic leverage that we obtain by being able to work in partnership with other European countries. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Some will differ from me in that analysis, but the fact that we were active members of the European Union helped us to achieve a package of sanctions against the Iranian nuclear programme last year that was tougher and more effective than either the United States or the Government of Iran believed possible. We were there at the table, so we were able to exert a powerful influence, in partnership with others, in the defence and enhancement of our national interest in securing sanctions against that programme, and we were able to overcome opposition from a number of other member states that weighed in the balance some very big commercial interests in Iran. That sort of advantage does not lend itself easily to the calculation that my hon. Friend invites me to make.

There are all sorts of things wrong with the EU as well, and we can find other occasions to debate its flaws, but the Government’s position is that membership of the European Union is one of the key ways in which we seek to advance the United Kingdom’s influence in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support and her argument. In fact, I would take it a stage further. Because there is support for the new clause on both sides of the Committee, and because I am moving it in a coalition spirit, as Members will discover, I have every expectation that there will not be a vote tonight and that the Minister will accept it.

Let me explain why the Committee should support my new clause. First, it would not alter in any way the purpose of the European Union Bill. The Bill is designed, under certain circumstances, to give the British people, through a referendum, a say on our relationship with the European Union. My proposal would merely extend the referendum lock, under certain circumstances, to whether we should remain part of the European Union.

Why do I think that this would improve the Bill? If the British people have a chance to approve or disapprove of a transfer of power in the future, and they say yes, then there is clearly no need for an in/out referendum, as it would show that the British people are happy with their relationship with Europe. If they say no, clearly they are unhappy with a proposed change to the European Union. Surely it is right that the alternative question is then put as to whether the British people wish to remain in the European Union.

An added advantage is that the in/out referendum would be triggered by an event, not by politicians. In the past, referendums have been timed to favour the proponents of the referendum, not necessarily for the benefit of the British people.

[Mr Hollobone]

Would not my hon. Friend’s new clause strengthen the referendum lock, because Her Majesty’s Government, in proposing a transfer of powers to the European Union, would have to think even more carefully about doing that, if they did indeed value our membership of the European Union, because they would know that if it failed, they would then be subject to his referendum as well?

[Mr Bone]

As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, I will return to that point later.

I was talking about the gerrymandering of referendums, and that brings me rather nicely to the AV referendum, which is being gerrymandered for a particular day to maximise a particular outcome. Because my trigger for the in/out referendum would be decided by an event, such gerrymandering could not take place in future.

The last time the British people had any say on our relationship with Europe was under the premiership of Harold Wilson, on 6 June 1975, when a national referendum was held asking:

“Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?”

This referendum took place nearly 36 years ago, which means that only people who are lucky enough to be over the age of 54 have had any say on the European issue. It is wholly unacceptable that a generation of Britons have not had a direct say on their relationship with Europe.

[Mr Bone]

As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Again, I want to explore that a little later in my speech.

The relationship with Europe affects everybody, no matter what their walk of life, in the most profound of ways. Other countries have consulted their citizens through a referendum, but not the United Kingdom. The issue raised by the 1975 Wilson referendum was whether we should stay in the Common Market: it was about an economic relationship, not a superstate. In 1975, guess what our net contribution to the Common Market was: £1 billon, £500,000 million, £250 million, £25 million? No—the EEC paid us. They paid us £56 million, but of course that was at 1975 value; the current equivalent is £500,000 million. In fact, as far as I can see, this is the only time it paid us a net contribution. Strange that the European referendum was held in that year. It rather backs up what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said about the facts and figures.

Since then, of course, things have changed. It is no longer just a free trade area: it is a European union, with a huge price tag for Britain. Instead of receiving money from the EU, over the next five years our net contribution to it will be a staggering £41 billion. However, it is not just our economic relationship with Europe that has changed. There is a European state with its own president, Parliament, flag, currency and courts. It now has its own foreign service and its own embassies.

The European Union came into force on 1 November 1993. The British people have never had a referendum on the EU.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend mentions the astonishing sum of £41 billion that will be paid over the next five years by the coalition Government. Is he aware that that is more than twice the £19 billion that was paid to the European Union under the previous Labour Government?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is a fascinating and amazing debate that would clearly take place if the in/out referendum came about, but if we could now focus on new clause 11, perhaps we could make a little progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I do not intend to speak for long; I just want to make a few observations about the new clause.

I listened intently to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who will know from our communications that I have some concerns about how the new clause would work. I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said about the new clause’s unintended consequences, but I take a slightly different view from him as I think that it is worth supporting, if for no other reason than to send a message to Ministers about what many people in my constituency and of my generation feel about the European Union. I was not born when we last had a referendum on the EU—I am a few years younger than the proposer of the new clause. My generation has never had the opportunity to express its view at the ballot box on the EU as an institution.

[Mr Hollobone]

Actually, nobody has had the chance to express their view on the European Union, because it was not the European Union in 1975—it was the common market.

[Andrew Percy]

I stand corrected. Many of my constituents who took part in that referendum, including my own parents—at least one of them was sound enough to vote no—tell me that it was not what they voted for. My hon. Friend is entirely right to correct me.

My generation has had no opportunity through the ballot box to express a view on whether we should remain a member of the European Union, because broadly speaking both parties have always supported membership. My view is firm—I do not think that we should remain a member—but I am not arrogant enough to suggest that it is for me to dictate to the British public. I simply want the British public at some point to have a say on whether we should remain a member of what has become a very interesting institution—as one hon. Member called it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I hope to be as brief as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). I came into the Chamber this evening to support new clause 11. That support was underlined by the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). I was then a little confused by the speech of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because he is very clever and I wondered whether I had the right new clause. However, I then listened to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole, who spoke about the one factor that will weigh most in my mind, which is the fact that he has not had a chance to vote. We therefore need to have an in/out referendum, to give him the opportunity to do so.

I am teasing the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I believe that it is important that at some stage in the near future—I am not saying that it should be 5 May, when we decide on AV—the British people ought to have an opportunity to deal with this subject. I am confident that, given that opportunity, they will vote overwhelmingly in support of remaining in the European Union. I know that there are those on both sides of the Committee who believe that the British people would do the opposite and that, given the opportunity, they would vote to come out of the European Union. However, I have attended many debates in this House when Members on both sides have been passionate about remaining in the European Union. However, at the end of the day, it should be up to the British people to make such an important decision.

[Mr Hollobone]

When the right hon. Gentleman says “overwhelmingly”, what does he mean by that?

[Keith Vaz]

It is 11 years since I was the Minister for Europe. I can well remember the day that I was appointed. I think I got a call from either Alastair Campbell or Tony Blair—I cannot remember which of the two it was, and I have not checked the diaries to see whether either recorded this important footnote in history—to inform me of my appointment. I was completely shocked. I was a junior Justice Minister and was on my way to Blackburn when I got a call to say that I had to go down to Downing street because I was the new Minister for Europe. I remember my first conversation with the Prime Minister. I said, “I know absolutely nothing about the European Union,” and he said, “You are the perfect Minister for Europe,” so I was appointed.

What was interesting about those two years is that my instructions from No. 10 were to make the domestic argument to the British people about the importance of being in the European Union. We therefore had a Foreign Office roadshow, as part of the public diplomacy team. We had a coach that went round various parts of the country. We did not get to Somerset, but we did get to Wigan and other interesting places such as that, to remind the British people of the benefits of being in the EU. At the same time, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Foreign Secretary, decided to have his own roadshow. He hired a lorry—you may remember this, Mr Evans; I think you were in the House at the time—and went round the country on the back of it, trying to convince people of the need to save the pound. He was convinced that the Labour Government were about to get rid of the pound and make us join the euro.

What was interesting about those visits was that the British people really did not understand enough about what was happening in the European Union. They did not understand what we were doing there, something that has become part of the sub-culture affecting summitry when Ministers have gone to defend this country’s interests, including my successor, the current Minister for Europe. An in/out referendum would give the British people the opportunity to know all the facts about the European Union, so that they did not have to rely on some of the tabloids and some, if not most of the broadsheets; rather, they would rely on Members of this House going into the towns, villages and cities of this country and talking about our membership.

I know that those on my Front Bench will probably be a bit upset with me about this, because they know my record on the European Union. However, I am with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for whom I, too, have great respect, for all the work that he does in this House, and those other hon. Members who support an in/out referendum. Indeed, that is what I thought the Liberal Democrats’ position was. When the question was raised at the tail end of the previous Government, I can well remember the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, now the Deputy Prime Minister, supporting that view in this very Chamber. I think I was sitting where the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is now—we were in government then—and I remember those very words: “Let us put this to the British people, because in the end it is they who will have to make the decision.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

That may well be so.

One problem is that, in the end, we have to accept the judgment of Ministers about the transfer of powers. We all have our own views, but Ministers will go to a summit, come back and announce to the House that they do not believe that a massive transfer of powers is at stake. They view it perhaps as a semi-massive transfer of powers, so a referendum will not be required. The problem is that this issue will go on and on and on. It is a fundamental issue that should be resolved. The country needs to know where it is going on Europe, and there is nothing wrong with putting that question to the British people.

We have had an excellent debate. I know that my Front-Bench team will not be pleased when I announce that I am going to join those who support new clause 11. When we get this referendum—I think we will need one of this kind at some time in the future—we will see the leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party all on the same platform together, supporting Britain remaining in the European Union. I am pretty confident of that, which is why I have no problem with the new clause, which I look forward to supporting in the Division Lobby.

[Mr Hollobone]

I was honoured to be asked to add my name to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I, too, would like to celebrate his genius not only in drafting the clause, but in taking advice from the Clerks and outdoing the Government Front-Bench team in having such a long debate on the provision this evening. He has worked tirelessly to get this issue debated on the Floor of the House, and I would like to congratulate him.

I am proud to say on behalf of my Kettering constituents that I am in favour of an in/out referendum and that if there were one, I would vote to leave the European Union. I have absolutely no doubt that if that issue were put to my constituents, a majority would vote to leave the EU. That would not necessarily always have been the case. Had there been a referendum 10 or 15 years ago, there might well have been a majority for staying in. I have no doubt that a majority of voters in the Kettering constituency would have voted to stay in the Common Market in the referendum of 1975. Now, however, people are so fed up with European issues and with the effect Europe is having on their country and their way of life that we have crossed over so that there would no longer be an overwhelming majority in favour of staying in. The majority would want to leave so that Britain can be a proud, self-confident nation once again, without having to pay a massive annual membership fee—soon rising to £10 billion a year—and without having to open our borders to all and sundry from across the European Union, allowing them to flood to these shores.

Immigration is a European issue. It did not used to be, but it is now. People in my constituency and across the country are fed up with the numbers of people coming into our country from abroad and fed up with uncontrolled immigration from the European Union. Frankly, my Kettering voters feel let down by the political establishment that our being in the European Union should have been allowed to take over so many aspects of our lives.

[Andrew Percy]

Does my hon. Friend share my embarrassment at the very idea that people from Australia, Canada and New Zealand—our Commonwealth brethren —are made to wait at our borders while we have absolutely no control over people coming here from 20-odd countries in Europe?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because he has hit the nail on the head. In the few times I have had the misfortune to go abroad, whenever I come back into this country, I always try to do so without coming through the European Union section. I have been told several times that a British passport holder has no choice and has to go underneath the blue flag with the yellow stars. I just think it is a huge shame that our country has come to that.

The Minister gave the game away early on when he had difficulty responding to my perfectly reasonable request that Her Majesty’s Government undertake a comprehensive audit of the costs and benefits of our membership of this European club. I would have thought that everyone would be in favour of such an audit. After all, if the argument for being in the European Union is so strong, why not get the evidence together and put it to the British people? Those who feel strongly that the time has come to leave the Union would also like to see the facts and figures presented. I perfectly understand that it is going to be apples and pears, and that some things are not perfectly calculable, but Her Majesty’s Government should at least make some kind of effort to tell the British people why it is so important for us to remain in the EU. As far as my constituents and I can see, the membership subscription is now too high, we have no effective control over our borders with the EU, and business and other institutions in our country are being strangled more and more, month by month, by the red tape emanating from Brussels. It is time that it stopped.

[Mr Cash]

Can my hon. Friend think of a single reason why we should not have a clear and positive policy to repatriate those laws that are now within the European Union, which are deliberately and wilfully destroying the British economy?

[Mr Hollobone]

I cannot think of a single reason—a straight answer to a straight question—and my Kettering constituents would greatly welcome the repatriation of powers that we have given away all too freely. Another example is the disgraceful common fisheries policy. I notice that a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister is now on the Treasury Bench; he is doing his best in Brussels to try to end the scandal of fish discards, but it is like pushing water uphill. We are not going to get anywhere with Brussels because it will not see sense on these issues. If I were to ask my Kettering constituents whether we should repatriate our powers over Britain’s fishing waters, there would be an overwhelming vote to do just that. We have given all these things away.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for giving way. On that very point of the repatriation of powers, is he not concerned that new clause 11 presents a fourth choice to the British public? It offers a straight in/out choice. It does not lay in front of the British public what many of us would like to see, which is perhaps the most significant element that the Conservative party lost in the coalition agreement—a vote on the repatriation of powers. Many of us do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but would like to see some of those powers repatriated to our country.

[Mr Hollobone]

That would be very nice, but I do not see the coalition Government repatriating any powers. For many people, it has now come to the issue of whether we are in or out. I do not believe that we can be “In Europe, but not run by Europe”. That slogan is, I am afraid, no longer valid.

I know that many Conservative Members believe that we can reform Europe to make it better, but some of us have reached the point where we simply do not believe that that is achievable. I do not want to spend the rest of my life arguing that we can improve Europe for the better. I believe that Britain’s best chance is to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing nation, with an enterprise economy looking out into the world, free from the restrictions that the European Union imposes upon us.

If Britain left the European Union, that would not mean the end of the European Union. It would still exist, but we would be freed from its shackles. We would be able to look out on the wider world, regain our economic self-confidence, and start to trade properly with superpowers such as China, India, and all the other countries with which we used to have such a wonderful relationship. Membership of the European Union is increasingly holding us back from both our past and our future as an entrepreneurial nation.

Our best hope of securing a decision in this Parliament lies in new clause 11. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough may well present us with the only opportunity that we will have in the five years of this coalition Government to decide whether we are to have an in/out referendum. I know that the new clause does not provide a perfect solution, but part of the genius of my hon. Friend is that he has got this far.

[Mark Reckless]

Does my hon. Friend agree that members of the Labour party are generally in favour of winning elections, and that if there is a strong enough demand from the British people for such a referendum, it is very possible that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) will flip his position on the issue?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend may well be right.

[Stephen Pound]

We would rather lose with principle.

[Mr Hollobone]

From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) says that Labour would rather lose with principle. Well, they lost without principle at the last general election, and they will do so again many times in the future.

[Emma Reynolds]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party did not win the last general election with a sufficient number to form a majority. As for his other point, I know that many Government Members are very interested in this subject, but they may have noticed that not many Opposition Members are present. The simple fact is—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will hear me out, I will give them the reason. Since I was elected in May, not one of my constituents has raised this issue with me. I believe that the next general election will be won on the basis of the economy, jobs and the NHS, and I believe that this Government are putting those things at risk. They are what will be at stake in the next election, not the European Union.

[Mr Hollobone]

The fact that we are having to pay more than £10 billion to the European Union every year is not helping the economy. The increasing burden of red tape from Brussels is not helping job creation. The hon. Lady speaks of those issues as if they were separate from Europe, but in fact the European Union is increasingly having a say in them.

[Emma Reynolds]

The vast majority of our exports go to other European Union countries.

[Mr Hollobone]

There is some dispute over our export figures. However, even if we accept that a small majority of our exports go to the European Union—

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman uses the words “even if we accept”, but that is a fact. As Foreign Office Ministers now tire of telling us, many more of our exports go to the European Union than currently go to China. Our jobs and our economy rely on the European Union for our exports, which is why the single market is such a good thing.

[Mr Hollobone]

Even if we accept the hon. Lady’s opinion—which is not a fact—that a small majority of our exports go to the European Union, the question for her is this: is our future with Belgium or with China? There is another fact that she needs to address. We now have a permanent and ever-growing trade deficit with the European Union, which our membership of that organisation is doing nothing to solve.

[Emma Reynolds]

I returned from a parliamentary visit to China in September. Although they were very polite about it, I know that the Chinese are actually interested in trading with the EU as a bloc, and would like to see agreements between China and the European Union. We should understand that fact.

[Mr Hollobone]

Of course the Chinese are interested in trading with the EU bloc, because it is a big economic entity. Were we outside the EU, however, China would also be interested in trading with us. As for the idea that if we left the EU we would lose 3 million jobs, that has never been proved by the Labour party, and it is misleading to tell the British people that so many jobs are tied to our membership of the European Union.

[Andrew Percy]

I cannot get away from my old job as a teacher. I want to help to disabuse the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) of a couple of assumptions. Does my hon. Friend agree that businesses are not buying British goods just because we are in the European Union? The French are not buying goods from this country out of the goodness of their hearts; they are doing it because they make hard-headed business decisions, and they will continue to buy things from this country whether we are in the European Union or outside it. It is extremely likely that if we were outside it, we would continue to have a free trade agreement with them.

[Mr Hollobone]

The point is that if we left the European Union, we would continue to trade with the European Union. The idea that, if we tore up our membership slip, suddenly no one would talk to us or trade with us any more is nonsense.

[Emma Reynolds]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has reduced my argument to absurdity. [Interruption.] But my argument is not absurd. My argument is that countries throughout the world, from Latin America to the far east, are queuing up to sign free trade agreements with the European Union. If we were not part of the European Union, we would not be part of those free trade agreements, and would not benefit from them or from the additional exports resulting from them.

[Mr Hollobone]

Those countries would still be able to trade with us. The big difference between 2011 and 1972 is the fact that trade barriers have fallen all over the world and continue to do so. As a free independent trading nation, Britain would still be trading with China, India, South America and the European Union, with lower trade barriers than we had 40 or 50 years ago.

[Martin Horwood]

If the hon. Gentleman is not persuaded by the argument about the jobs that would be lost if we left the European Union, what about the democratic deficit that would result from our trying to trade and have full market access to the EU, while having absolutely no say in the regulations and legislation that would deliver that access?

[Mr Hollobone]

The democratic deficit in this country lies in the fact that most people want to leave the European Union, but are not being given a say in that.

[Mr Carswell]

If Labour Members are so confident about their position, why did they not support the proposal for an in/out referendum so that they could put their views to the British people and let them settle the issue in that way?

[Mr Hollobone]

Exactly. It is not necessary to believe that we would be better off out of the European Union to support new clause 11. If Members here are so confident that Britain has a bright, rosy economic future in the European Union, they too should welcome the opportunity to take their case to the British people and settle this wretched argument once and for all.

[Dr McCrea]

Is not the truth that Members are not confident enough to take the argument to the British people, because they are not confident about the outcome? At a time when major cuts are being made in every Department in the United Kingdom, are not the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine, concerned about the fact that we are paying endless billions to this European club?

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on, but I would go rather further. I do not believe that Her Majesty’s Government, and other Members, are not confident; I think they now know that they would lose. They may not be drenched in e-mails and letters, but many members of our electorate have simply given up. That is why turnouts at general elections are now far lower than they used to be. Powers have drained from the House of Commons and Her Majesty’s Government to Brussels, and people are increasingly asking, “Why bother to elect Members of Parliament at all, given that all the decisions are made over in the EU?”

I believe that if we had a referendum, all those issues would emerge. I believe that most people in the country would be happy if we re-entered some kind of European Free Trade Association. I believe that most of them want a common market—a trading arrangement with European countries. What they do not want is membership of this political club.

[Mark Reckless]

Would my hon. Friend support a relationship with the EU rather like that of Norway and Switzerland? They sell rather more to the EU than we do, and are also rather richer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

Certainly, something along those lines would be most welcome. They also have substantially more control over their borders than we do. That is a big issue on the doorstep.

I come back to earlier remarks about the “Save the Pound” campaign in 2001. Opposition Members had the audacity to say that the British people did not understand it, but they did and if it had not been for the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was the leader of the Conservative party, there would have been a grave danger of the first-term Labour Government ditching the pound. If they had, they would not be laughing now because the economic mess in this country in 2011 would be much like that in Spain, with 22% unemployment.

[Keith Vaz]

The Foreign Secretary’s lorry and my bus met in Wellingborough, so I am happy that this issue has been raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) today. It was not because of the Foreign Secretary’s campaign that the Labour Government did not abandon the pound: it was because they had no intention whatever of joining the euro.

[Mr Hollobone]

That was an interesting intervention. I am certainly of the view, as are many of my constituents, that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend for his efforts at that time and to all those in the Eurosceptic movement who made sure that Tony Blair did not go as far as he might have.

[Mrs Main]

Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am to hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) say that the Opposition Benches are virtually empty because there is no interest in this matter, even though it crosses so many issues in our everyday lives?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. This shows the tragedy of what has been happening since 1997. There has been huge disinterest in matters European from Labour Members both when they were in government and now they are in opposition. That is why there was a massive loss of sovereignty to Brussels over the Blair and Brown years.

I am going to support the Bill. I supported it on Second Reading and I will happily vote for it on Third Reading, because it provides the referendum lock that the British people want. The purpose of new clause 11 is to strengthen that referendum lock so that no future Government would dare to propose a transfer of power that they thought they might have the slightest chance of losing. That entrenches the little bit of sovereignty that we have left. If Her Majesty’s Government stood back and thought about this, they would welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough’s proposal and agree to the new clause without the need for a Division.

[Mrs Main]

I shall speak for just a few minutes on this particularly interesting clause, which I support. I should like to make a big apology to the Whips; I am sure that the eye-rolling and head-banging has gone on already, because they see the usual suspects rising to speak on this matter, but I think that it is important. I know that rather a tortuous device was used to get it debated today and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for his ingenuity.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that the measure would somehow negate the referendum lock. Let me put that on its head: if we were to have a referendum about a significant transfer of powers and the public said no, where would that leave us? We would be standing alone saying no. It would be quite logical to go on and say, “We have been hearing grumbles over the years about your unhappiness”—for 19 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has pointed out—“over bits and pieces of legislation that you believe have come from Europe and may have impacted negatively, let’s have an open debate about it and have a referendum on whether we should be in or out.”

I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who spoke very eloquently. As I said in an intervention earlier, an in/out vote would not be a foregone conclusion. Indeed, I would look forward to a robust debate airing the positive aspects. Perhaps we could look forward to people being persuaded, despite some misgivings about whether or not we should give prisoners the vote, which we will debate next week, or whether they agree with human rights legislation being imposed on us from Europe—I believe that we were somewhat opposed to that in our manifesto—

Linda Norgrove

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, and my hon. Friend’s question forms part of the recognition for which he calls. We often rightly pay tribute in the House to the work of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they make as they try to bring security and stability to Afghanistan, but we must never overlook the work of others, including the many voluntary workers and aid workers who are doing their utmost to give assistance in many different ways. They do so out of their humanity, bringing their expertise and compassion to the people of Afghanistan, and it is absolutely tragic that someone who was simply seeking to do that for the benefit of humanity should have ended up in those tragic circumstances, and the victim of such a tragic death. That is a reminder of the risks that those people run, and of the need to recognise their efforts, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decisiveness in making the very difficult decision to authorise this mission. Despite its outcome, that was clearly the right decision to make. May I urge him not to forget the wider context of all this? It is hugely impressive that ISAF managed correctly to identify where Linda was being held within days of her capture, and we came extremely close to liberating her. The actions of the military forces on the ground will act as a huge disincentive to other Taliban groups thinking of trying to do the same thing again.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes an important point. We should recognise that the operation came tantalisingly close to success. Linda Norgrove was located in very difficult terrain, and the troops managed to get very close to her, despite having to fight their way in. Nevertheless, it was a failed mission, because the hostage was killed. We have to be very clear about that, but we must not lose sight of the enormous expertise, skill and bravery that was involved even in getting to that point and enabling us to have any prospect of rescuing a hostage in those circumstances.

Linda Norgrove

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

May I begin by congratulating the right hon. Lady on her appointment as shadow Foreign Secretary? I wish it were in happier circumstances that we were meeting across the Dispatch Box for the first time. We share across the House the condemnation of the taking of hostages and the concern for aid workers that she has just expressed. Many of them work in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Our travel advice is against all travel to Kunar in Afghanistan, but Linda Norgrove was working for a US non-governmental organisation, knowing that she was working in very dangerous circumstances. Nevertheless, that is known by many people who work in those places and conditions.

The right hon. Lady asked about the authorisation given by the United Kingdom and the knowledge that we had. I mentioned in my statement that we were aware that this was a group with links to al-Qaeda, to the Taliban in many different forms and to other terrorist groups operating on the Afghan-Pakistan border. I cannot expand in enormous detail on the precise intelligence, for reasons that the House will understand, but everybody concerned—in the military command, in the British embassy and in the British Government—agreed, from what we had seen, that there was a continual threat to the life of Linda Norgrove, and that we could not be sure that the opportunity to rescue her would come again, either because of weather conditions, or because we would not know her location again or because she might not survive for us to attempt a rescue. The specific authorisation to take such action was given by me on that first day, within a few hours of her being taken hostage. That authorisation was supported by the Prime Minister, who was of course kept informed throughout.

The role of the British special forces was to supply a liaison officer. Contrary to some media reports that I have seen this afternoon, it was not to take part in the planning—and certainly not in the execution—of the operation. The operation was planned by the US special forces, and it was carried out by them. We must remember that, after their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past nine years, the US and UK special forces are now extremely well practised in their operations and extremely skilful at what they do. That does not mean, however, that every mission succeeds.

The right hon. Lady rightly raised the question of the inaccurate—or likely to be inaccurate—information that was given out at the weekend. Of course we regret that; any Government would regret that inaccurate information had been given out on such a matter, or on any matter, particularly one of such importance. There is a balance to be struck between transparency and certainty, and at the weekend—and, indeed, today—we have erred on the side of transparency. We give the country the information that is available to us. Certainly, the initial viewing of the various videos that were taken during the action suggested that it was an explosion caused by the hostage takers that had cost Linda Norgrove her life. It was on a second viewing by different US personnel that it appeared that there was another possibility. We must not rush to judgment about that possibility, however.

There will be an investigation to try to establish exactly what happened. That investigation will take place as rapidly as possible, but I cannot give the right hon. Lady a precise timetable for it at the moment. Clearly, however, General Petraeus and ISAF command attach enormous importance to this matter. It is something that they have focused on at the very top level of the military command over the past two weeks. As I mentioned in my statement, General Petraeus spoke to the Prime Minister today, and the Prime Minister has been able to view some of the evidence involved. We hope that the investigation will be completed as soon as possible. Given that we will need to design a new form of investigation, the precise form that it will take is now being discussed with ISAF command.

We will certainly keep Linda’s family as fully informed as possible. We did so during the hostage taking. Our ambassador in Kabul visited the family last week, and the Prime Minister has spoken to Linda’s father today. I spoke a few hours ago to our colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is the constituency Member of Parliament involved. He could not make it here for logistical reasons this afternoon, but he obviously had questions to raise. We will keep them fully informed of what is happening, and we will look to have a report, the conclusions and every significance of which can be fully described to the House and to the country.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

All of us hope that Linda is the last overseas aid worker to be captured by the Taliban, but sadly she may not be. What protocols are in place involving our military and the US military in terms of the nationality of any captive? For example, were an American aid worker taken captive in territory in which British forces predominate, would it be our decision to go in to rescue them, or would it be the Americans’ decision? At what level are these decisions taken?

[Mr Hague]

Decisions about what can happen militarily are taken by ISAF command. The commander of ISAF is General Petraeus, the US general. The deputy commander is a UK commander, so these decisions are taken together. They require the political authority of the Government of the national concerned. In the case of a US citizen who is held hostage, the US Government would have to give their authority for such an operation. Could it involve British special forces? Absolutely. We would treat an operation involving a US citizen as if they were one of our own, just as the US in this case treated Linda Norgrove as one of their own.

Gaza Flotilla

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We shall see about that. The hon. Gentleman may be right in the end, but, in answering his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), I referred to the fact that Israel has previously held inquiries—into some of the events in Lebanon in the 1980s and into the Lebanon war in 2006—that certainly were independent and credible by international standards, and that meted out considerable and, sometimes, severe criticism to the authorities in Israel. It is possible for them to do that. Today I have made the additional case that such an inquiry and investigation should have an international presence and, therefore, be not just an Israeli inquiry. But I have also not excluded this Government from advocating the sort of inquiry that the hon. Gentleman would prefer to see, if no other action is taken in the meantime.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Behind Hamas lurks the spectre of both Syria and Iran. Were the Gaza blockade to be lifted at some point in the future, what practical assistance could Her Majesty’s Government, the European Union or NATO offer to Israel in order to stop the smuggling of weaponry from those two rogue states?

[Mr Hague]

Such assistance and such assurance is very important, and that is why we are now consulting other nations on the best vehicle for providing it: whether that is best done under United Nations’ auspices, and how much more the European Union can do. There have, of course, been previous attempts to provide it under EU auspices, but it is very important to be able to stop the flow of arms into Gaza, just as it is so vital to be able to open up Gaza to humanitarian aid and to more normal economic activity. My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.