6.19 pm
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), who made a very eloquent maiden speech and was incredibly gracious about his predecessor.
The long-standing Green position on the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU is one of three yeses—yes to a referendum, yes to major reform, and ultimately yes to staying in the EU. I will say a little more about those three in a moment, but I want to add one more big yes to that list—yes to allowing 16 and 17-year-olds a say. That is one of the most important amendments we can make to the Bill. Although I believe we should change the voting age to 16 for general and local elections too, the EU referendum is materially different and the outcome cannot simply be reversed at the next election.
When given the vote in the referendum on Scottish independence, young people engaged strongly, intelligently and responsibly with the debate. An estimated 75% of them turned out to vote. This suggests that young people are not uninterested in politics; they are quite understandably disillusioned sometimes by what happens at Westminster. Denying 16 and 17-year-olds their say on an issue as historic, far-reaching and long-term as the UK’s membership of the EU would only compound that. That is why I say we must amend the Bill to give our young people a say.
On the Greens’ wider position of saying yes to the referendum, I welcome the Bill and will support it. Greens have long called for a referendum on EU membership, not because we are anti-EU, but because we are pro-democracy. That is not to understate the need for EU institutions to be dramatically more democratic and accountable, nor to understate the need for the EU urgently to change direction away from an obsessive focus on free trade above everything else. We must use this opportunity to have a real debate about the role and purpose of the EU. That means ensuring that civil society organisations are encouraged to play their full part as well. It is one of the most potent reasons for ensuring that the referendum is not held on the same day as other polls, notably those taking place next May.
As someone who was once a Member of the European Parliament for more than 10 years, I have seen up close that there is plenty wrong with the EU institutions, but one thing that struck me was that there is a lot of common ground among European parliamentarians from all parties about the changes needed. For example, MEPs from all parties would agree that the unelected Commission has too much power and the elected politicians not enough. Democratic renewal and curtailing the power of the unelected bodies must be a top priority. We also need to tackle the pernicious corporate lobbying that takes place in Brussels. It is quite wrong that on big issues such as international trade, MEPs still have no formal decision-making powers at all.
A more democratic EU matters more than ever at a time when an infamous trade agreement is being negotiated more or less in secret. That agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is one of the egregious
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1143
examples of corporate power run out of control. But who is the driving force behind that? Yes, some of those unelected EU bureaucrats, but most forcefully the UK Government. The redesign of trade rules along very different lines—guaranteeing decent work, achieving meaningful democracy, fighting poverty and driving transition to a low-carbon economy—should be at the top of our EU reform list. There are many other areas where reform is sorely needed, not least the common agricultural and fisheries policies, but I have no doubt that we have more chance of securing positive changes from a position of influence inside the EU than from a position of impotence outside.
I believe we need a people’s Europe, not just a business Europe. We need to inspire people with a more compelling vision of the EU’s role and purpose—how it could be a world leader in poverty eradication, promoting peace and spreading human rights and environmental protection. Too many people out there are not sure what the EU is for any more. That involves us having to make it much clearer how EU membership makes our lives better. So, to paraphrase Monty Python, what has the EU ever done for us? Well, perhaps not very much except for clean beaches and rivers, cleaner air, lead-free petrol, restrictions on landfill dumping, a recycling culture, cheaper mobile charges, improved consumer protection and food labelling, a ban on growth hormones, stronger climate policy, freedom to travel, funded opportunities for young people to undertake work or work placements abroad, access to European health services, labour protection, the right not to work more than 48 hours a week, and so on and so on. That is before I even get to the extraordinary role that the EU has played through its soft power, spreading human rights throughout the wider European area and playing a key role in maintaining peace in that area as well.
As we go forward, we need to make a much more positive case for the EU. We should not leave it to UKIP and the others to fill that space and spread their mean-mindedness and backward-looking policies. We should claim that space and make a positive case for a positive EU. We want radical reform of that EU, as do many citizens of the European countries, but the idea that the best way of doing that is by walking away from the EU makes no sense at all. So, finally, irrespective of pro or anti-EU views, I look forward to working with hon. Members from all parts of the House to ensure that this referendum is as fair, inclusive and democratic as it possibly can be.
6.24 pm
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con): It is an honour to speak on a day of so many marvellous maiden speeches, and it is also an honour to speak in this seminal debate on an issue that I believe will define a generation of politicians.
I am privileged to represent the people of Boston and Skegness, succeeding Mark Simmonds. Mark’s career ranged from safeguarding the future of Skegness hospital, working with a Labour Administration in a fine example of cross-party constituency working, through to chairing the UN Security Council. Hardly a day on the campaign trail went by without me being told that I had very big shoes to fill, and I will assiduously work as a constituency MP to do that.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1144
Hardly a day went by, either, without a prospective constituent assuring me that Mark’s own predecessor, Sir Richard Body, was another model of an ideal MP. Sir Richard was a Maastricht rebel back when the Conservative party had what was described as a wafer-thin majority of slightly double what it is today. His brave stance is a reminder to all of us that we are here to represent our constituents, rather than to toe any one party line. I hope I can live up to that responsibility as well.
Boston and Skegness is a constituency that begins at Swineshead in the south—where, incidentally, King John was poisoned—and quickly arrives in Boston itself. In 1204, Boston famously paid tax of £780, whereas London paid £836. One newly elected councillor recently pledged to dedicate himself to restoring Boston’s status to those medieval levels, and I look forward to supporting him in that endeavour. Indeed, I thank him for taking the lead on it.
Elsewhere, the constituency is home to some of the best agricultural land in the country. I invite hon. Members from across the House to visit so that they might put faces to the names of those people mentioned on supermarket bags of potatoes. Afterwards, they might choose to spend a few hours joining the 500,000 or so people who annually visit Skegness, one of the few seaside resorts that is never described as faded. Indeed, Skeg Vegas is more glorious neon than faded.
I have not the time today to mention Wainfleet All Saints—home to the superb Batemans Brewery—or the Bubblecar Museum in Langrick, the Carrington vintage tractor show, the first Butlins or, indeed, the beautiful areas of my constituency that touch the Lincolnshire Wolds and, almost uniquely for my patch, merit a contour line on a map.
That is in part because I want to deal with the subject of today’s debate. Since the expansion of Europe, tens of thousands of people from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and elsewhere have come from their home countries to work in and around Boston. They have made homes and lives in Lincolnshire and we should welcome taxpayers who have, to coin a phrase, got on their bikes. These, I would argue, are not just the best of Europe, but, in many cases, the best of Britain, too. In Lincolnshire today, following in the footsteps of workers from the midlands, Ireland, Portugal and, latterly, Bulgaria, they work in all weathers to put food on our tables, whether it is Brussels sprouts at Christmas or asparagus at the moment.
It is thanks to an open-door migration policy, however, that Lincolnshire’s police, housing, schools, roads and hospitals now face unprecedented pressure from new numbers—and it is new numbers, not new nationalities, that cause those pressures. We did not plan for or predict their arrival, so we were not able to invest adequately and in a timely fashion in the services that we now urgently need. Social tensions have recently eased, but they have allowed divisive, single-issue political campaigns to flourish and to block out much of the light on what is great about my constituency.
I believe that only if our relationship with Europe changes fundamentally can we fix the root causes of our current problems and that, in the future, only if we can plan for those population changes can we adequately prepare. Of course, it is only because we have a Conservative
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1145
majority Government that we truly have the chance to have our say as a country between now and the end of 2017.
My own motivation for standing for office stems directly from more than 15 years as a journalist. I believe we live in a world that needs more actors than critics. Writing about technology, I was lucky enough to cover Britain’s world-beating, but still somewhat incomplete broadband roll-out, as well as to cover the rise of Apple, Google, Facebook and much in between. I hope that I can continue to make the case for every aspect of technology improving every aspect of government. I hope that we will see a world where we have more activists than clicktivists. Making those changes will require far more than technical expertise; it will require political courage. I hope that I may provide a small part of that courage to stiffen the sinews of colleagues when it comes both to Europe and to changes in how Government use technology. It is no less than all our constituents deserve.
6.30 pm
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), whom I congratulate on a truly excellent maiden speech. Indeed, I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today—my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Havant (Alan Mak), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and the hon. Members for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) and for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald), the part of Glasgow where I grew up.
This debate has raised issues about sovereignty and co-operation that have reverberated through the House for decades. The Bill puts before the British people one of the most important questions in a generation: should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? The answer to that question will impact on our trading relationship, our economy, jobs, exports and our place in the world.
Since we joined the European Union many years ago, British foreign policy has had two key pillars: the first is exercising a leading role in Europe; and the second is being the principal ally of the United States. As we were reminded by the comments of the President of the United States this week, leaving the EU would have an impact on not just one, but both of those pillars.
At root, this debate is about how to maximise Britain’s opportunities and influence in the world. We are offered two alternative visions. On the one hand, there is a vision that this is best done alone, unencumbered by the rules that membership of the European Union entails. On the other hand, there is a belief that the challenges we face in the world are best faced up to in concert with others, whether about global trade, responding to climate change, the regulation of cross-border flows of people, money and ideas, or many other issues. This debate is
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1146
therefore about power and influence, as well as about rules, and it is about how to maximise British power in an interconnected world.
The Prime Minister has set out a strategy for the renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union. He has not set out in full detail what he is asking for; he has talked about the issue of ever-closer union, migration and benefits, and the rights of non-eurozone countries. At the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that he felt it would be unwise for the Government to display its full negotiating hand. Even as we debate the Bill, we do not yet know exactly what the Government are asking for.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be very unwise for the Prime Minister to raise false hopes about things like the free movement of people, and that he has undermined his negotiating position by saying that, whatever the outcome, he will recommend a yes vote?
Mr McFadden: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I believe that the reason the Prime Minister has not outlined his full negotiating position is the problem, which we have seen in this debate, of how it will go down with many members of his own party.
Almost before the Prime Minister has begun the process and before the Bill has even had its Second Reading in this House, a new group has been established on the Conservative Benches, anticipating the failure of his strategy. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who spoke in the debate and who chairs the new Conservatives for Britain group, said at the weekend:
“We wish David Cameron success”
in his negotiation. At first glance, that looks like warm backing, but when one realises that the benchmark for success that has been set by the group is an individual parliamentary veto over all EU matters, one can see where this is heading.
Mr Baker: To be absolutely clear, as I said on the TV several times, the group has not laid out any red lines whatsoever. I have set out my red lines, but the group is not committed to any.
Mr McFadden: The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the group; I think it is reasonable to assume that he speaks for the group.
The Foreign Secretary, who is not exactly one of the leading Europhiles in the Government, made his view of that demand known within hours of the introductory article being printed:
“If you were talking about the House of Commons having a unilateral red card veto, that’s not achievable, that’s not negotiable because that would effectively be the end of the European Union.”[Interruption.]
Some Conservative Members may cheer that conclusion, but what is happening is that the Government are learning the meaning of the term “transitional demands”— demands that are made by those who know that they will not be met, as a pretext for saying that they have been betrayed and then campaigning for what they always wanted, which in this case is exit from the European Union. The new group calls itself Conservatives for Britain; they are, in fact, the desperate to be disappointed.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1147
This is the Prime Minister’s problem: there is nothing he can negotiate that will satisfy a significant proportion of his parliamentary party.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con): Is not the position that the right hon. Gentleman is outlining that there is no conclusion to the EU negotiations that would make him willing to leave the EU?
Mr McFadden: The hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the Conservatives’ negotiating stance. My answer to him is that holding a gun to our head and saying to our European allies, “Give us what we want or we’re going to shoot ourselves,” is not the only negotiating strategy available to the United Kingdom. Either the Prime Minister will cave in to his colleagues’ demands or, sooner or later, there must be a reckoning between the Prime Minister and those in his party who are determined to take Britain out of the European Union.
The Prime Minister will come back and claim victory. Like the emperor in the fairly tale, he will say, “Look at my wonderful new clothes.” Many of his Back Benchers will look at him with relief and loyalty, and say that he has got a good deal. However, we know that plenty of them will say that there is not a lot keeping him warm, and conclude that it is not enough.
Mr Nuttall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr McFadden: I have given way a few times and would like to make progress.
Anticipating that situation, the Prime Minister appeared to put his foot down at the weekend about collective responsibility. He told journalists:
“If you want to be part of the Government, you have to take the view that we are engaged in an exercise of renegotiation…and that will lead to a successful outcome. Everyone in Government has signed up to the programme”.
Every single newspaper and broadcaster interpreted that as meaning that all Ministers will have to vote yes if that is what the Prime Minister recommends at the end of the process. The Government even sent the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), around the studios to say:
“On big issues like this…We have a long-established principle of collective responsibility”.
But now the Prime Minister says that all that was a misinterpretation. He is not blaming himself, he is blaming the media. He thinks that every single correspondent of every single national newspaper made exactly the same mistake. Is the truth not that, once again, he has been forced to retreat under pressure from large numbers of Eurosceptic Ministers threatening to resign if collective responsibility is enforced?
This matters because, once again, the country’s position in Europe is being dictated by the politics of the Conservative party, not the national interest. Once again, when confronted by Eurosceptics in his party, the Prime Minister has retreated. He staked out his position, but even on the back of the authority of an election victory it did not last for 24 hours. He has demonstrated yet again to his party that on this issue, he can be pushed. Believe me, it will keep on pushing.
The European Union does have to change. The stresses within the eurozone are being played out daily. There must be a new momentum on how the single market
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1148
works in services, digital, energy and other areas. The European Union must learn to regulate less and respect the balance of powers between the institutions and member states. It must offer hope to the many young unemployed, and it must continue to guarantee decency for people at work. However, we believe those things can be achieved without the damaging threat to leave the European Union and all that that would entail.
Andrew Bridgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr McFadden: No, I want to make progress.
No one is arguing that the European Union is perfect, but it is our major trading partner. It is the destination for more than 40% of our exports in goods and the source of about half our inward investment. Our position as gateway to the single market helps attract inward investment from outside the European Union, and the EU has helped to keep the peace in Europe for decades. It would be hugely reckless for us to take those real achievements for granted.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of business and Europe is progressive, because bigger businesses will have the resources to relocate if they do not like the decision to pull out of Europe, but smaller ones will not and will be stuck here?
Mr McFadden: For businesses of all sizes, big and small, it makes no sense for us to put barriers and risks between them and their customers that do not exist at present.
As the debate unfolds, those who want to take us out of the EU will have to explain what it would mean for jobs, trade, exports and our collective security. On what terms will businesses want access to the single market? How much would they pay? What rules, including free movement, will they have to stick by? Is the strategy to walk away from the decision-making process and still accept many of the rules? Those who advocate Brexit in the name of sovereignty will have to explain why leaving the collective institutions where many of the rules of our economy are decided, and where we are currently represented, would enhance our power and influence. They will have to show why the major markets in the world outside the European Union would view us as a more attractive proposition if we walked away from where the rules are decided and were outside rather than in.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr McFadden: No, I will not give way any more.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) set out our response to the Bill and the ways in which we will seek to amend it as it goes through the House, including by extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, because it is their future too. In seeking to amend the Bill in that and other ways, we will also be clear that we believe that the best future for Britain is to remain a member of the European Union and not to withdraw from a group of nations held together by both economic interests and common values. We do not believe that we should be forced into a false choice between trading with Europe and trading with the rest of the world, when we all know that we should be doing both.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1149
As I have said, this is a debate about power, influence and our place in the world. Losing elections, as we have just done, does not absolve a party of opposition of its responsibility to do the right thing by the country. In fact, doing the right thing by the country is essential to recovery from defeat, and that is why we will continue to argue for a Britain that maximises its power, influence and opportunities, and for a Britain that plays a leading and important role in Europe, not one that retreats into the arms of nostalgia and nationalism. There has been much debate about whether Britain has lost its confidence as a country with global reach, and whether we are presiding over a quiet and unannounced decline in our influence. Be in no doubt, the debate that the Bill begins is very much part of that issue, and we will continue to argue for Britain to remain an open, engaged and confident member of the European Union in the years ahead.
6.45 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): Like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), I first wish to congratulate all 12 hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today—the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott), for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for Havant (Alan Mak), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). I do not have time to do justice to their contributions, but what struck me listening to all 12 speeches was that each Member spoke with warmth and respect about his or her predecessor, regardless of which party that predecessor had come from. That is an important reminder to ourselves and the world outside the Chamber that we respect each others’ views even when we profoundly disagree.
I notice that all hon. Members who spoke today for the first time rightly paid tribute to the glories of their constituencies, and also spoke with a sense of awe—that is not too strong a word—about the trust that has been placed in them by their electors. That is something that those of us who have been knocking around here for a few years need to remember and to strive to keep in mind. The House will look forward to hearing from all 12 of those hon. Members again in the future.
We have heard many other speeches today, some from relatively new and still enthusiastic Members of the House and other speeches that had more of the character of national treasures, with time-honoured arguments that had a certain familiarity for me, having sat through debates on Europe for the past five years.
In the little time that I have, I want to concentrate on some of the questions and concerns expressed about the content of the Bill, rather than on the broader debate about Europe, which we will have ample time to consider in the months ahead and during the referendum campaign. I simply say on that point that, as far as the Government are concerned, the objective that we are pursuing is that set out by the Prime Minister in his Bloomberg speech
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1150
in January 2013—to seek changes to the European Union to make Europe more competitive, more democratic, more flexible and more respectful of the diversity of its member states than it is at the moment. We believe that such changes would be in the interests of Europe as a whole, but would also have the benefit of enabling the people of the United Kingdom to feel comfortable with their place in the European Union in a way that they do not today.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Seventeen years ago I authored a pamphlet entitled, “Britain’s Place in the World: Time to Decide”. This is an opportunity to make a decision on the running sore in British politics of our relationship with the European Union, and it is essential that the Bill lays the foundation for a fair referendum.
Mr Lidington: My hon. Friend is correct and I believe that is what the Bill provides. The Bill is about delivering on the Government’s pledge to put the decision about the nature of our relationship with the European Union to the people of the United Kingdom so that they can take it on behalf of us all, whatever the differences between the political parties.
Alex Salmond: The Minister has been here throughout the debate. He will have heard, from representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and indeed from across the Chamber and from all points of view, of the unwisdom and unacceptability of holding the referendum on the same day as the national polls next year. Will he now rule that out?
Mr Lidington: What we are providing for in the Bill is a power to set a date by order. The only thing on the face of the Bill is that the referendum must be held, at the latest, by the end of 2017. We are at the start of negotiations and we do not know when they will be concluded, but that is the right approach to take. It is Parliament that will have the right, when the order comes before it, to decide whether the date proposed is the right one or not. I will also say—this is the point the right hon. Gentleman made during his speech earlier—that when the Government come to set a date, if that date were to require combination with other elections of some kind, we would obviously at that point make our views known and provide a full explanation to the House in line with what the Electoral Commission proposed in its report of December last year.
A large number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the importance of securing a fair referendum. I agree with that. Many of the concerns expressed related to matters of campaign funding. The arrangements provided for in the Bill rest upon those provided for in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Campaigners who do not wish to register with the Electoral Commission are allowed to spend up to £10,000. Campaigners who are registered with the Electoral Commission—these have to be permissible campaigners and donors under our electoral law—have other rules that apply to them. The two designated lead campaign groups will have an equal maximum limit available to them of £7 million. Each of those groups will be entitled to receive a Government grant of £600,000. Each will have the right to a free mailshot to all homes and each will have the right to a television broadcast. Other permitted participants in the campaign will be subject
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1151
to a maximum of £700,000 each. Political parties are, of course, free to campaign. The ceiling on their permitted expenditure will depend on their vote share at the general election, in line with the provisions in the 2000 Act.
Mr Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr Lidington: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have very little time and there were many points made in a very long debate to which I wish to respond.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked about the position of the European Commission and foreign Governments. They cannot be permissible donors under our law, so they would not be entitled to contribute to the lead organisations for either campaign, or make donations of any kind. We cannot pass law in this House that has extraterritorial impact on foreign Governments and international institutions. They have both certain freedoms and responsibilities under the Vienna conventions on how they operate in this country. I can say, from a recent conversation I have had already with the head of the European Commission office in London, that I think the Commission is aware that the very last thing that would help a yes campaign in a European referendum would be a flood of glossy literature from the European Commission going through people’s letterboxes. I would trust the proper diplomatic relationships with Governments and institutions, and encourage them to stick by their duty to respect the right of the British people to take their own decision responsibly. I do not think that their intervention needs to be feared.
I will write to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who raised detailed points about foreign companies. All I would say is that we are simply applying the rules as they currently exist within the overall legislation on political parties, elections and referendums.
Many right hon. and hon. Members spoke about section 125 of the 2000 Act and the Government’s proposal that it be disapplied. I emphasise the points that the Foreign Secretary made earlier. Normal EU business will not stop during a UK referendum campaign, but the phrasing of the 2000 Act is so broad that it could prevent the Government from, for example, setting out in any published form its position on the mid-term review of the multi-annual budget, on ECJ court cases that have an impact here, on negotiations on annual budgets, on trade negotiations or on EU foreign policy initiatives. That would not be a sensible position for us or any Government to get themselves into. For this referendum the public will expect the Government, as the Government, to make their recommendation clear, to explain their reasons for that recommendation and to respond to questions put to them by electors during the course of the campaign. It is for those two reasons that we propose to disapply section 125.
The question I take from the debate is this: how do we provide the credible assurances that give effect to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said—that the Government will be restrained in their use of public money and have no wish to compete with the umbrella campaign organisations whose job it will be to lead the yes and no campaigns? I acknowledge the constructive way in which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) responded to the Foreign Secretary’s speech on that point. As the Bill goes forward over future
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1152
weeks and months, within the House we will need to consider how we put in place the right framework so that what my right hon. Friend talked about will be given proper effect, while giving the Government the freedom to publish without being constrained in the way I have described.
We will come to questions about the franchise in Committee of the whole House next week. I simply say to those who have argued for EU citizens to be enfranchised that it is straightforward and in accordance with referendum precedent for the United Kingdom as a whole that we rely on a general election franchise, rather than on the franchise for local and national elections.
On the question of 16 and 17-year-olds, I accept that there are strongly held views in this House on both sides of that debate, but the proper occasion to have that debate will be in the form of legislation to amend our arrangements on the Representation of the People Acts, so that we can debate the principle and decide as a House whether to apply that rule to all future elections and referendums—not to make some one-off exception for this referendum on the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union.
There have been a large number of detailed points made by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I shall try to respond in detail to those Members whose points I have not been able to address in the course of my concluding remarks in the form of letters over the next week. We will have the opportunity very soon, in the form of Committee of the whole House, to explore some of these matters in further detail.
I believe, however, that this Bill provides a straightforward, fair and effective framework for the British people to decide our country’s future in Europe. This Bill delivers on a promise that the Government of the United Kingdom made to the people of the United Kingdom at the general election, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 59, Noes 338.
Division No. 5]
[
6.59 pm
AYES
Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina
Arkless, Richard
Bardell, Hannah
Black, Ms Mhairi
Blackford, Ian
Blackman, Kirsty
Boswell, Philip
Brock, Deidre
Brown, Alan
Cameron, Dr Lisa
Chapman, Douglas
Cherry, Joanna
Cowan, Ronnie
Crawley, Angela
Day, Martyn
Docherty, Martin John
Donaldson, Stuart Blair
Durkan, Mark
Edwards, Jonathan
Ferrier, Margaret
Gethins, Stephen
Gibson, Patricia
Grady, Patrick
Grant, Peter
Gray, Neil
Hendry, Drew
Hosie, Stewart
Kerevan, George
Kerr, Calum
Law, Chris
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mc Nally, John
McCaig, Callum
McDonald, Stewart
McDonald, Stuart C.
McGarry, Natalie
McLaughlin, Anne
Monaghan, Carol
Monaghan, Dr Paul
Mullin, Roger
Newlands, Gavin
Nicolson, John
O'Hara, Brendan
Oswald, Kirsten
Paterson, Steven
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Salmond, rh Alex
Saville Roberts, Liz
Sheppard, Tommy
Stephens, Chris
Thewliss, Alison
Thomson, Michelle
Weir, Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitford, Dr Philippa
Williams, Hywel
Wilson, Corri
Wishart, Pete
Tellers for the Ayes:
Marion Fellows
and
Owen Thompson
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Allan, Lucy
Allen, Heidi
Amess, Sir David
Andrew, Stuart
Ansell, Caroline
Argar, Edward
Atkins, Victoria
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Mr Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Berry, James
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Borwick, Victoria
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Robert
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burt, rh Alistair
Cairns, Alun
Cameron, rh Mr David
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cartlidge, James
Cash, Sir William
Caulfield, Maria
Chalk, Alex
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Churchill, Jo
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Cleverly, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, Julie
Costa, Alberto
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, rh Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Byron
Davies, Chris
Davies, David T. C.
Davies, Glyn
Davies, James
Davies, Mims
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donelan, Michelle
Dorries, Nadine
Double, Steve
Dowden, Oliver
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Drummond, Mrs Flick
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Elliott, Tom
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, rh Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Fernandes, Suella
Field, rh Mark
Foster, Kevin
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Frazer, Lucy
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Fysh, Marcus
Garnier, rh Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Ghani, Nusrat
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Chris
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, rh Robert
Hall, Luke
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, rh Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, rh Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Sir Oliver
Heappey, James
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Heaton-Jones, Peter
Herbert, rh Nick
Hermon, Lady
Hinds, Damian
Hoare, Simon
Hoey, Kate
Hollingbery, George
Hollinrake, Kevin
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Howlett, Ben
Huddleston, Nigel
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, rh Sajid
Jayawardena, Mr Ranil
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jenkyns, Andrea
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, Boris
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kennedy, Seema
Kinahan, Danny
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Knight, Julian
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, rh Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Mackinlay, Craig
Mackintosh, David
Main, Mrs Anne
Mak, Alan
Malthouse, Kit
Mann, Scott
Mathias, Dr Tania
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Johnny
Merriman, Huw
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Mrs Maria
Milling, Amanda
Mills, Nigel
Milton, rh Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Morton, Wendy
Mowat, David
Mundell, rh David
Murray, Mrs Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Patel, rh Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Philp, Chris
Pickles, rh Sir Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pow, Rebecca
Prentis, Victoria
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Pursglove, Tom
Quin, Jeremy
Quince, Will
Raab, Mr Dominic
Redwood, rh John
Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Robinson, Mary
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, rh Amber
Rutley, David
Sandbach, Antoinette
Scully, Paul
Selous, Andrew
Shannon, Jim
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, rh Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Royston
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Solloway, Amanda
Soubry, rh Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Sunak, Rishi
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Thomas, Derek
Throup, Maggie
Timpson, Edward
Tolhurst, Kelly
Tomlinson, Justin
Tomlinson, Michael
Tracey, Craig
Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie
Truss, rh Elizabeth
Tugendhat, Tom
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Warburton, David
Warman, Matt
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Wharton, James
Whately, Helen
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, rh Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Craig
Williamson, rh Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Wragg, William
Wright, rh Jeremy
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Simon Kirby
and
Sarah Newton
Question accordingly negatived.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1153
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1154
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1155
Question put forthwith (Standing Order. No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Would the hon. Gentleman care to come nearer to the Chair to make his point of order?
Mr Jenkin: I cannot speak from here?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Not during a Division.
Mr Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great delay in the Aye Lobby because there are so many Members of Parliament there. I am reminded that Margaret Thatcher once said that
“the Road to Damascus has never been more congested.”
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for bringing those pearls of wisdom to the House this evening. So far, however, an inordinate amount of time has not elapsed since the beginning of this Division. If an inordinate amount of time does elapse, I will—as I always do—send the Serjeant at Arms to investigate whether there is a delay in the Lobby.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1156
7.36 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker: I must indeed now ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
The House having divided:
Ayes 544, Noes 53.
Division No. 6]
[
7.16 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allan, Lucy
Allen, Mr Graham
Allen, Heidi
Amess, Sir David
Anderson, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Ansell, Caroline
Argar, Edward
Atkins, Victoria
Austin, Ian
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Baker, Mr Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Kevin
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beckett, rh Margaret
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berger, Luciana
Berry, Jake
Berry, James
Betts, Mr Clive
Bingham, Andrew
Blackman, Bob
Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta
Blackwood, Nicola
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Borwick, Victoria
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Bruce, Fiona
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Buckland, Robert
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Richard
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burt, rh Alistair
Butler, Dawn
Byrne, rh Liam
Cadbury, Ruth
Cairns, Alun
Cameron, rh Mr David
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cartlidge, James
Cash, Sir William
Caulfield, Maria
Chalk, Alex
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Churchill, Jo
Clark, rh Greg
Cleverly, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, Julie
Cooper, Rosie
Costa, Alberto
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Cox, Jo
Coyle, Neil
Crabb, rh Stephen
Crausby, Mr David
Creasy, Stella
Crouch, Tracey
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cummins, Judith
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
David, Wayne
Davies, Byron
Davies, Chris
Davies, David T. C.
Davies, Geraint
Davies, Glyn
Davies, James
Davies, Mims
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
De Piero, Gloria
Debbonaire, Thangam
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donelan, Michelle
Dorries, Nadine
Double, Steve
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Dowd, Peter
Dowden, Oliver
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Dromey, Jack
Drummond, Mrs Flick
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Elliott, Tom
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Esterson, Bill
Eustice, George
Evans, Chris
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, rh Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Fernandes, Suella
Field, rh Frank
Field, rh Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Fletcher, Colleen
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Kevin
Fovargue, Yvonne
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Foxcroft, Vicky
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Frazer, Lucy
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Fysh, Marcus
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Garnier, rh Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Ghani, Nusrat
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glass, Pat
Glen, John
Glindon, Mary
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodman, Helen
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Chris
Green, rh Damian
Green, Kate
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Greenwood, Margaret
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gwynne, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Haigh, Louise
Halfon, rh Robert
Hall, Luke
Hamilton, Fabian
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, rh Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, rh Mr Mark
Harpham, Harry
Harris, Carolyn
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, Helen
Hayes, rh Mr John
Hayman, Sue
Heald, Sir Oliver
Healey, rh John
Heappey, James
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Heaton-Jones, Peter
Hendrick, Mr Mark
Herbert, rh Nick
Hermon, Lady
Hillier, Meg
Hinds, Damian
Hoare, Simon
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hollingbery, George
Hollinrake, Kevin
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Howlett, Ben
Huddleston, Nigel
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunt, Tristram
Huq, Dr Rupa
Hurd, Mr Nick
Hussain, Imran
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jarvis, Dan
Javid, rh Sajid
Jayawardena, Mr Ranil
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jenkyns, Andrea
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Boris
Johnson, Diana
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Gerald
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Mr Marcus
Jones, Susan Elan
Kane, Mike
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kennedy, Seema
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kinahan, Danny
Kinnock, Stephen
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Knight, Julian
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Kyle, Peter
Lamb, rh Norman
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Lavery, Ian
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Clive
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lewis, rh Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Long Bailey, Rebecca
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian C.
Lumley, Karen
Lynch, Holly
Mackinlay, Craig
Mackintosh, David
Mactaggart, rh Fiona
Madders, Justin
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Main, Mrs Anne
Mak, Alan
Malhotra, Seema
Malthouse, Kit
Mann, John
Mann, Scott
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maskell, Rachael
Matheson, Chris
Mathias, Dr Tania
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, John
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGinn, Conor
McInnes, Liz
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Johnny
Merriman, Huw
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Mrs Maria
Milling, Amanda
Mills, Nigel
Milton, rh Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, Grahame M.
Morris, James
Morton, Wendy
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Murray, Ian
Murray, Mrs Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Onn, Melanie
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osamor, Kate
Osborne, rh Mr George
Owen, Albert
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Patel, rh Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Pearce, Teresa
Penning, rh Mike
Pennycook, Matthew
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Jess
Phillips, Stephen
Phillipson, Bridget
Philp, Chris
Pickles, rh Sir Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Pow, Rebecca
Powell, Lucy
Prentis, Victoria
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Pursglove, Tom
Quin, Jeremy
Quince, Will
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raab, Mr Dominic
Rayner, Angela
Redwood, rh John
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Rees, Christina
Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Rimmer, Marie
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Robinson, Mary
Rosindell, Andrew
Rotheram, Steve
Rudd, rh Amber
Rutley, David
Ryan, rh Joan
Sandbach, Antoinette
Scully, Paul
Selous, Andrew
Shah, Naz
Shannon, Jim
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shelbrooke, Alec
Sherriff, Paula
Shuker, Mr Gavin
Siddiq, Tulip
Simpson, rh Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Andy
Smeeth, Ruth
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Cat
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Jeff
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Royston
Smyth, Karin
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Solloway, Amanda
Soubry, rh Anna
Spellar, rh Mr John
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mark
Starmer, Keir
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevens, Jo
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Streeting, Wes
Stride, Mel
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stuart, Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Sunak, Rishi
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Derek
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thomas-Symonds, Nick
Throup, Maggie
Timms, rh Stephen
Timpson, Edward
Tolhurst, Kelly
Tomlinson, Justin
Tomlinson, Michael
Tracey, Craig
Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie
Trickett, Jon
Truss, rh Elizabeth
Tugendhat, Tom
Turley, Anna
Turner, Mr Andrew
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Warburton, David
Warman, Matt
Watkinson, Dame Angela
West, Catherine
Wharton, James
Whately, Helen
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, rh Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Craig
Williams, Mr Mark
Williamson, rh Gavin
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Wragg, William
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, rh Jeremy
Zahawi, Nadhim
Zeichner, Daniel
Tellers for the Ayes:
Simon Kirby
and
Sarah Newton
NOES
Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina
Arkless, Richard
Bardell, Hannah
Black, Ms Mhairi
Blackford, Ian
Blackman, Kirsty
Boswell, Philip
Brock, Deidre
Brown, Alan
Cameron, Dr Lisa
Chapman, Douglas
Cherry, Joanna
Cowan, Ronnie
Crawley, Angela
Day, Martyn
Docherty, Martin John
Donaldson, Stuart Blair
Ferrier, Margaret
Gethins, Stephen
Gibson, Patricia
Grady, Patrick
Grant, Peter
Gray, Neil
Hendry, Drew
Hosie, Stewart
Kerevan, George
Kerr, Calum
Law, Chris
Mc Nally, John
McCaig, Callum
McDonald, Stewart
McDonald, Stuart C.
McGarry, Natalie
McLaughlin, Anne
Monaghan, Carol
Monaghan, Dr Paul
Mullin, Roger
Newlands, Gavin
Nicolson, John
O'Hara, Brendan
Oswald, Kirsten
Paterson, Steven
Robertson, Angus
Salmond, rh Alex
Sheppard, Tommy
Stephens, Chris
Thewliss, Alison
Thomson, Michelle
Weir, Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitford, Dr Philippa
Wilson, Corri
Wishart, Pete
Tellers for the Noes:
Marion Fellows
and
Owen Thompson
Question accordingly agreed to.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1157
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1158
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1159
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1160
European Union Referendum Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union Referendum Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken in two days.
(3) The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
(4) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1161
Consideration and Third Reading
(5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Programming committee
(7) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(8) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Margot James.)
Question agreed to.
European Referendum Bill (money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Union Referendum Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under the Act by a Minister of the Crown;
(b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided;
(2) and the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of charges payable to the Chief Counting Officer, Regional Counting Officers and counting officers in connection with the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union; and
(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.-—(Margot James.)
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1162
Black Country University Technical College
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Margot James.)
7.40 pm
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss a matter of concern to my constituency and to the black country. In May 2011 I received a letter from the then Education Minister telling me that the Black Country university technical college was to be opened in my constituency in September. A funding agreement had been entered into for this to happen.
A year later the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, the body that promotes such colleges and plays an active role in these matters, wrote to me and said that more such colleges were being opened across the country. The age group involved was 14 to 19-year-olds. As was emphasised by Ministers and the trust, the purpose of such colleges, as the name implies, is to provide intensive and advanced technical schooling, combined with a normal secondary education. The hours are somewhat longer—from 8.30 am to 5.30 pm—and a further aim is to improve behaviour and reduce truancy. We are all in favour of such aims and objectives, and I was told that a good deal of that had already been achieved.
The cost of equipping each UTC was at that time around £10 million. The Minister may want to give us the latest figure. It should be emphasised that for UTCs and other forms of state education, such as secondary schools and academies, the money inevitably comes from the public purse, and rightly so. The UTCs were funded 100% by the Exchequer, as all state education is. There is no criticism of that.
The UTC in Walsall opened just four years ago in 2011, as I said. It was one of the first five in England. Of those first five, the one in my constituency is to close. Another, in Hackney, is to close at the same time. There is, I understand, a question mark over the future of yet another one. The Baker Dearing Educational Trust had brought out a glossy report, which I am sure the Minister has seen, to celebrate such colleges. Needless to say, everything in the pamphlet was positive. Nothing could be better, apparently, and there were plenty of quotes from well-known figures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): The hon. Gentleman speaks about the technical college in Walsall. In my constituency the technical college, or the further education college as it is now, prepares and trains people for future employment. Has he been able to ascertain the impact that the closure of his college will have on the employment prospects of the young people in the area? That would concern me and I am sure it concerns him as well.
Mr Winnick: That is undoubtedly a useful intervention. I shall mention the issue to some extent and am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened.
I want to make it clear from the start that I accept there is much to be said for an extensive and advanced technical education, not least in the black country. Such skills are necessary in the four boroughs, certainly in my own borough of Walsall. The new and latest skills are much in demand. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1163
hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is also in attendance, totally agree with that. The skills will, to a large extent, replace the older industries, which tend to be described as metal-bashing industries. More potential engineers—both male and female—and others with specialist skills would certainly be welcomed by employers. There is no dispute about that. It is not part of my case that such extensive advanced technical education should not be given. How it is given, and how it should fit into secondary education, is another matter altogether.
It was after the last Parliament ended at the end of March that an announcement was made that the Walsall college on Vernon Way in Bloxwich in my constituency was to close. I must confess—I shall come to this in a moment—that I am not altogether happy about the way in which it was announced. In fact, I learned about it informally. Rumours were running around that the college was to close and the local authority had been told, but the official announcement was made a little later and during the election campaign, not afterwards. Currently there are 158 students, more than 100 of whom—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his intervention—will need to complete their secondary schooling elsewhere come the autumn.
There has been much concern over the college closing. The announcement has gone down rather badly, to say the least, in the locality. The president of the Black Country chamber of commerce said it was a sad day for such education and a hard day for students, parents and employers.
The Ofsted report on the Walsall college was highly critical. The inspection was carried out in March. A few moments ago I mentioned the glossy pamphlet that was sent to us. It said that everything was positive and successful, but the Ofsted report said that student achievement was inadequate, teaching was weak, attendance was well below average, and discipline simply was not good enough. Moreover, Ofsted was critical of the governors and sponsors. It criticised the fact that the governing body had failed to understand how students were doing and to tackle what Ofsted describes as the underperformance of staff. It also says, in all fairness, that the more recent principal has done good work in trying to improve standards. That should be said on the record.
The decision to close, and the manner in which it was done, does not provide much confidence in the way in which the UTC was governed. It should not be overlooked that the Ofsted report, however critical—indeed, it was highly critical, as I have already said—made no recommendation that the college close. It was stated that it should be put in special measures, which is the normal approach. Whenever Ofsted makes a highly critical report, it does not usually state that the institution should be closed, and it did not do so in this case.
When was the Department for Education notified of the closure? Was it at the same time as the official announcement was made locally? Given the acute weaknesses in the Ofsted report, has the Department been kept informed over the past two or three years, or did this come as a surprise? It would be interesting to hear what the link is between UTCs and the Department. The Department funds them with taxpayers’ money, and rightly so, but are reports made to the Department?
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1164
Did the Department not realise what the situation was at the Walsall UTC until the Ofsted report? Some answers would be useful.
Interestingly, when a Tory Back Bencher intervened during the Prime Minister’s first speech in this Parliament to ask about UTCs and say how useful they are, the Prime Minister’s response could not have been more enthusiastic. I would say only this. Bearing in mind not only the college about which I am speaking, but the other closure in August of one of the first five colleges as well as the one with the question mark over it, is there not a case for the Department to pause and look at what has happened over the past four or five years? I simply say that university technical colleges are necessary and provide a useful sort of education—I have mentioned all that, and I do not disagree—but there should be time to pause and reflect.
I quoted the president of the Black Country chamber of commerce saying how the closure was a blow to the locality. I want to emphasise that it is a heavy blow. There was much enthusiasm about the UTC. One did not know much about UTCs, but the site was that of a former secondary school and one felt that it would be a successful venture. It has not proved to be, which is very unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister has the latest information about the alternative places to which students who have not finished their secondary education will be going.
7.52 pm
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on securing this debate on a very important issue for his constituents, as well as for those of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and of other hon. Members from the surrounding area. I thank him for organising this debate because it is very important at the start of a Parliament to look at the university technical college programme and to ask whether it is as successful as possible before we launch into the process of opening more institutions like this one, which we as a Government are firmly committed to do. I will try to answer his questions, but if at any point he wants to intervene to press me on any particular question, I will be happy to take such an intervention.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the importance of providing high-quality technical education in all parts of the country, and particularly the need to create new institutions to focus on technical education in a different way, to a different level and with a different focus from what has perhaps been available in existing institutions, whether schools or further education colleges. That is why it is very welcome to hear him and other Labour Members say that they, like us, support the principle of university technical colleges. We feel that these new institutions can make a real contribution.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, when we are trying to improve and innovate, we have to take some risks. We have to be willing to set up new kinds of institution that have not been tested within the system and try new ways of doing things. It will always be right for the Government to back certain risks, as long as they are calculated, well monitored and well judged. If, unfortunately, the risk does not pay off, there must be proper investigation so that we understand what went wrong, what failed and what lessons should be learned for future projects.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1165
I will now go into the particulars of the university technical college that closed, so sadly, in the hon. Gentleman’s area. It is a matter of huge regret that the college has been forced to close so soon after it opened, after so much taxpayers’ money was invested in creating it and, more than just money, after so many hopes were raised in his area about the potential for the college to contribute to the chances of its young people.
The Government would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s judgment that the communications about the possible closure were not handled as we would have liked. Not least—although I am sure this is not the only source of his complaint—we feel that it would have been proper and advisable, as it was an election period, for the governors to contact all the parliamentary candidates for the constituency in which the college is located and, perhaps, parliamentary candidates beyond the constituency in advance of the public communications, so that he and others did not have to read about it in the news like everyone else.
Mr Winnick: My not being notified is not my No. 1 complaint by any means. I wonder whether the Minister will answer a question that I did ask. Was the Department for Education notified of what was happening over the past two or three years? Did the Ofsted report come as a complete surprise or did the Department, although he may not have been involved at the time, know what was occurring? Did the Department communicate with the college and say, “This doesn’t seem very good. Taxpayers money is involved. What steps are being taken to improve the situation?”
Nick Boles: I was going to come on to what we knew in this specific case and to set out the monitoring process more broadly. I will start with the closure and work backwards, if I may.
The first that the Department heard about the possible closure being proposed by the board of governors was on 17 March, which was after the second Ofsted inspection that produced such a damning report. The trust that was running the college approached the Department to discuss possible closure. The Department, through the regional schools commissioner, who has responsibility for all the schools in the region, including the UTCs, looked at alternatives for the UTC. Obviously, it would have been hugely preferable, if it had been possible, to transfer the UTC into another academy group or into a relationship with other more successful institutions, so that it could have remained open. It was quite proper that that process happened swiftly. Obviously, it was getting very close to the start of purdah and the election campaign. Nevertheless, that work was done.
On 27 March, the governors formally requested the termination of the funding agreement. Ministers agreed to the request the same day, immediately before the pre-election purdah period. There was therefore a period of just less than two weeks in which the regional schools commissioner made contact with other institutions to see whether there was an alternative to closure. Ultimately, the conclusion was drawn that there was no alternative.
The hon. Gentleman asked, very properly, about our general oversight and communication channels. Because the university technical college programme is a small
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1166
and relatively new programme, it receives quite a lot more regular attention in the Department than ordinary schools, of which there are many thousands around the country. There are regular monitoring meetings at the officials level and Ministers also get involved in regular monitoring meetings, which look both at the proposals for new university technical colleges and at any university technical college that seems to be having problems, whether those are financial problems or problems relating to Ofsted inspections, the quality of the education or the recruitment of students.
It would therefore not have been a surprise to the Department or officials that the college was in trouble, but it was perhaps not until the second Ofsted report that the trouble crystallised as a threat to its very survival. Relatively swiftly after that, the governing body reached the conclusion that it should close the college. I believe that the communication of that could have been better handled, and I fear that one reason why it was not handled as well as it could have been was the fact that the purdah period had started and Ministers were off on election campaigns. I regret that, but I do not think the ultimate decision to close the college could have been avoided.
I would like to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman properly asked about the position of the 158 students who were on the roll at the time of closure. I understand that 93% of them, which is 152, have offers of places at other educational institutions or of alternative arrangements, such as apprenticeships. Pupils continuing with their education have received offers from a range of providers, including local academies and colleges. Those wishing to continue with engineering or a technical education have been offered places at Walsall college and four other nearby university technical colleges—Aston; the JCB Academy; and West Midlands Construction UTC and Health Futures UTC, both of which are due to open this year. Siemens has provided financial support with transport costs for students to be able to transfer to those UTCs. Although I promise to keep a fairly close eye on what happens to those young people, to ensure that their education is not interrupted more than is necessary and that they are given great opportunities for the future, I am reasonably content so far that it looks possible that everybody will find a good place in a good college.
Finally, I will reflect briefly, as the hon. Gentleman invited me to, on what the Government can do to learn lessons from this unfortunate experience and the one in Hackney. We want to ensure that the university technical college programme, to which the Government are firmly committed and which has great support from the main Opposition party, flourishes and creates institutions that are educationally and financially successful, so that they can recruit sufficient numbers of young people and give them a great education. I can promise him that, as the Minister who has just been asked to take over responsibility for the programme, I am looking at all the questions about how a UTC works; who it recruits and when it recruits them; what specialisms are involved; what its partnership and sponsorship arrangements are; and how it involves universities and employers, and which ones are getting involved. I am determined to ensure that the programme ends up producing fantastic institutions that offer great opportunities for young people to receive a technical education.
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1167
Mr Winnick: As I said, my view is that there is a case for pausing, but clearly that will not happen. Does the Minister feel that it would be useful if he visited the college before the closure takes place and spoke to the staff and some of the students? He could also arrange a meeting with the governors, which might be on the same occasion. It would be useful if he went himself to see what is happening and to discuss the situation. Perhaps lessons could be learned that otherwise would not be.
Nick Boles: On the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a pause, there is a natural pause in a sense, because there are certain times at which we solicit bids for new university technical colleges. We are currently considering what the appropriate time will be to open up a bidding round, and I can assure him that there will be a number of months before that in which we can consider all the lessons from this and other experiences.
I would be very happy to meet the outgoing principal or members of the governing body if the hon. Gentleman would like to arrange such a meeting. From the Dispatch Box, I cannot absolutely promise to visit, because I would
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1168
need to check with the Whips, who seem to want to keep Ministers in Westminster at the moment. I also need to check on the appropriateness of doing so. I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that I will get a report from the regional schools commissioner about what lessons he thinks we should be learning, but I would be happy to meet anyone else the hon. Gentleman would like me to meet so that we learn the lessons of this experience.
We must together guarantee that the 158 young people who had made a commitment to the institution receive a superb education, as they were properly hoping to receive. We must also guarantee that the university technical college movement, which has been so ably spearheaded by—among many others—Lord Baker and Lord Adonis, is a success and that the institutions created through that programme can thrive, prosper and create great opportunities for young people.