08/12/2015 House of Commons

discuss it with him later. Order. Will the member wishing to take his

seat please come to the table? Raise the Bible in your right hand.

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear allegiance to

Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, so help me God.

Presentation of Bill. During today this. -- go

second reading? Friday 29th of January 2016. Order. We come to the

ten minute rule motion. I backed a move that life beginning for me to

bring in a Bill to make provision about the award of asylum seeker

status in the United Kingdom to certain unaccompanied children from

Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea, displaced by conflict and

present in the EU and for connected purposes. Just over three months

ago, the tragic death of a little boy and his brother exposed the

world to a refugee crisis which governments including our own have

been doing their best to avoid. That three-year-old boy and his brother

were Syrian refugees travelling with their parents to seek safety and

sanctuary in Europe. UNHCR figures show 900,000 people have made

similar journeys to Europe this year and 23% of those people are

children. Over 200,000 children fled their homes in search of a new life

in this year alone. Many travelled with their families. Tens of

thousands travel alone. Without parents or relatives, making their

way in the toughest of circumstances. This honourable group

is who the bill addresses. Over the past few years, charities have

worked across Europe, particularly in Italy and Greece, doing what they

can to help unaccompanied children sit safety in Europe. Children

become separated for a number of reasons. Someone's in the countries

of origin or those closest become victims of violence, leaving them

little choice to fully alone. Others was family en route through illness

or drowning. In desperation, these children put themselves in the hands

of people smugglers and criminal gangs to facilitate journeys. Save

the Children have spoken to many children about violence they

experienced. These journeys can last months or years. Once they arrived

in Europe they are still not safe. There are serious concerns, echoed

by Europol's chief of staff, that vulnerable underage refugees are

preyed upon by criminal gangs intent on forcing them into prostitution

and slave labour. It was also warned that there is crossover between

those smuggling refugees across borders and the gangs trafficking

people for exploitation in the sex trade or forced labour. When you

look at data from the last year, the grim truth becomes apparent.

According to the Italian Ministry, of the children registered their in

2014, almost 4000 disappeared after arriving. 4000 without official

protection of any kind, no access to education, welfare, health care or a

safe home. We do not have come terrible numbers for 2015 but given

the rise in refugees this year, we can expect a much higher number.

This is not a far off Rob and to be dealt with by distant governments.

It is here in Europe. It is our responsibility is to protect all

refugees and none more so than often -- orphaned children. It is shameful

the Government has ignored these children and it is time to do the

right thing. 4000 children is a small part of the overall number,

smaller for local authorities to handle, but it will make all the

difference to the lives of everyone of these desperate youngsters. Just

five children per parliamentary constituency and less than one third

than the number of children taken in during the kind of transport. --

Kinder transport. It is no doubt these children are also deserving of

our help. This is not the first time I have called for this in

Parliament. I can predict perhaps what the response from the

Government may be. They would tell us they would not want to risk

separating children from families and that there are some concerns the

proposed programme may do that. That is not true. All efforts should be

made to ensure children remain with or are reunited with their families

but for the children in this programme, reunification with

parents or primary caregivers is simply not possible. These children

have been registered by the UN refugee agency as unaccompanied and

have no nonfamily. From talking to civil society groups, I know there

are enough families willing to foster unaccompanied children.

10,000 prospective adoptive families have been registered with one group.

If the Government gives requisite training, the UK will be equipped to

support these children. They deserve our support and help and any

suggestion that they don't is nothing to do with their safety but

the inability of our governments to act upon the values they claim to

uphold, including helping seekers of factory -- sanctuary. It is time for

the UK to be a leader. Instead of waiting for something high profile

to happen and doing the minimum. Acknowledge the desperate need of

these children and do something about it. The UK could make a

significant difference by working with UN agencies and civil society

to put in place a relocation scheme for unaccompanied children in Europe

under specific criteria and safeguards, making relocation one of

the best solutions. Other EU countries would follow and many

thousands of children would reach safety and security they deserve.

Given the opportunity, British people have shown throughout history

our generosity of spirit, especially in response to refugees. There is no

question this generosity and spirit still exists in our country today.

It just needs the Government to do the right thing and facilitate it

for the 21st-century. The question is that the honourable member have

leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye".

To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. Who will prepare the bill? Nick

Clegg, Yvette Cooper, Stephen Geffen 's, Margaret Ritchie, Caroline

Lucas, Liz Savill Jones and myself will.

Asylum, unaccompanied children displaced by conflict to build.

Second reading what they? 11th of March. Thank you. Programme motion

to be moved formally. The -- As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye".

To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. Order. European Union referendum

Bill, consideration of Lords amendments. I must draw attention to

the fact that Lords amendment one engages financial privilege. The

first Amendment to be taken is Lords amendment number one to move to

disagree with the Lords in their amendment number one. I call the

Minister. Mr John Penrose. I beg to move that this house

disagrees with the amendment. I shall start by paying tribute to the

Lords for their diligent and considered approach to this Bill.

For the most part, the scrutiny has been fruitful. However, on just one

issue the Lords had taken a decision which fundamentally differs from the

view of the Government and indeed this house. Lowering the voting age

to 16, this topic has been debated upon twice, and this house has

rejected a lower voting age and yesterday with a healthy majority.

This houses had this debate many times. I shall endeavour to be

brief. In short, the Government does not support lowering the voting

age, and in any case this is not the appropriate way to do so. The voting

age is 18 as it is in most currencies in Europe and across the

world. I give way. The Scottish Parliament has lowered

the voting age, so how do I justify to one of my constituencies that has

turned 16 how is she can vote in many elections but not this

referendum? The franchise for a Scottish

parliamentary elections is rightly devolved. This is a decision which

is to be taken in this place and across the UK as a whole, it is a

reserved topic. Therefore, while it isn't only open for the Holyrood

parliament to take decisions for its franchise, and we honour their

ability to do so, it is an inevitable result of devilish and

that we will get different views in different parts of the country --

result of devilish and -- devolution. Very briefly, then I

shall try and make some progress. Notwithstanding the answer he has

just given, will he not reflect the participation of 16-year-olds in the

Scottish Referendum shows their responsibility. Should they not

support the coming EU referendum as well?

That is a justifiable point, and it is noticeable that the Scottish

Referendum resulted in an quelling of democratic engagement, not just

amongst 16 and 17-year-olds -- uprising of democratic engagement. I

do not think that is the only test we should apply, but it does away on

the mind. -- way on the mind. But I do not think it is enough. Let me

make some progress and perhaps I can expend that point at that little

more. We have no clear point at which a person becomes an adult, but

it is that a team where society usually draws the line. I will try

and make some progress and come back to the gentleman in a moment. At a

team that a person cannot do. They must wait to 21 to adopt a child or

drive a bus. In general this is not perfect. More things require

parental consent for a things under 18. Joining the Army or having a

drink in the pub need parental approval for those under 18. And

others that require a considered view, such as serving on a jury or

buying a house all happen at 18. The last Labour Government raise the age

for using a sunbed from 16 to 18. It cannot be right to argue that

someone aged 16 it cannot be trusted to decide on the risks of having a

tan but can decide on who runs the country. I give way.

There is no defined age at which it would be reasonable to vote. But my

honourable friend made the point that they were given the opportunity

to vote and will have the opportunity in the future. How does

the Minister explain to them that there it is legitimate for them to

vote on Scottish garments, local government and referendum, but not

this referendum? -- Scottish Government.

My reaction is that speaking to that hypothetical voter in Scotland, is

that the Holyrood parliament is entitled to take its decisions on

the bold matters. This is a doubled matter, the Holyrood franchise. But

also the referendum franchise is something for the entire country to

decide. I will have to make some progress but I have to give way.

But does he not accept that this European union referendum is a once

in a generation opportunity? For young people, this will directly

impact on their rights as European union citizens to live, work and

study in other EU member states? He is absolutely right, this will

affect all of us. I am afraid the argument here is advancing would

apply as equally well to 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, and 65

olds. He is correct, that is not necessarily a compelling argument. I

give way once again. Can I caution the Minister against

invoking the instinct of the previous Government on sunbeds to

deny 16-year-olds the vote. The heart of what it means to be

represented in this place is that at 16 you pay your taxes.

That is an idea which has a long, distinguished history. I believe

people throwing tea in the harbour in Boston would support that.

However it is an argument which has grown weaker overtime for a number

of reasons. Firstly, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds which now pay

income tax, one at zero, is a great deal fewer than it used to be.

Partly because this Government and the last one raised the threshold

for income tax and the school leaving and training age. But also

because and now many indirect taxes, and therefore any six old who buys

whatever it may be pays the 18. That rather weakens the arguments, one I

rather clung to myself. -- pays the VAT.

Even if we were convinced that lowering the voting age was the

right thing to do, this Bill would not be the place to do it. For two

reasons, firstly, changing the voting age is not something which

should be applied to a single vote, or, perhaps especially, if it is as

important as this referendum. It is something that should be considered

for all elections collectively. Not piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis.

Equally, given the understandable sensitivities surrounding the EU

referendum, making such a fundamental change to the franchise

for this vote alone, but not for others, which inevitably and perhaps

unjustifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in

favour of either of the Remain or League campaigns. That is why we

have chosen to remain with the tried and tested election franchise. If it

is good enough reducing the Government of this country, then it

is surely good enough for the referendum too. And we should not

jiggle around with it for a 1 off tactical advantage either way. Once

more. I am grateful. On that point, Nolan

has made any such complaints about the result of the Scottish

Referendum. I do not understand why he feels if it was done in this case

that argument would be made here? I'm sure there are people in his own

hearty that are concerned and maybe on one side of this issue. -- own

party. Equally it is the same for my party. There are voices that need to

be understood. This needs to be seen as a studiously fair election, one

which will therefore settle the issue for a very long time to come.

It is also worth pointing out that young people themselves, the very

people we are debating in franchising here today, I'm not sure

it would be a good idea. Well there I received -- while there are a

reasonable majority of 16-year-olds, many do not support it overall. What

that says about 18-year-olds, opinions of their younger selves two

years earlier I will leave you to conclude. The results of a solid

majority against the change amongst all other adults over 18 as well. I

give way once more. I thank the most forgiving way when

he said he couldn't. But does the Minister agree that in the run-up to

the Scottish Referendum, those who were opposed to extending the

franchise, after the referendum, unanimously agree very nearly that

it was the correct thing to do? I hope I can come on to that point

in the next part of my remarks. He is correct, there is a solid

majority, across the country, against this change, across all

adults as well as an 18-year-old and her lesser extent 17-year-olds. What

it shows that this is not some greater progress of cores were

unimpressed minority is awaiting to be liberated by public support. --

oppressed minority. This will not seem like a national issue, but a

Westminster bubble issue. Not a widespread issue with widespread

Democratic support. There may be suspicion that some are supporting

this motion because they may gain some tawdry, tactical, party

political advantage from one side or the other. None of these reasons

will strengthen or help us as we consider an issue which will affect

our participation in the EU. Finally, I wish to touch on the

financial implications. You have certified that this touches on

financial privilege because extending the franchise will cost

extra. Madam Speaker, the cost is far from the only reason why the

Government disagrees with this amendment, but for procedural

reasons the house is not able to... To be clear, the Government

disagrees with the moment of principled as well as financial

grounds. I give way once more.

I'm grateful to the Minister. This is probably the most novel aspect of

our debate today. It is for the Speaker to certify whether financial

privilege is invoked or not, but it is in fact for the Government to

decide whether they are to take advantage of that. The Government

did not take advantage of that in relation to the 2014 Wales Bill for

exactly the same issue. What is different now?

I think I have addressed that point, which is that we cannot waive

privilege and disagree with the amendment for other reasons.

Therefore, we need to engage financial privilege, but I am also

taking the advantage of this speech, I hope, to make sure those other

issues are given an airing as well. I add, there is nothing new in this,

there is a long established precedent in this house. I shall

leave it to the procedural experts to lecturers on the historical

antecedents of financial privilege. Matters weaker, I have not sought to

rebut every arguments, it has been debated many times in this chamber

already. I hope I have tried to give everyone a taste of most of the

issues and to state the Government's permit system at least. -- position

at least. I ask you to review that position once more.

I rise to oppose the Government proposal to reject amendment one

from the other place and to support the amendment passed by their

Lordships which extends the franchise to the EU referendum to 16

and 17-year-olds. There is a more general debate about franchise

extension but today I would like to concentrate on the case for

extending the franchise to younger voters for this particular

referendum. Constitutional referenda are not like general elections which

come about every five years, or indeed local elections which are

every year. It is 40 years since this issue was voted on in this

country. Major constitutional referenda are a once in a generation

choice, perhaps a once in a lifetime choice, about the country's future

direction. Our contention is very simple, that the young people of

this country deserve a say in the decision which will chart the future

of the country. There are two points to be made. The argument for the

young people to have a vote and the practicalities of that decision. Why

did his party not choose to make the amendment before the Lordships chose

to impose it? Her memory fills her on this occasion. We moved the

amendment at committee and report stage. Every British citizen by

virtue of their passport that they hold has the right, as my honourable

friend said, to live, work and study anywhere in the EU. It is a right

that has opened up opportunities for millions and it is used by many

British people who live and work elsewhere in the EU. Those are

driving the argument that the UK should leave the EU have at the

heart of their proposal the idea that the agreement of people it

should be stopped and withdrawn. Whatever they are for, and it is

often not easy to figure out, they're certainly against that. But

if we withdraw then reciprocal action will be taken against British

citizens. The rights of our young people are on the ballot paper, the

opportunities are on the ballot paper, and of the future of our

young people is on the ballot paper. In my constituency of Swansea West,

people of that age 15, 16 and 17 tell me they will be voting in the

next general election and it is important to them to vote in this

referendum. People are saying they will vote against their MP if they

do not vote for them to have a vote. I am positive about this. It is not

just about legal rights. This referendum will affect future trade

patterns, investment, university funding, farmers, regional

spending, many areas of national life. It will say is huge amount

about how we view ourselves and held the rest of the world views as. It

is about the future of the UK, and we believe that people aged 16 and

17 at the time of voting should have their say. There is the question of

practicalities. We know from the experience of the Scottish

referendum last year that 16 and 17-year-olds can successfully take

part in a national vote. Young people engaged in discussion, debate

and exercised their democratic choice in the same way as anyone

else. Arguments about the capacity to understand or engage were proven

not to be the case. The post-referendum report by the

electoral commission said 109,593 16 and 17-year-olds were included and

75% of those we spoke to claim to have voted. 97% of those who

reported voting said they would vote again in future. We know young

people can take part and will. The issue is whether the Government

gives them this chance. This should not be a partisan choice. There is

nothing intrinsically conservative or Labour or Nationalist about

extending the franchise. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives has

described herself as a paid-up member of the votes at 16 club. Some

members opposite supported this proposal when we debated it at

committee and report stage and yet it is ministers who are standing in

the way. The Government said extending the franchise in this way

will cost ?6 million and that has been enough to define the proposal

as engaging the financial privileges of this House. But ministers could

ask this House to waive the privileges and accept our amendment.

It has happened many times in the past when the Government has

supported amendments, and it is what could happen here and we would

support it. In the end, this is not an issue of the puzzle being an

affordable but one of the Government not wanting to do it. According to

the Autumn Statement, total public spending in the next financial year

is estimated to be 773 billion pounds. The Government wants to deny

people a vote for the sake of six of them. It is a once in a generation

choice. Let us be clear what this is about. Let us not make a

constitutional crisis over a small amount of money or use an argument

about what is a straightforward policy choice in the Government's

wider campaign to neuter the House of Lords. Do we believe 16 and

17-year-olds should have the vote in this referendum or not? Do we

believe they have a right to have a say in the future direction of the

country? We do and that is why we support the amendment added by their

Lordships and we will support it. I rise to support the Government in

this matter. I don't think it is reasonable that their Lordships

decides to open the cheque-book of this House for whatever the amount

and I am surprised the member seemed to think it was a little amount of

money of no consequence. He misses the point. It is important that the

will of this House is seen to be done and that is not to extend the

franchise and I am listening with interest to the regular

contributions from Scottish members that if it is good enough for

Scotland why is it not in this situation? I think I would remind

the Scottish members they cannot have it of ways. What they choose to

do in Scotland and they cannot then use that as a wonderful precedent to

insist we operate in the same way. One of the things they have done in

Scotland which I disagree with, they have extended that every young

person under the age of 18 must have a state Guardian appointed, who will

assess a child's well-being using eight key indicators. Let me expand

this because the Scottish members of Parliament seem to make their

presence felt in this place. On the other hand, I sometimes think they

also take up a huge proportion of time on debates which concern the

whole house so I will not keep giving way whenever I say the word

Scotland. I think I would like to make two points. Firstly it is a

point of principle that 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote and

when she refers to Scottish members I think she means SNP members. There

does seem to be in this place that when Scotland is mentioned, the SNP

fuel they must make a point. Things happen in Scotland, brought in by

Holyrood which I would not support in this House. I don't expect to

argue everything should be transported across-the-board. Their

argument that this House should follow their lead in the Scottish

referendum is a bogus one. I am grateful. Surely the distinction is

this. It was this House that gave the Scottish Parliament the power to

extend the franchise in the Scottish independence referendum and we gave

them that power knowing exactly how it was going to be used. We may not

have made the change ourselves but as Lord Dobbs put it we acquiesced

in it. What is the difference now? I think the majority of members in

this has to not support extending the franchise. We have a sense that

this is what we allow 16, 17, 18-year-olds to do, it is not an

obvious logical extension that every young person does something at 16

and not something else. We accept there are some as our rules that

apply but over voting, many of us believe that for young people it is

a step too far to expect we expand the franchise and exempt them from

other things. I have not arrowed a member of the SNP are doing for

16-year-olds to be members of Parliament. That to me is the

logical extension of extending the franchise, having it taken down to

16. I don't believe the sixth team -year-old would have the maturity

and experience to represent a constituency at 16. When she speaks

of logic, which she also comment on the fact that many of the members

opposite arguing for this were the same people who increased the age of

people who could smoke a few years ago to 18 will stop if they think

they cannot make a decision about whether or not to smoke, how can

they think they are capable of voting? That was exactly a point I

had in some notes. I accept there are anomalies. Many of us do. I do

believe, and I heard a member of say this is a once in a generation vote,

well I have never voted on at so I accept that. I am looking forward to

voting on this. If the logic was to be argued that it is once in a

lifetime then surely 15, 14, were does one stop? We have to have an

age limit on UK Parliamentary elections, 18, therefore those

people below that age will live with the consequences. Would she accept

that this is a huge change and therefore should not be made on the

basis of one type of voting, like the referendum, but if we are to do

this it should be looked at popular, with the anomalies -- looked at

properly. It is that we should look at it properly so it is introduced

with the general election if that is what Parliament wants. She is right.

My friend on the front bench alluded to that. I won't stick include by

saying that the SNP may fuel they have it just right in Scotland but

that was their privileged to do that. I disagree that an example led

by the SNP to say we have to explain to the young people of Scotland why

they cannot do this is frankly ridiculous. This House has voted

numerous times that we do not want to extend the franchise and the back

door method using their Lordships' majority to overrule this is a

dangerous precedent, to tack on the fundamental change is not the method

to do it. There is a ?6 million bill associated with it and I object to a

blank cheque being written but maybe they do not care where the money

comes from. Frankly the main principle is for many of us is that

extending the franchise is not the way to do it. If we were to do it

for this referendum then it would be inevitable we would have to move the

age for nationwide UK elections. I would say yet again until we are

prepared to consider all the eventualities of that vote,

including extending the ability of someone aged 16 to represent a

constituency then we are not in a position today to consider all the

options to accept this amendment and I hope the House rejects it.

Thank you for the opportunity, as a Scottish MP, two discussed giving

Scottish teenagers the vote in the European referendum. It seems

something of an irony that members of the opposite... We have a simple

solution which is to scrap the upper chamber. In this instance, I am glad

they have given us the opportunity. I know it when we previously debated

this back in June, there were members on both sides of the has

said that the time will come, I hope they have taken the summer time to

reconsider. Firstly, this is a question of democracy. The minister

talked about this being a Westminster bubble issue. I do not

see how giving more people the vote, more people the opportunity to

participate in the democratic process is a Westminster bubble

issue - quite the opposite in fact. Young people will have to live with

the decision of the European referendum much longer than the rest

of us. 16-year-olds can pay tax and get married, but I will concede that

they cannot drive a bus. I will come to the member in just a moment. On a

more sobering point, I'll was in at the devolution in 2010 many citizens

who lost the lies and Iraq were too young to vote.

Will the honourable gentleman assist me in expelling my 15 is not

correct? I thank the member.

-- explained to me. We believe that 16 is a good age for

participation. It is when they pay tax. We think that is a good age to

come in and start voting. Participation is a question which

should always be high on the agenda of this house. We should always be

trying to look at different ways to encourage people to be involved in

the democratic process. Evidence suggests that the earlier we involve

them, more likely people are to stay involved. If you vote at 16, if you

vote early, you vote often. The other side of the house may not like

that very much, but we think that is positive. I will come to him in just

a moment. We in this house, we have a tale of two legislators. On the

18th of June, the very day that this house struck down the amendment to

give 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, the Scottish Parliament is dosed at the

wiser institution, clearly - took about to extend the franchise to

Holyrood elections, and they passed it unanimously. The fact that the

leader of the Scottish Conservatives said that she, and I quote, a fully

paid-up member of the votes at 16 club now. I welcome that, along with

Labour and the Lib Dems which are now for about a 16 as well. In fact,

any rarer show of unity, I hope I'm not jinxing this, the past leader of

the Labour Party appeared to vote to back votes at 16. I hope I'm not

speaking too soon on that one. Is my honourable friend also aware

that both the Scottish and UK youth Parliament have endorsed votes at

16? My honourable friend makes a good

point. Indeed the electoral reform Society said the UK Government

should follow holy red's example for the EU referendum and all other

elections. Hollywood BUZZER .

The gold standard set by the Scottish Referendum is one that we

should follow here. It is a shame that we have not follow this

example. It it is a shame that those who make such a huge contribution

will not be able to vote. But members from across the spectrum

were won over by votes for 16. Turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds

was 75%. 97% of them saying they would contribute to voting again.

The access to more information than any other age group. That makes all

of us macro much more accountable. I give way.

One wonders what we ever did before the SNP are right with their 56

seats in this Parliament. We obviously struggled on manfully. The

honourable gentleman will know that when the franchise was made to

18-year-olds, since then, very rarely has turnout between 18-

24-year-olds gone above 20%. But in the 70s it is in the high 70s. We

have never had so much information about policy and politics. Why does

he think that across the UK young people are so disengaged?

Of course, the honourable member is not the only person so delighted to

cease any new SNP members. We have the facts and we have the evidence,

the evidence shows that with you involve 16-year-olds they get

involved. Making an argument that Westminster elections have not

inspired people to get involved in elections in the past, I think is

more of a reflection on the Westminster politicians than it is

on the general public at large. We have that evidence, they got

involved. 16-year-olds campaigning was a good thing, a good thing for

those got involved on the No side as wealthy Yes side. I pay tribute to

those who got involved on both sides. -- as well as the Yes side.

If you give these people the opportunity to get involved they

will do so. The European referendum providers a chance to prove that

case. I suspect that 16-year-olds will be better informed and get his

Government a better hearing on the deal that they negotiate with

Brussels than his own backbenchers will. This house has been left

behind on votes for 16-year-olds. It is happening in Scotland, the Isle

of Man and elsewhere. Let's not be left behind again and back votes

were 16-year-olds. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

rise to support the Government's position on the Lords amendment

number one. A number of arguments deployed to why we should extend the

boat to 16 and 17-year-olds for this referendum. I have listened both in

this debate so far add other debates - they tend to distil into two broad

camps. The first, we have just had an example of that from the

honourable member for North East five - that is what they did in

Scotland, and therefore what we should do across the UK. -- North

East Fife. The other argument is that because it is there a future

they should be able to have a say in their future because this is a 1 off

election. I lived for a year on Deeside between Ballater and Aboyne,

a truly wonderful part of the world. One of the things I discovered

living up there is that there are a lots of things that they do in

Scotland different to we do in England and Wales. And actually, any

life like France. We do not want to create, generate a across the whole

of the UK. With a member give quiz work in a moment.

I expect one of the reasons why the members of the SNP are so passionate

about independence is that they wanted to do things differently from

England and Wales. Therefore I find it slightly strange that, in their

collective desire to be independent and deference, what they are

suggesting is what we should all be saying. I give way.

Wasn't the point of the SNP's Speaker there was that when you give

16-year-olds the right to vote they become more valued, more engaged,

participation increases. They become part of the fabric of democratic

society and Dr responsibilities and enrich our whole community. We

should go ahead? Part of my speech addresses this

very point he made. I'm not going to try and concertina my speech in

response to that question, but I will come to that. If you feel is

I've not given a satisfactory response, I invite him to intervene

later on. I come back to the point about that is what happens in

Scotland. There is a long-standing differential between things which

16-year-olds can do in Scotland and those in the United Kingdom at

large. Great Britain is famous because it is the first place that

runaway lovers can yet to and take a voltage attitudes to the age of

marriage. -- Gretna Green is famous. Seeing because it happens in

Scotland it must therefore happen in the rest of the UK is I think a

hollow argument. I would also advise the honourable members from the

Scottish National Party to be a little bit careful what you wish for

in this regard. Because, if your position is that any deep power you

exercised must then, by extension, be absorbed by the rest of the

United Kingdom, I believe it is going to create a lot of friction

and disharmony. -- devolves power. People in the rest of the United

Kingdom will feel aggrieved that there is an automatic assumption

that the bold decisions made in Scotland will occur across the

latest kingdom I think the honourable member misses the point.

My colleague from North East Fife talks about the engagement of 15 and

16-year-olds. What we have found in Scotland, and the evidence bags it

up, we have found that by giving the franchise to 16 to 17-year-olds they

have remained engaged in the political process be on the age of

16. While the UK may have had low numbers in the Westminster

elections, we have much higher, above 70%, in Scotland.

I issue the honourable lady misunderstood the type of engagement

I meant when I spoke about Gretna Green, but I will come onto that.

The member for Vauxhall makes a very important point about the natural

implication of extending the voting rights in the European referendum to

other collections. I was, in a previous life, the youth ambassador

to the Mayor of London. I spent a huge amount of time dealing with

young people across London. I know there are many where you informed,

engaged, articulate, thoughtful people who are aged 16 and 17. There

are also some very well-informed, article, engaged 15-year-olds.

Rightly, there are some 40-year-olds who I would not trust to tie their

own shoelaces. So we recognise that there is a degree of arbitrary

distinction when we bring about a voting age. But there must be a line

in the sand. A number of people asked if 16, why not 15? If 15, why

not 14? My two boys are the sons of a politician, we speak about

politics at home, they listen to the nose, -- they listen to the news,

and I would suggest they are better informed about UK and global

politics then many people twice or thrice their age, so why not give

them the vote? It comes onto the second argument, that it is their

future. This referendum is their future, just as much it is the

future for a 16 or 17-year-old. He may be surprised to know that I

do not support votes at 16. What worried me was increasing pressure

on childhood in our country. What worries me about this is that an

adult will be an adult at 16 stop them petition is that have never

been seriously looked at by my party or investigated. This opposition,

the SNP as well, having never done a proper evaluation on the impact on

children and the protection of children, which should be a top

priority. That leads me to my closing remarks. For those people

who say this is a one-off and will not be extensions, we have just

heard members of the SNP saying they gave votes to 16-year-olds in the

referendum and then at Holyrood elections and they are suggesting

this is a natural evolution of the Democratic process. They are making

the point that you warn against, that this will unlock the floodgates

for the change of the mandate to 16 at many other elections and at a

time when 16 and 17-year-olds are mandated to remain in education. We

have made an explicit comment that we do not fuel they are fully formed

because -- feel they are fully formed because if not we would not

suggest they have to stay in education, so it is a ridiculous

notion that in a one-hour debate tagged onto the European Union

Referendum Bill that we should change the mandate. I recommend all

members to support the Government's position. As members can see there

are a few people who wish to speak. The debate must finish at 145 PM.

Our young people are no longer children and they resent being

treated as such. Our view is that if we entrust them with the

responsibility they will act responsibly. These are not my words

but the words of a late Lord during the debate which led to reducing the

voting age from 21 to 18. The world has changed since then and so must

we. It is about franchising young people in one of the biggest

decisions to affect their lives. One of my first acts as an MP was to try

to introduce a Private Members' Bill on this issue to give 16 and

17-year-olds the vote whilst increasing political education. That

bill is unlikely to be debated and voted on. I sincerely hope the

Government will see sense today and support the amendment in front of

us. I have spoken with many opposite who have agreed with me on this. The

European question is quite simply one of the biggest decisions we can

make. Do we want to live in a country with strong link is to our

nature is where we can engage with various topics are to be wants to be

cut off from the world becoming a smaller influence on the world

stage? These arguments are for another day. Whatever the result,

one thing can be sure to stop it will have a long-lasting impact on

this country. The inn/out campaigns have been launched and people have

started to talk about it but there is one group talking about it but

who are being silenced and it is that group we are here to talk about

today. The Prime Minister is spending close to ?1 billion

empowering young people aged 16 and 17 through national citizen service.

I took part over the summer judging community projects young people had

designed themselves. National citizen service teachers young

people about community engagement and encourages them to play the role

of an active citizen in their community. Can the Prime Minister 's

not see how ridiculous it is to refuse 16 and 17-year-olds at the

ballot box? ? The case has been made as to why 16 and 17-year-olds should

be given the vote. They can consent to medical treatment, sexual

relationships, get married, join the armed forces, change their name,

receive tax credits, welfare benefits, join a trade union, or a

cooperative society. They can even do what many young entrepreneurs

do, become the director of a company. 16 new rules in work or

even required to pay income tax and national insurance. As Mike

colleague pointed out in a Westminster debate last year, there

is something fundamentally wrong with taxation without

representation. It was the very cause of the American revolution.

How long before it young people rise up? The last thing we need is more

young people becoming militant. Many of my colleagues called for more

momentum on this issue. These are people with voices and opinions they

want to be heard. Yesterday I spoke to a year 12 political class at a

college in my constituency. I asked them if they had anything they would

like me to contribute to this debate. They were amazing,

articulate and inspired young people. One of the things they asked

was about my view on the House of Lords being abolished and if they

had asked me a few months ago I might have had a different answer.

It is because of the work of the other place that we are here today.

I ask them to tell me about votes at 16. One young lad told me he felt

unrepresented. He said there were millions of young people who have no

say. He said voter turnout for 18-24 -year-olds is just about 40% and we

needed the voices of 16 and 17-year-olds to be added to make

sure young people are represented. I checked the statistics and he was

bang on. If the Scottish referendum is anything to go by, we could see

75% of all 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the EU referendum. He said you

could count on one hand the number of MPs who had been in full-time

education in the last decade so he said he couldn't understand what it

was like from a learner's point of view. Fabian pointed out that you

can only understand about Jewish and fees if you turned 18 at the right

time. Lizzie said he wanted to march for church and fees but told he

could not. He felt the direct action was his only choice. I will move on

to one point and some up. Owen said for words to me. It just makes

sense. And it does. I would like to speak briefly in support of the

Government. It is not unusual to be patronised by the SNP. I noticed the

member for garden is not in his place. I heard a rumour he was

unveiling a statue of himself made out of chocolate so he could admire

it and then eat it. The reason I am opposing this is not actually

because I am against the substance of the debate. I am a floating

voter. I began to look at the experience of younger people over

the last year. We need a proper debate, a proper legislative

framework to debate this issue, rather than tacked on to an EU

referendum. I support lowering the age in principle but it seems that

if you look at the bill the principal offer is if we want to

make major changes we go to the public. We should have a national

consultation about this as well. We have a gold standard template which

we measure and that is the franchise. We have made changes in

1969, 19 24. We accept all of that. Let's have a public debate, not just

through the prism of the Scottish referendum and across all of the

country where we can have differing views. The honourable lady carboxyl

put her finger on the issue. It must not be tacked on. It must be

decided... I find it inconceivable that the turnout would rise from 40%

to 75% because you include 16 and 17 year -year-olds. That doesn't add

up. This is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated unelected

House of Lords have told us what the elected house should be doing when

we have a settled view on it. They should learn their place and they

must be subservient to the elected house and it is high time we had

House of Lords reform. After my experience in the last Parliament,

the irony of the hearing Conservative members arguing for

reform of the House of Lords is never lost. There is a fundamental

inconsistency in the position of the Government. In the last Parliament

the Prime Minister gave the power to the Scottish Parliament to extend

the franchise for the independence referendum. We knew what they were

going to do with it. As the noble Lord in the other place put it, he

acquiesced. And for a number of reasons. It was the most important

vote we would face and because it was once in a generation. That is

exactly the situation facing the House today. On the question of

financial privilege, I have to say it appears to me that the Government

having lost the argument now wants to play the trumpet card to thwart a

very laudable aim. The honourable lady from St Albans said we were

opposing the use of financial privilege because we do not care

about where the money comes from. We do care. We care about the fact it

is paid by, amongst others, 16 and 17-year-old taxpayers. They pay it

so are entitled to have their say. 20 seconds remaining. I wish to

argue and I will not take interventions. This makes absolute

sense, we need to trust our young people and empower them. Let us give

them this vote and chance. Question is that this house

disagrees with the House of Lords in their amendment number one. As many

as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Decision, clear

the lobby. The question is that this house

disagrees with the Lords amendment number one. As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". .

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 303. The noes

to the left, 253. The ayes to the right 303. The noes

to the latter 253. The ayes habits, the ayes habit. Armlock.

The next amendment to be undertaken is Lords amendment number five, and

which we shall consider all the remaining Lords amendments and the

selected amendments to them as on the paper. To move amendment a 2

Lords amendment number five, I call Sir William Cash.

Thank you Mr Speaker. The reason I tabled this amendment is because, in

the House of Lords, not in the House of Commons, but in the House of

Lords, amendments were removed and accepted by the Government

respecting the question of publishing information, both on the

outcome of negotiations between the member states and secondly in the

other amendments, amendment number five, but in amendment number six

due to publish information about membership of the European Union.

That may sound all well and good, but if I may say, the problem is

that this contains a whole raft of question marks which I wish to raise

today. Not least of which is the fact that, and I will give a brief

outline of amendment five, on the outcome of negotiations, the

secretary of state will be under an obligation to publish a report -

which also is loaded with other material - we do not know what that

other material will involve. Setting out a statement as to what has been

agreed by member states following negotiations. We have just seen the

letter from Mr Task on the current assessment of EU negotiations, and I

do not think it makes pretty reading for the Government by any means. I

go further and say it also goes - and this I found quite astonishing -

the object of the letter apparently was to satisfy and to provide a

solution for the Prime Minister. I thought the real objective here was

to satisfy the United Kingdom, particularly its voters. That is

after all what this referendum is all about. It is not about what the

Government thinks. Parliament is handing over this entire exercise to

the voter, which is the proper way in which the matter should be dealt

with, and indeed, for which I have campaigned for nearly 25 years. In

addition to that, there is also in that report the proposal, in fact,

the duty, to publish the opinion of the Government of the UK on what has

been agreed. The opinion of the Government, from all we can gather

so far, is going to be that we should remain in. So, not a

naturally, those of us who come from a different possession - I say

without any lack of candour that I am campaigning to leave the European

Union - I need to be complete surely -- completely impartial and fair in

that position. I am deeply concerned as to what that material might

contain, and what the opinion of the Government, as exposed now report,

what might be. The second amendment relates to amendment six. In that

case, it refers to the secretary of state being under a legal obligation

to publish a report, again with other material, of which we know

nothing, relating to information to rights and obligations that arise in

European Union law as a result of the UK's member ship of the EU. I

must say, as one has been on the committee for 30 years, there has

been a vast accumulation of rights and obligations. So much so that I

really wonder whether it is conceivable that that information

could ever be made available in the concise form that such a report

would presuppose. In fact, it is everything which arises under

sections two of the European sections two of the European

communities act which has a massive effect on our daily lives and those

of the voters. And it goes on to say, and samples of countries that

do not have membership of the European Union but do have other

arrangements with the EU, describing in the case of each country giving

an example of those arrangements. This brings into mind the question

the Prime Minister raised when he was in discussion with the EU the

other day, and a speech he made about Norway. I can confidently tell

you that for my part at any rate, and for most of my colleagues I

think, the Norway option has never been on the table, because we just

don't approve of those arrangements. There are other arrangements,

certainly, but I do not intend to go into those today. But I will say,

however, is that these matters are obligations on the Government to

deliver reports. The innocent is of my amendments and those cases is

very simple will stop -- the essence of my amendments. The electoral

commission itself has important duties to all matters relating to

referendums and elections has already made its views clear in

relation to what went on in the House of Lords.

We would love to have been able to debate this in the House of Commons

properly. We have limited time so I will be brief. The fact is that

these massive reports are bound to have a huge effect on public opinion

and therefore it's absolutely essential that they are impartial

and accurate. And, indeed, the electoral commission stated and

repeated to me today in an e-mail they sent me, however, however, they

go on to say, any provision legislation for these matters should

ensure that voters can have confidence in the accuracy and

impartiality of the information. There should also be sufficient

balance given to the consequences of both the majority vote to remain a

member of the European Union, and the majority vote to leave the

European Union. I couldn't agree with that small. It's clear that has

to be a balance. The problem is that everything from government in

relation to this issue, all this speeches and arguments, are all

towards the notion there is bats that a reformed EU would satisfy the

requirements of what has been set out. The committee has been looking

carefully at expert evidence about the outcome of the negotiations thus

far. I don't think that I'm giving anything away if I say that last

very big questions about what has been achieved under these

renegotiations. There is time to go and I am aware that such a report,

as I have mentioned, both reports would have to be published within

the period of ten weeks, ending with the date of the referendum. The

report must be published before the beginning of the final ten week

period. For practical purposes, there will be ten weeks to evaluate

all of this, but the report will have enormously persuasive

significance. How do you envisage the report is

scrutinised and who will sign off the report before it is published?

I am quite confident the European scrutiny committee will be looking

at this very carefully because one of the things that have come up

during the course of the renegotiations is this, that we want

to be sure that the Government does not come forward with something as a

final offer. I see the Minister for Europe sitting there in his usual

place. He knows what I'm saying and you don't want to be balanced by a

final offer. We want to be able to assess the negotiations as they

progress. That's what were doing and what we will continue to do because

that is what our standing orders on behalf of the House of Commons

requires. I am grateful to the honourable lady for her

intervention, because it's really important that this house is not

balanced. On the question, and this is all I really need to say on the

amendments themselves, I am conscious of the fact that having

spoken to the electoral commission today and received a note from them,

that they regard the capacity of the electoral commission to provide the

degree of impartiality that we would expect as being beyond their own

functions. This, I think, is extremely regrettable because I

think they should be given the opportunity to comment. I am aware,

and I look to the Minister and I say this with very, very clear

assessment, the committee will be looking at this very carefully and

he knows what that means, and it is simply this. If any such report

could not be guaranteed by him as the Minister for Europe as meeting

the highest standards of impartiality and the highest

standard of accuracy, would he not agree that that would effectively be

misleading the British people? That is the test. On the basis that I

hear from him something along those lines, I am prepared, of course I am

very happy to give way in a moment, just at the finish. Due accuracy and

in partiality is implicit in any report of this kind in regards to

the importance of the voter being able to make a balanced choice when

the time comes. Thank you for giving way. I am

puzzled. He is demanding accuracy in the Government's analysis, and he is

also demanding impartiality. Does he mean that the Government should not

express an opinion on what is the most important issue facing this

country for perhaps the next 40 years, because that would be absurd?

He must not be saying that. Is he saying that if the Government

produces an accurate report and then reaches a conclusion, that cannot be

impartial. There is a difference between accuracy and impartiality.

I will leave my own opinions out on this particular point as I have very

strong views which will be developed during the course of the campaign as

to why it is we should leave. But we already know from the speeches that

have been made by the Prime Minister and by other ministers that there is

a presupposition that a reformed union is the way to go. The tests

that'll be applied to that is whether the reforms amount to

anything very much, which I don't think they will. In addition to

that, whether they meet the test of changing our relationship with the

EU, which is also a relevant issue. On these questions are there will be

much debate. All I am saying is that anybody with a fraction of judgment

on that huge landscape, and the trust that has to be given to be

voted to make the right decision as to whether to remain in order leave,

will be tested against the question as to whether there is any

significant bias in the manner in which reports are put forward. We

have already been through the whole of the Purdie debate which was about

using civil service machinery. If I may say, I think we won that one.

This should not be a back door in relation to receiving the same kind

of objectives. On that note, I propose to withdraw my amendment

simply because I do want to know, from the Minister, whether or not he

is prepared to accept the impartiality and accuracy point

which I have made. He knows perfectly well what I mean and is

more than capable of giving us a decent answer.

The question is that amendment A 2 Lords Amendment five he made.

I will speak very briefly giving that the honourable member has

indicated he will withdraw his amendment. Amendments five and six

passed in the other place reflects very closely amendments that we in

this side moved to committee stage and report stage of the

consideration of the bill here. Amendment five calls for information

and report on the Government's renegotiation purpose. Amendment six

calls for a report on the rights and obligations in tales in membership

of the European Union, and it also calls for the Government to outline

rights and obligations of some countries who have particular

relationships with the European Union, but who are not members.

Perhaps through the EEA agreement. I could refer the House to the recent

policy network pamphlet on these issues called What Does Out Look

Like? Which I think would make a great Christmas present for anyone

considering these things. I have some copies available if you would

like them. This is not the same issue. We are talking about

something which is ten weeks out. It is not in a decent of the campaign.

It is not a leaflet that is to be distributed to every household in

the country or anything of that nature. What we are calling for is

the Government to publish information on both of these

aspects, the renegotiation and what out might look like, which will give

the public the best information possible on a very important

decision. The Government and the Prime Minister has placed great

emphasis on the renegotiation itself, and we have seen the

exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of

the European council, who published his initial reply yesterday. We know

there will be some discussion on these issues at the European Council

next week, but probably not a conclusion until the European

Council in February of next year. It remains to be seen what the outcome

of these renegotiations is going to be. We had some indication in the

letter from the President of the European Council yesterday. The

point I would make is that for many of us on this side of the House, we

do not place the same weight on this negotiation as the Prime Minister

because we think there is a broader case for membership for the four

points but the Prime Minister outlined in his letter last month to

the President of the European Council. It is obviously also the

case that many of the back benches opposite placed no weight at all on

this renegotiation for the obvious reason that there is nothing in it

that could possibly make them change their minds about the outcome of

this referendum. I'll give way to the honourable lady in just a

moment. I think it was the member for North Essex who said at the

time, it is that it? When he saw the the Prime Minister's letter when it

was published a few weeks ago. I understand the last comments, but

that is all part of it. What is being asked, the response to what is

being asked is all part of the calculations being made by many

people who may be considering what unit looks like as well as out. If

the negotiations are not treated with the respect and gravity they

deserve, then that says a big message to those of us who have

concerns about our ongoing membership.

Thank you for your intervention. Different people will look at this

renegotiation in a different way. The point I am making is that I

think there is a broader case about membership of the European Union

well beyond the four items listed in the Prime Minister's letter and the

four cases in President Donald Tusk's reply. If for some voters it

is all about those four points, that is a fair judgment that they want to

make. What I am saying is that for most people on this side of the

House, there is a broader case for membership.

When it comes to voters casting their vote on whether we should

remain in the European Union or leave, it will not in the end be the

final points of the renegotiation that is in their minds. It will be

the broader case, either bought in or out, that people will vote on.

Amendment five deals with the report that we would like to see on these

issues. Amendment sex on the broader issue of what being an would look

like and what the outcome would look like -- Amendment 6-mac. If the

country votes to leave there would then be process of extracting

ourselves from the European union and not one can say with certainty

what the outcome would be like. However, we do have examples of

countries that trade with the single market that are not members of the

European union, Norway, Switzerland, for example. I don't

want to get into details on this today but they are out there and we

can see what their obligations are, even though they are not members of

the European union and do not have representation on the European

Council representation in the European Parliament. It seems to me

the opposition is falling into the trap yet again of thinking you can

only trade with the EU if you have a special arrangement with them like

Norway or Switzerland. All the world's countries trade with the EU

and the badly drafted Lords Amendment invites comment on many of

countries who have no special deal at all. I don't see the example of

Norway is the only one out there, but it is a real live example which

I think is relevant to this debate and certainly some in the campaign

to leave have drawn attention to it as a model as others have drawn

attention to the model of Switzerland. It would be good to

understand from the League campaign what model they seek to support.

What I think is right is in advance of the referendum the Government

publishes as much information as possible so photos are clear about

what is involved. -- voters are clear about what is involved. The

honourable gentleman amendment did call on the Government's hallmark on

this. They have said they do not want to do this and there is an

appetite for more detailed information. But they say, we would

not have the details to do so or the required expertise to judge a report

to Parliament. I want to give him another chance to pluck his

pamphlet. Because an ex he makes the point of the various options

available to this country and in the context of the Government providing

information this is quite a difficult ask of any Government

because it is inevitably hypothesis. Nobody can know what the divorce

settlement would be an certainly the Government wouldn't know. An

essence, what these amendments are asking the Government to do is stick

a finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. It is

hardly call that information. I respect the honourable member views

on this matter but I disagree with him because the amendments are not

asking the Government to stick a finger in the air and speculate as

to what the arrangements for the UK exactly would be, having withdrawn.

What they are, and I can read the relevant section of amendment six.

It says, examples of countries that do not members of the European Union

but do have other arrangements with the European union. That is not

speculation, those examples are up there and we can study their

obligations subject to these arrangements and they had been there

for some time and negotiated specific deals with the European

Union. It is not speculation and it is out there for us all to see. In

conclusion, Mr Speaker, I am pleased the Government has, in effect,

accepted requests we made during the committee and the report stage in

this house of the Bell in accepting these broad amendments. It is

important voters are clear on the renegotiation, clear about what the

results of that renegotiation will be, clear about what being in the

European union is like and requires and also as clear as possible about

what being arts might look like. A referendum is a choice of two

futures. , it is not an opinion poll on one future. That is like these

amendments are important and it is right we have these kind of report

and have maximum information made available to the public on a crucial

choice for the country. I put my name to my honourable friend

amendment because I think the two Lords's amendments, five and six,

the debate because they are ill considered and unwise. If we take

Amendment five, that is easy to deal with. I have no problem with it

because it is stating the obvious. It says when negotiations are

completed the British Government needs to share those views with

Parliament and the people. Well, of course they well, that will happen

naturally. I think it's just an unnecessary addition to what was the

simple bill before the Lords got hold of it. The Lords amendment

number six is far more worrying as it is so poorly drafted and leads to

all sorts of arguments that are arguments for a referendum campaign

rather than due to legislation to set up the referendum. The first

part of this Lords amendment number six says the Government must set up

the rights and obligations that arise under European law from our

current membership. As has already been remarked, it would be a very

long book to do that properly as we now have so many legal restrictions

and obligations as a result of the treaty and thousands of directors.

To fully fulfil that we met the Government would have to sit out all

British people how there are now British people how there are now

very large areas of law and public practice at the MS House are not

free to determine as we see fit and as the people wish. That may be

useful thing to do but I fear the Government may fall short and not

wish to give a comprehensive list of other obligations. It is not good

law to invite people to do things they don't really intend to do. I

look forward to the Minister's clarification on if he will be

publishing a full list on the thousands of legal restraints on

this Parliament that restrict us doing the will of the British

people, and also on the British people as they have two of the these

laws. All of these laws, and our own laws, can be construed by European

justice to the European Court Of Justice, which is now the true

sovereign in this country, because we have submitted ourselves to the

ultimate judgment of the European Court. Wiki also agree that the

importance which I attach to the idea and the electoral commission

have also attached to the idea but either or both of these reports, in

fact both of them, should be produced on the basis of both

impartiality and accuracy. We remember the review of competencies

which was a whitewash and if it is anything like that we would be

misleading the public, but we are not. That is why I share my

honourable friend concerns about this amendment and I am worried the

Government might fall short of the Phil remit. Will the Government

spelt out to people we cannot control our own borders, energy,

market regulation, corporation tax, all these things have gone to the

superior power of the European union and this should be the very

substance of the debate in the referendum on if we wish to restore

the full sovereignty of Parliament for a British people or if we wish

to continue on if we wish to restore the full sovereignty of Parliament

for a British people or if we wish to continue which would mean even

more powers are taken away. The second part of the Lords amendment

six goes on to say the Government has set up examples of countries

that do not have membership of the EU but do have other arrangements

with them. Describing in the case of each country given, as an example,

those arrangements. I have never heard anything so woolly for a long

time. All countries not in the European union have some kind of

arrangement with them, it does not even say a long time. All countries

not in the European union have some kind of arrangement with them, it

does not even say it straight able to trade with the rest of the

European union everybody submitted ourselves to some of the powers that

didn't suit the Mac through an arrangement similar to Norway and

Switzerland. America is a mighty trading partner of the EU which does

not have one of these arrangements and certainly does not pay a

contribution to the European union in order to sell and goods. Not as

India, China, Canada, Australia. Some individual countries have free

trade agreements with the EU which is arguably better than our

agreement, because they don't have to pay anything like the large

contributions and levies that we have to pay when trading within the

internal market. My friend makes a very powerful point. In which case

the debate will be about what arrangements to find out and this

report and could potentially be open to challenge based on what might

right honourable friend is saying. That is why I am worried for the

Government because I do not wish to see them get into legal trouble over

sloppy drafting. Those of us who have decided we wish to leave the

European Union have been invited to predict what the Leave campaign was

eight when it is up and running efficiently. We will not be wanting

to recommend either the Norwegian Swiss model. The UK is a far bigger

country with a different set of relationships around the world and

will have seen your relationships with the world's main bodies, so

there will be a British solution to our relationship with the EU which

would not include paying any contribution to that union in the

way we currently have two. He has given a lot of examples of

countries. Could he perhaps give an indication of countries he would

like to move toward being like and that may help the Government to

decide which countries we should be compared to when it goes to publish

its report. Who does he think we should be like? I have already done

that and if the honourable gentleman studies the text he will see I have

answered exactly that point with great clarity. There will be a

British answer but it will be closer to the answer of those countries

that trade very successfully with the EU without needing to pay money

into the EU by way of special contributions and without having to

accept great legal positions on them. Anybody trading with the EU

has to meet their standards for the goods and services they wish to

buy, just as when we trade with United states of America we have to

accept their standards for the dudes we wish to sell to them. It does not

mean you have to enter into a common Government arrangements paid special

taxes. Most of the world trade is peppered with successfully with the

EU countries without having to do any such thing. I hope the Minister

will understand that those of us on the Leave side will read the words

the Lords have actually written, rather than the words the opposition

would like interpreting and it would be very foolish to set out the

Norwegian example, because it is not an example anyone might not wish is

to copy, and not to example the examples of larger and Commonwealth

countries that have trading arrangements. It would be wrong for

the Government to confine itself in answering this question to the issue

of trade, because trade is nowhere mentioned in the draft law before

us. We do need to look at the political arrangements we have with

EU countries and through needle and so forth. Things like pipeline

agreements, aviation agreements and all those other things. My final

worry with this clause is it a cemetery. And the opposition has

shown us how they wish it to be asymmetric. They wish the Leeds side

to hypothesise about what our relationship with the EU will look

like in two or three years' time whereas they don't think it is

incumbent on the inside to similarly hypothesise. I would not mind

betting there would be more change if we stay in because if we do vote

to stay in they would take it as an excuse to demand the UK conforms to

more parts of the union than we are currently prepared to do so and we

know from the President's report published this summer but as soon as

our referendum is out of the way they wish to press on with their

move to capital markets union, a full banking union and to political

union. We on the Leave side will ask both on the opposition who want to

stay in to describe to us how Britain would relate to the

political union and to the very much stronger union generally which the

euro members envisage. Be in no doubt, the euro members wish to use

the institutions of the European union as a whole body on purposes

and it would be difficult for Britain to be alongside but only

half in in the EU but not in the euro. I would like to see a

symmetrical request and it would be important to spell out what staying

in looks like, as I believe staying in is away to more political union.

That may not be to the Minister's liking, but I can assure him it will

be a very important Thank you. I welcome the fact that

the honourable member has replied to at least one of his amendments. It

seems to me that there is a need and will be a need for information about

the likely consequences of an in vote and the likely consequences of

an out vote. I don't think that should be left entirely to

individual campaigns because we already have arguments about who

runs campaigns and how they will be funded. By definition, they will

tell at best one half of the story. I think it is in order that the UK

Government publishes appropriate information outfit that the

background to the referendum. It was indicated one month ago that EU

members are the worst at defining what the EU actually means. That is

something we can't allow to continue. We can't allow the

referendum to come upon us with a significant number of our citizens

not really understanding what the vote means. Not because they can't

predict what the vote mean -- what the future might be if we leave or

stay in, but because they don't say what the present is. Too many people

don't understand what the EE does for good or for bad. That is

something that if we simply leave it, people were and are confused. --

what the EU does. Incidentally, one reason why this might be one of the

times to extend the franchise. 16-year-old and 17-year-olds'

understanding may not be at the same stage as adults. But that it has

been and gone. I find it surprising and ironic that we see so many

contributions from the conservative side of the House, as we did -- who

are very concerned about the idea that a government during a

referendum campaign might publish information that was a little

one-sided. Based members in here have not received for a number of

us. Others received shortly before the referendum last year which was a

glossy leaflet published by Her Majesty 's government. The UK

Government is in advertising and for a post-individual all. -- as long as

that kind of stuff goes on, we don't need to take any lessons from

anybody on any side of the House about the dangers of letting the

Government get involved --... 20 forgiving way. The committee I

chaired previously conducted an enquiry into civil service

impartiality and referendums in respect of the Scottish referendum.

It is one thing if there is a government in Edinburgh on one side

of the argument and a government in London on the other side each

publishing arguments for and against a particular proposition. But where

is the balance going to be in this referendum? Given that there is only

one United Kingdom government. It is perfectly in order for the UK

Government to take an impartial stance once we get closer to the

referendum. We don't know what stands there going to be taking

yet. There is a question as to whether it was appropriate for

somebody else's government to interfere in a referendum that I

know that's not an argument we will win just now. I can say that that

kind of interference probably contributed to the fact that on most

days, these benches are significantly more crowded. The

point I am making is that if the Government doesn't produce

information as opposed to campaigning opinion about how the

European Union works now, and we think will produce it? If are happy

for two opposing camps to produce the information, go ahead and do

that. We know before we start but all that will happen is that people

will be inspired by politicians or TV personalities associated with

them, rather than being presented with a factually researched document

which set things out. I will give way.

Could I simply say that actually, we know that broadcasts and the

information which will be delivered and published by the designated

organisations on either side will provide that information. We have

many other examples in other referendums in the European Union.

Actually, the idea that the Government itself is not going to

try to organise the view is that it does want, which is to stay in the

so-called reformed union, is I think for the birds.

Thank you for your intervention. Firstly, I wish I could show you

absolute faith in the impartiality of broadcasters but that might be

one of the small number of issues on which I disagree with the member. I

do need to make some progress. The point about broadcasters is that if

broadcasters are found to be in breach of the requirement for

impartiality, there is a sanction available and ways they can be held

to account. Certainly the BBC feel as if they are being very held to

account by any number of committees in this place just now.

I wasn't referring to the impartiality broadcasters in this

context, I was referring to the fact that under the designated

arrangements, each side will have the right to issue broadcasts and to

provide information by way of literature. That's what I was

concentrating on. I misunderstood the comments. My

essential point is that I don't think it's enough to leave it to

campaign groups to persuade. The point is to persuade them for the

points they are making. They will choose not to provide information

that doesn't support the point. That is what we all did in order to get

elected. As long as it doesn't involve deliberately trying to

mislead people, that is part of the democratic process. It's part of

politics. It is up to the electorate to judge whose arguments they will

believe. But if they are starting from a position of significant

entrance, misconception or misunderstanding of what the

European Union is about,... I will give Roy... 20 forgiving way.

He has been very -- thank you for giving way. There is another issue

when we talk about broadcasting. That is how it is funded. Whether

there will be a balance of funding or not. That has been a big issue in

the past with referendums. I'm talking about the one in 1975.

My own personal views about how political campaigns and parties are

funded probably would not get a huge amount of support in here. The

honourable member does make a valid point. It is important that nobody

has got the opportunity to buy a referendum any more than anybody

should be given the right to buy electoral success. I would not want

to see us going the way of America, needing buildings behind you before

you can even stand for election. That doesn't address the fundamental

problem that however well funded or badly individual campaigns are, if

you're starting off in a position where we have the least

well-informed electorate in the whole of Europe about such an issue,

the Modi has two provide that information in order to bring people

up to a bit of understanding. -- somebody has to provide. It's

doesn't mean what it keeps getting presented as even from the Prime

Minister. People need to understand what aspects of immigration to the

European Union is involved in and what they are not. The same for

refugees and the United Nations. These are massively important issues

and a lots of this debate in this chamber over the last few months has

not always helped to increase public understanding and appreciation of

what it is the European Union does and doesn't do. If there are

concerns that the Government may not be impartial or maybe overly

enthusiastic on one side or the other, I am quite happy for the

electoral commission to publish guidance and require the Government

and everyone else to comply with that guidance. I don't think it is

appropriate to ask the electoral commission to scrutinise the veto or

censor documents. That would not be appropriate. It would be appropriate

for the electoral commission to issue guidance on the conduct,

including the con of information and should be funded and published by

the Government. I find myself in the strings position of telling

government backbenchers that they are wrong because the amendment

seems to be allowing us to test Her Majesty's government. I'm not the

biggest fan of the Government in this house. I'm not the biggest

believer that we can trust them. But in this case, quite frankly, if the

Government can't be trusted to present a fair case to the public

than we are in trouble because the media certainly won't do it. The

print media will not do it. Political campaigns won't do it

because it is not their job to be impartial, it is their job to be

partial. To be partisan as to the issues that we are campaigning

about. I would welcome the fact that the honourable member is redrawing

-- withdrawing his Amendment. In this case, I think there is a need

for reliable information to be put into public domain. Let's not forget

a few hours from here we have one of the most highly regarded research

facilities anywhere in the world. Regarded not only for the quality of

the research, but the speed in which it is done and the impartiality. If

we can't rely on research facilities within this house to provide

reliable, documented information, who do we rely on?

The fact remains, in response to the honourable gentleman, whether he

thinks it's just an irony or an accident or something more sinister,

it is people who are in favour of Britain remaining in the European

Union that tends to be championing Lords Amendment number six. And

those who are supporting the leave campaign regarded as a Trojan horse

for a lot of subjective judgments to be made which are in favour of one

side and not the other. Mr Speaker, I referred a few moments ago to the

report produced from the public administration committee at the end

of the last Parliament. The reason we produce that report was to look

at this question of impartiality, because there is a rather modern and

corrosive view that impartiality means that as a civil servant, you

are prepared to work for which of the party happens to be in office

and therefore you are impartial. In the conduct of your work for which

other party is in office, you can be as partial and loaded in your

conduct under the Armstrong the doctrine that you have to be there

to support the Government of the day. Actually, I think most people

in this country regard the word impartiality as a quality that is

rather more imprecise. It has a higher moral tone to add. That

impartiality has something to do with objectivity, and partiality has

been to do with balance and not being compromised as a mere

cheerleader of one point of view or another. In addressing the

amendments that my name is on, put down by my honourable friend, in

respect of Lords Amendment five and six, I would say this. That I do not

regard the proposed duty to publish information on the outcome of

negotiations to be at all unreasonable. And in fact it would

be rather odd if the Government were not to make such a publication. The

advantage of having this obligation on the face of the bill, first of

all means the Government has to publish it ten weeks before the

referendum date. That means it will be properly scrutinised, not bounced

on the electorate at the last minute. And it is perfectly

reasonable in response to my honourable friend for Ashford is

that the Government should express its own opinion in this document

about its own negotiations, as it would in any white paper.

The second duty to publish information. Bear in mind the White

Paper only went through rice exports the less house actually contained a

very specific precise promise of a veto on our national interest would

never be abandoned and if that were it would endanger the very fabric of

the European Community itself. That is some example of how unreliable

white papers and Government reports may be. Indeed, but it would be

interesting, it is unavoidable the Government will produce information

of that kind. The second duty is not something I expected to appear on

the face of the bill. It is asking the Government to produce judgments

and opinions about such a vast topic using examples which, by their very

nature will be subjective, as we have already heard. I am not at all

surprised that the electoral commission has decided this is far

beyond its competence, to make a judgment about what such a document

might be. If the Government, which has accepted this amendment, is now

going to justify retaining it, as I expect, I really think they must ask

some questions about it. The first of these is what does the Government

mean in this amendment by publish? It would be one thing to place in

the library House of Commons a paper which is Leonard and technical and

details and going to present in-depth analysis and information

that the honourable member for Glenrothes thinks would be

justified. Does it mean the Government is going to produce such

a subjective set of information in a form which is going to be circulated

to every household? How would we feel about that ten weeks before a

referendum? I think it is a reasonable for the Government to

explain the outcome of the negotiations, but not reasonable for

them then to use public money to present its whole world view about

European Union membership has what will be part of a campaign to remain

in the EU. I give way. Does my honourable friend frilly set in his

mind by what it means a Government response? Is a collective

responsibility or if there are dissenting members of the Government

what happened in that situation? It is a good question but in the event

there is permission to, as we all expect, there will be before long

and agreement amongst ministers that some will not be towing the

Government line on this question. The reason you have a referendum is

because its lights parties and you can't have a general election about

something that's both parties across the house. You can decide on an

issue and it would be absurd to have a referendum and try and force

ministers to one point of view. The president in 1975 was exactly that

and collective responsibility was abandoned. Yet that does not mean

there is not a Government view. Assuming that aren't such a vast

number of ministers, the majority, leaving the Government view to

isolated to be credible. I certainly give way. Would he not agree with me

at the country at large still has, whether we think they are right to

or not, still has thrust in the Government, in inverted commas, and

therefore our electorate would find it very strange that during a

referendum campaign if people could not point to what the Government

view was because the Government of the day would continue after the

referendum. People will want to not what the Government, collective or

otherwise, think about the issue. I have already said that the first

publication is preferably justified, in my view. The Government is

entitled to explain what it has negotiations and give its opinion on

what is negotiation, but if you would like to explain how the

Government is called to give information about rights and

obligations that arise under European law as a result of our

membership of the EU in a concise and simple fashion that is not

loaded, perhaps you could tell us, which countries should be used as

examples of countries that do not have European union membership to

explain the consequences of leaving? It is a very subjective

judgment. That is what the debate will be about and he is absolutely

right. Yes, people do trust what the Government says, which is exactly

why what the Government says should be curtailed and limited, because it

has a disproportionate effect on voters. That is no doubt about that.

If the leader of the party says something that is less than if the

Prime Minister is seeing something and that is why we have the purdah

period and the house and forced the Government to accept there will be a

proper purdah beaded because if we had what we had in 1975 with the

Government carries on regardless being the Government and expressing

partisan views on one side of the argument, that create an unfair

referendum. That is why all systems of referendum throughout the world

have systems to try and contain what Government do during the last phases

of a referendum to try and create fairness. I wonder if we have seen

the poster I have seen produced by the pro-EU group which call what the

governor of the bank of England under the headline, think the UK

economy is stronger in Europe. They also co-opted the president of the

United States and the President of India. Does he share my concern it

appears the campaign is willing to court public officials who ought not

to be dragged on to one side of such a campaign? Be mindful if that is