08/12/2015

:00:00. > :00:00.discuss it with him later. Order. Will the member wishing to take his

:00:00. > :00:36.seat please come to the table? Raise the Bible in your right hand.

:00:37. > :00:42.I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear allegiance to

:00:43. > :01:32.Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, so help me God.

:01:33. > :02:20.Presentation of Bill. During today this. -- go

:02:21. > :02:38.second reading? Friday 29th of January 2016. Order. We come to the

:02:39. > :02:42.ten minute rule motion. I backed a move that life beginning for me to

:02:43. > :02:47.bring in a Bill to make provision about the award of asylum seeker

:02:48. > :02:50.status in the United Kingdom to certain unaccompanied children from

:02:51. > :02:57.Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea, displaced by conflict and

:02:58. > :03:02.present in the EU and for connected purposes. Just over three months

:03:03. > :03:08.ago, the tragic death of a little boy and his brother exposed the

:03:09. > :03:17.world to a refugee crisis which governments including our own have

:03:18. > :03:20.been doing their best to avoid. That three-year-old boy and his brother

:03:21. > :03:30.were Syrian refugees travelling with their parents to seek safety and

:03:31. > :03:33.sanctuary in Europe. UNHCR figures show 900,000 people have made

:03:34. > :03:40.similar journeys to Europe this year and 23% of those people are

:03:41. > :03:45.children. Over 200,000 children fled their homes in search of a new life

:03:46. > :03:55.in this year alone. Many travelled with their families. Tens of

:03:56. > :04:00.thousands travel alone. Without parents or relatives, making their

:04:01. > :04:05.way in the toughest of circumstances. This honourable group

:04:06. > :04:10.is who the bill addresses. Over the past few years, charities have

:04:11. > :04:18.worked across Europe, particularly in Italy and Greece, doing what they

:04:19. > :04:24.can to help unaccompanied children sit safety in Europe. Children

:04:25. > :04:31.become separated for a number of reasons. Someone's in the countries

:04:32. > :04:36.of origin or those closest become victims of violence, leaving them

:04:37. > :04:42.little choice to fully alone. Others was family en route through illness

:04:43. > :04:45.or drowning. In desperation, these children put themselves in the hands

:04:46. > :04:55.of people smugglers and criminal gangs to facilitate journeys. Save

:04:56. > :04:58.the Children have spoken to many children about violence they

:04:59. > :05:03.experienced. These journeys can last months or years. Once they arrived

:05:04. > :05:11.in Europe they are still not safe. There are serious concerns, echoed

:05:12. > :05:17.by Europol's chief of staff, that vulnerable underage refugees are

:05:18. > :05:22.preyed upon by criminal gangs intent on forcing them into prostitution

:05:23. > :05:27.and slave labour. It was also warned that there is crossover between

:05:28. > :05:30.those smuggling refugees across borders and the gangs trafficking

:05:31. > :05:34.people for exploitation in the sex trade or forced labour. When you

:05:35. > :05:43.look at data from the last year, the grim truth becomes apparent.

:05:44. > :05:49.According to the Italian Ministry, of the children registered their in

:05:50. > :05:56.2014, almost 4000 disappeared after arriving. 4000 without official

:05:57. > :06:01.protection of any kind, no access to education, welfare, health care or a

:06:02. > :06:05.safe home. We do not have come terrible numbers for 2015 but given

:06:06. > :06:12.the rise in refugees this year, we can expect a much higher number.

:06:13. > :06:18.This is not a far off Rob and to be dealt with by distant governments.

:06:19. > :06:24.It is here in Europe. It is our responsibility is to protect all

:06:25. > :06:30.refugees and none more so than often -- orphaned children. It is shameful

:06:31. > :06:35.the Government has ignored these children and it is time to do the

:06:36. > :06:39.right thing. 4000 children is a small part of the overall number,

:06:40. > :06:45.smaller for local authorities to handle, but it will make all the

:06:46. > :06:50.difference to the lives of everyone of these desperate youngsters. Just

:06:51. > :06:56.five children per parliamentary constituency and less than one third

:06:57. > :07:07.than the number of children taken in during the kind of transport. --

:07:08. > :07:11.Kinder transport. It is no doubt these children are also deserving of

:07:12. > :07:15.our help. This is not the first time I have called for this in

:07:16. > :07:18.Parliament. I can predict perhaps what the response from the

:07:19. > :07:22.Government may be. They would tell us they would not want to risk

:07:23. > :07:27.separating children from families and that there are some concerns the

:07:28. > :07:33.proposed programme may do that. That is not true. All efforts should be

:07:34. > :07:37.made to ensure children remain with or are reunited with their families

:07:38. > :07:41.but for the children in this programme, reunification with

:07:42. > :07:47.parents or primary caregivers is simply not possible. These children

:07:48. > :07:54.have been registered by the UN refugee agency as unaccompanied and

:07:55. > :07:57.have no nonfamily. From talking to civil society groups, I know there

:07:58. > :08:03.are enough families willing to foster unaccompanied children.

:08:04. > :08:12.10,000 prospective adoptive families have been registered with one group.

:08:13. > :08:16.If the Government gives requisite training, the UK will be equipped to

:08:17. > :08:21.support these children. They deserve our support and help and any

:08:22. > :08:26.suggestion that they don't is nothing to do with their safety but

:08:27. > :08:32.the inability of our governments to act upon the values they claim to

:08:33. > :08:40.uphold, including helping seekers of factory -- sanctuary. It is time for

:08:41. > :08:48.the UK to be a leader. Instead of waiting for something high profile

:08:49. > :08:52.to happen and doing the minimum. Acknowledge the desperate need of

:08:53. > :08:57.these children and do something about it. The UK could make a

:08:58. > :09:02.significant difference by working with UN agencies and civil society

:09:03. > :09:06.to put in place a relocation scheme for unaccompanied children in Europe

:09:07. > :09:17.under specific criteria and safeguards, making relocation one of

:09:18. > :09:20.the best solutions. Other EU countries would follow and many

:09:21. > :09:27.thousands of children would reach safety and security they deserve.

:09:28. > :09:31.Given the opportunity, British people have shown throughout history

:09:32. > :09:37.our generosity of spirit, especially in response to refugees. There is no

:09:38. > :09:43.question this generosity and spirit still exists in our country today.

:09:44. > :09:48.It just needs the Government to do the right thing and facilitate it

:09:49. > :09:53.for the 21st-century. The question is that the honourable member have

:09:54. > :09:59.leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye".

:10:00. > :10:13.To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. Who will prepare the bill? Nick

:10:14. > :10:19.Clegg, Yvette Cooper, Stephen Geffen 's, Margaret Ritchie, Caroline

:10:20. > :10:28.Lucas, Liz Savill Jones and myself will.

:10:29. > :10:56.Asylum, unaccompanied children displaced by conflict to build.

:10:57. > :11:06.Second reading what they? 11th of March. Thank you. Programme motion

:11:07. > :11:10.to be moved formally. The -- As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye".

:11:11. > :11:21.To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. Order. European Union referendum

:11:22. > :11:28.Bill, consideration of Lords amendments. I must draw attention to

:11:29. > :11:34.the fact that Lords amendment one engages financial privilege. The

:11:35. > :11:39.first Amendment to be taken is Lords amendment number one to move to

:11:40. > :11:40.disagree with the Lords in their amendment number one. I call the

:11:41. > :11:55.Minister. Mr John Penrose. I beg to move that this house

:11:56. > :11:59.disagrees with the amendment. I shall start by paying tribute to the

:12:00. > :12:03.Lords for their diligent and considered approach to this Bill.

:12:04. > :12:11.For the most part, the scrutiny has been fruitful. However, on just one

:12:12. > :12:14.issue the Lords had taken a decision which fundamentally differs from the

:12:15. > :12:22.view of the Government and indeed this house. Lowering the voting age

:12:23. > :12:29.to 16, this topic has been debated upon twice, and this house has

:12:30. > :12:36.rejected a lower voting age and yesterday with a healthy majority.

:12:37. > :12:43.This houses had this debate many times. I shall endeavour to be

:12:44. > :12:51.brief. In short, the Government does not support lowering the voting

:12:52. > :12:55.age, and in any case this is not the appropriate way to do so. The voting

:12:56. > :13:00.age is 18 as it is in most currencies in Europe and across the

:13:01. > :13:04.world. I give way. The Scottish Parliament has lowered

:13:05. > :13:15.the voting age, so how do I justify to one of my constituencies that has

:13:16. > :13:19.turned 16 how is she can vote in many elections but not this

:13:20. > :13:21.referendum? The franchise for a Scottish

:13:22. > :13:26.parliamentary elections is rightly devolved. This is a decision which

:13:27. > :13:32.is to be taken in this place and across the UK as a whole, it is a

:13:33. > :13:37.reserved topic. Therefore, while it isn't only open for the Holyrood

:13:38. > :13:41.parliament to take decisions for its franchise, and we honour their

:13:42. > :13:44.ability to do so, it is an inevitable result of devilish and

:13:45. > :13:52.that we will get different views in different parts of the country --

:13:53. > :13:57.result of devilish and -- devolution. Very briefly, then I

:13:58. > :14:08.shall try and make some progress. Notwithstanding the answer he has

:14:09. > :14:12.just given, will he not reflect the participation of 16-year-olds in the

:14:13. > :14:20.Scottish Referendum shows their responsibility. Should they not

:14:21. > :14:24.support the coming EU referendum as well?

:14:25. > :14:29.That is a justifiable point, and it is noticeable that the Scottish

:14:30. > :14:35.Referendum resulted in an quelling of democratic engagement, not just

:14:36. > :14:39.amongst 16 and 17-year-olds -- uprising of democratic engagement. I

:14:40. > :14:48.do not think that is the only test we should apply, but it does away on

:14:49. > :14:54.the mind. -- way on the mind. But I do not think it is enough. Let me

:14:55. > :15:05.make some progress and perhaps I can expend that point at that little

:15:06. > :15:11.more. We have no clear point at which a person becomes an adult, but

:15:12. > :15:16.it is that a team where society usually draws the line. I will try

:15:17. > :15:22.and make some progress and come back to the gentleman in a moment. At a

:15:23. > :15:28.team that a person cannot do. They must wait to 21 to adopt a child or

:15:29. > :15:34.drive a bus. In general this is not perfect. More things require

:15:35. > :15:40.parental consent for a things under 18. Joining the Army or having a

:15:41. > :15:47.drink in the pub need parental approval for those under 18. And

:15:48. > :15:54.others that require a considered view, such as serving on a jury or

:15:55. > :16:01.buying a house all happen at 18. The last Labour Government raise the age

:16:02. > :16:08.for using a sunbed from 16 to 18. It cannot be right to argue that

:16:09. > :16:13.someone aged 16 it cannot be trusted to decide on the risks of having a

:16:14. > :16:19.tan but can decide on who runs the country. I give way.

:16:20. > :16:25.There is no defined age at which it would be reasonable to vote. But my

:16:26. > :16:29.honourable friend made the point that they were given the opportunity

:16:30. > :16:34.to vote and will have the opportunity in the future. How does

:16:35. > :16:40.the Minister explain to them that there it is legitimate for them to

:16:41. > :16:44.vote on Scottish garments, local government and referendum, but not

:16:45. > :16:50.this referendum? -- Scottish Government.

:16:51. > :16:57.My reaction is that speaking to that hypothetical voter in Scotland, is

:16:58. > :17:01.that the Holyrood parliament is entitled to take its decisions on

:17:02. > :17:09.the bold matters. This is a doubled matter, the Holyrood franchise. But

:17:10. > :17:15.also the referendum franchise is something for the entire country to

:17:16. > :17:22.decide. I will have to make some progress but I have to give way.

:17:23. > :17:26.But does he not accept that this European union referendum is a once

:17:27. > :17:33.in a generation opportunity? For young people, this will directly

:17:34. > :17:39.impact on their rights as European union citizens to live, work and

:17:40. > :17:43.study in other EU member states? He is absolutely right, this will

:17:44. > :17:50.affect all of us. I am afraid the argument here is advancing would

:17:51. > :17:56.apply as equally well to 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, and 65

:17:57. > :18:02.olds. He is correct, that is not necessarily a compelling argument. I

:18:03. > :18:14.give way once again. Can I caution the Minister against

:18:15. > :18:22.invoking the instinct of the previous Government on sunbeds to

:18:23. > :18:27.deny 16-year-olds the vote. The heart of what it means to be

:18:28. > :18:35.represented in this place is that at 16 you pay your taxes.

:18:36. > :18:40.That is an idea which has a long, distinguished history. I believe

:18:41. > :18:43.people throwing tea in the harbour in Boston would support that.

:18:44. > :18:48.However it is an argument which has grown weaker overtime for a number

:18:49. > :18:53.of reasons. Firstly, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds which now pay

:18:54. > :18:58.income tax, one at zero, is a great deal fewer than it used to be.

:18:59. > :19:02.Partly because this Government and the last one raised the threshold

:19:03. > :19:11.for income tax and the school leaving and training age. But also

:19:12. > :19:19.because and now many indirect taxes, and therefore any six old who buys

:19:20. > :19:27.whatever it may be pays the 18. That rather weakens the arguments, one I

:19:28. > :19:33.rather clung to myself. -- pays the VAT.

:19:34. > :19:37.Even if we were convinced that lowering the voting age was the

:19:38. > :19:42.right thing to do, this Bill would not be the place to do it. For two

:19:43. > :19:46.reasons, firstly, changing the voting age is not something which

:19:47. > :19:50.should be applied to a single vote, or, perhaps especially, if it is as

:19:51. > :19:56.important as this referendum. It is something that should be considered

:19:57. > :20:01.for all elections collectively. Not piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis.

:20:02. > :20:04.Equally, given the understandable sensitivities surrounding the EU

:20:05. > :20:08.referendum, making such a fundamental change to the franchise

:20:09. > :20:13.for this vote alone, but not for others, which inevitably and perhaps

:20:14. > :20:18.unjustifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in

:20:19. > :20:25.favour of either of the Remain or League campaigns. That is why we

:20:26. > :20:28.have chosen to remain with the tried and tested election franchise. If it

:20:29. > :20:31.is good enough reducing the Government of this country, then it

:20:32. > :20:35.is surely good enough for the referendum too. And we should not

:20:36. > :20:39.jiggle around with it for a 1 off tactical advantage either way. Once

:20:40. > :20:44.more. I am grateful. On that point, Nolan

:20:45. > :20:48.has made any such complaints about the result of the Scottish

:20:49. > :20:53.Referendum. I do not understand why he feels if it was done in this case

:20:54. > :20:57.that argument would be made here? I'm sure there are people in his own

:20:58. > :21:06.hearty that are concerned and maybe on one side of this issue. -- own

:21:07. > :21:14.party. Equally it is the same for my party. There are voices that need to

:21:15. > :21:18.be understood. This needs to be seen as a studiously fair election, one

:21:19. > :21:24.which will therefore settle the issue for a very long time to come.

:21:25. > :21:28.It is also worth pointing out that young people themselves, the very

:21:29. > :21:33.people we are debating in franchising here today, I'm not sure

:21:34. > :21:40.it would be a good idea. Well there I received -- while there are a

:21:41. > :21:46.reasonable majority of 16-year-olds, many do not support it overall. What

:21:47. > :21:51.that says about 18-year-olds, opinions of their younger selves two

:21:52. > :21:55.years earlier I will leave you to conclude. The results of a solid

:21:56. > :22:03.majority against the change amongst all other adults over 18 as well. I

:22:04. > :22:07.give way once more. I thank the most forgiving way when

:22:08. > :22:16.he said he couldn't. But does the Minister agree that in the run-up to

:22:17. > :22:21.the Scottish Referendum, those who were opposed to extending the

:22:22. > :22:27.franchise, after the referendum, unanimously agree very nearly that

:22:28. > :22:33.it was the correct thing to do? I hope I can come on to that point

:22:34. > :22:37.in the next part of my remarks. He is correct, there is a solid

:22:38. > :22:42.majority, across the country, against this change, across all

:22:43. > :22:48.adults as well as an 18-year-old and her lesser extent 17-year-olds. What

:22:49. > :22:52.it shows that this is not some greater progress of cores were

:22:53. > :22:59.unimpressed minority is awaiting to be liberated by public support. --

:23:00. > :23:08.oppressed minority. This will not seem like a national issue, but a

:23:09. > :23:14.Westminster bubble issue. Not a widespread issue with widespread

:23:15. > :23:18.Democratic support. There may be suspicion that some are supporting

:23:19. > :23:23.this motion because they may gain some tawdry, tactical, party

:23:24. > :23:28.political advantage from one side or the other. None of these reasons

:23:29. > :23:35.will strengthen or help us as we consider an issue which will affect

:23:36. > :23:40.our participation in the EU. Finally, I wish to touch on the

:23:41. > :23:47.financial implications. You have certified that this touches on

:23:48. > :23:51.financial privilege because extending the franchise will cost

:23:52. > :23:55.extra. Madam Speaker, the cost is far from the only reason why the

:23:56. > :24:01.Government disagrees with this amendment, but for procedural

:24:02. > :24:06.reasons the house is not able to... To be clear, the Government

:24:07. > :24:08.disagrees with the moment of principled as well as financial

:24:09. > :24:13.grounds. I give way once more.

:24:14. > :24:21.I'm grateful to the Minister. This is probably the most novel aspect of

:24:22. > :24:26.our debate today. It is for the Speaker to certify whether financial

:24:27. > :24:30.privilege is invoked or not, but it is in fact for the Government to

:24:31. > :24:33.decide whether they are to take advantage of that. The Government

:24:34. > :24:37.did not take advantage of that in relation to the 2014 Wales Bill for

:24:38. > :24:44.exactly the same issue. What is different now?

:24:45. > :24:47.I think I have addressed that point, which is that we cannot waive

:24:48. > :24:52.privilege and disagree with the amendment for other reasons.

:24:53. > :24:55.Therefore, we need to engage financial privilege, but I am also

:24:56. > :25:02.taking the advantage of this speech, I hope, to make sure those other

:25:03. > :25:08.issues are given an airing as well. I add, there is nothing new in this,

:25:09. > :25:12.there is a long established precedent in this house. I shall

:25:13. > :25:19.leave it to the procedural experts to lecturers on the historical

:25:20. > :25:24.antecedents of financial privilege. Matters weaker, I have not sought to

:25:25. > :25:29.rebut every arguments, it has been debated many times in this chamber

:25:30. > :25:32.already. I hope I have tried to give everyone a taste of most of the

:25:33. > :25:39.issues and to state the Government's permit system at least. -- position

:25:40. > :25:47.at least. I ask you to review that position once more.

:25:48. > :25:54.I rise to oppose the Government proposal to reject amendment one

:25:55. > :25:59.from the other place and to support the amendment passed by their

:26:00. > :26:06.Lordships which extends the franchise to the EU referendum to 16

:26:07. > :26:10.and 17-year-olds. There is a more general debate about franchise

:26:11. > :26:13.extension but today I would like to concentrate on the case for

:26:14. > :26:22.extending the franchise to younger voters for this particular

:26:23. > :26:25.referendum. Constitutional referenda are not like general elections which

:26:26. > :26:32.come about every five years, or indeed local elections which are

:26:33. > :26:37.every year. It is 40 years since this issue was voted on in this

:26:38. > :26:43.country. Major constitutional referenda are a once in a generation

:26:44. > :26:51.choice, perhaps a once in a lifetime choice, about the country's future

:26:52. > :26:57.direction. Our contention is very simple, that the young people of

:26:58. > :27:01.this country deserve a say in the decision which will chart the future

:27:02. > :27:08.of the country. There are two points to be made. The argument for the

:27:09. > :27:17.young people to have a vote and the practicalities of that decision. Why

:27:18. > :27:27.did his party not choose to make the amendment before the Lordships chose

:27:28. > :27:31.to impose it? Her memory fills her on this occasion. We moved the

:27:32. > :27:37.amendment at committee and report stage. Every British citizen by

:27:38. > :27:44.virtue of their passport that they hold has the right, as my honourable

:27:45. > :27:52.friend said, to live, work and study anywhere in the EU. It is a right

:27:53. > :27:56.that has opened up opportunities for millions and it is used by many

:27:57. > :28:01.British people who live and work elsewhere in the EU. Those are

:28:02. > :28:07.driving the argument that the UK should leave the EU have at the

:28:08. > :28:10.heart of their proposal the idea that the agreement of people it

:28:11. > :28:16.should be stopped and withdrawn. Whatever they are for, and it is

:28:17. > :28:20.often not easy to figure out, they're certainly against that. But

:28:21. > :28:27.if we withdraw then reciprocal action will be taken against British

:28:28. > :28:33.citizens. The rights of our young people are on the ballot paper, the

:28:34. > :28:41.opportunities are on the ballot paper, and of the future of our

:28:42. > :28:50.young people is on the ballot paper. In my constituency of Swansea West,

:28:51. > :28:55.people of that age 15, 16 and 17 tell me they will be voting in the

:28:56. > :29:04.next general election and it is important to them to vote in this

:29:05. > :29:13.referendum. People are saying they will vote against their MP if they

:29:14. > :29:23.do not vote for them to have a vote. I am positive about this. It is not

:29:24. > :29:27.just about legal rights. This referendum will affect future trade

:29:28. > :29:32.patterns, investment, university funding, farmers, regional

:29:33. > :29:40.spending, many areas of national life. It will say is huge amount

:29:41. > :29:46.about how we view ourselves and held the rest of the world views as. It

:29:47. > :29:52.is about the future of the UK, and we believe that people aged 16 and

:29:53. > :30:00.17 at the time of voting should have their say. There is the question of

:30:01. > :30:06.practicalities. We know from the experience of the Scottish

:30:07. > :30:12.referendum last year that 16 and 17-year-olds can successfully take

:30:13. > :30:16.part in a national vote. Young people engaged in discussion, debate

:30:17. > :30:21.and exercised their democratic choice in the same way as anyone

:30:22. > :30:27.else. Arguments about the capacity to understand or engage were proven

:30:28. > :30:34.not to be the case. The post-referendum report by the

:30:35. > :30:45.electoral commission said 109,593 16 and 17-year-olds were included and

:30:46. > :30:55.75% of those we spoke to claim to have voted. 97% of those who

:30:56. > :31:08.reported voting said they would vote again in future. We know young

:31:09. > :31:12.people can take part and will. The issue is whether the Government

:31:13. > :31:17.gives them this chance. This should not be a partisan choice. There is

:31:18. > :31:24.nothing intrinsically conservative or Labour or Nationalist about

:31:25. > :31:29.extending the franchise. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives has

:31:30. > :31:35.described herself as a paid-up member of the votes at 16 club. Some

:31:36. > :31:40.members opposite supported this proposal when we debated it at

:31:41. > :31:46.committee and report stage and yet it is ministers who are standing in

:31:47. > :31:51.the way. The Government said extending the franchise in this way

:31:52. > :31:55.will cost ?6 million and that has been enough to define the proposal

:31:56. > :32:05.as engaging the financial privileges of this House. But ministers could

:32:06. > :32:10.ask this House to waive the privileges and accept our amendment.

:32:11. > :32:15.It has happened many times in the past when the Government has

:32:16. > :32:19.supported amendments, and it is what could happen here and we would

:32:20. > :32:26.support it. In the end, this is not an issue of the puzzle being an

:32:27. > :32:31.affordable but one of the Government not wanting to do it. According to

:32:32. > :32:42.the Autumn Statement, total public spending in the next financial year

:32:43. > :32:55.is estimated to be 773 billion pounds. The Government wants to deny

:32:56. > :33:01.people a vote for the sake of six of them. It is a once in a generation

:33:02. > :33:06.choice. Let us be clear what this is about. Let us not make a

:33:07. > :33:12.constitutional crisis over a small amount of money or use an argument

:33:13. > :33:18.about what is a straightforward policy choice in the Government's

:33:19. > :33:25.wider campaign to neuter the House of Lords. Do we believe 16 and

:33:26. > :33:31.17-year-olds should have the vote in this referendum or not? Do we

:33:32. > :33:35.believe they have a right to have a say in the future direction of the

:33:36. > :33:48.country? We do and that is why we support the amendment added by their

:33:49. > :33:52.Lordships and we will support it. I rise to support the Government in

:33:53. > :33:56.this matter. I don't think it is reasonable that their Lordships

:33:57. > :34:00.decides to open the cheque-book of this House for whatever the amount

:34:01. > :34:06.and I am surprised the member seemed to think it was a little amount of

:34:07. > :34:13.money of no consequence. He misses the point. It is important that the

:34:14. > :34:22.will of this House is seen to be done and that is not to extend the

:34:23. > :34:28.franchise and I am listening with interest to the regular

:34:29. > :34:33.contributions from Scottish members that if it is good enough for

:34:34. > :34:42.Scotland why is it not in this situation? I think I would remind

:34:43. > :34:49.the Scottish members they cannot have it of ways. What they choose to

:34:50. > :34:54.do in Scotland and they cannot then use that as a wonderful precedent to

:34:55. > :35:01.insist we operate in the same way. One of the things they have done in

:35:02. > :35:09.Scotland which I disagree with, they have extended that every young

:35:10. > :35:18.person under the age of 18 must have a state Guardian appointed, who will

:35:19. > :35:26.assess a child's well-being using eight key indicators. Let me expand

:35:27. > :35:34.this because the Scottish members of Parliament seem to make their

:35:35. > :35:43.presence felt in this place. On the other hand, I sometimes think they

:35:44. > :35:50.also take up a huge proportion of time on debates which concern the

:35:51. > :35:58.whole house so I will not keep giving way whenever I say the word

:35:59. > :36:04.Scotland. I think I would like to make two points. Firstly it is a

:36:05. > :36:11.point of principle that 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote and

:36:12. > :36:25.when she refers to Scottish members I think she means SNP members. There

:36:26. > :36:33.does seem to be in this place that when Scotland is mentioned, the SNP

:36:34. > :36:40.fuel they must make a point. Things happen in Scotland, brought in by

:36:41. > :36:47.Holyrood which I would not support in this House. I don't expect to

:36:48. > :36:52.argue everything should be transported across-the-board. Their

:36:53. > :36:59.argument that this House should follow their lead in the Scottish

:37:00. > :37:07.referendum is a bogus one. I am grateful. Surely the distinction is

:37:08. > :37:11.this. It was this House that gave the Scottish Parliament the power to

:37:12. > :37:16.extend the franchise in the Scottish independence referendum and we gave

:37:17. > :37:21.them that power knowing exactly how it was going to be used. We may not

:37:22. > :37:29.have made the change ourselves but as Lord Dobbs put it we acquiesced

:37:30. > :37:34.in it. What is the difference now? I think the majority of members in

:37:35. > :37:46.this has to not support extending the franchise. We have a sense that

:37:47. > :37:53.this is what we allow 16, 17, 18-year-olds to do, it is not an

:37:54. > :37:57.obvious logical extension that every young person does something at 16

:37:58. > :38:09.and not something else. We accept there are some as our rules that

:38:10. > :38:14.apply but over voting, many of us believe that for young people it is

:38:15. > :38:21.a step too far to expect we expand the franchise and exempt them from

:38:22. > :38:25.other things. I have not arrowed a member of the SNP are doing for

:38:26. > :38:31.16-year-olds to be members of Parliament. That to me is the

:38:32. > :38:43.logical extension of extending the franchise, having it taken down to

:38:44. > :38:49.16. I don't believe the sixth team -year-old would have the maturity

:38:50. > :38:55.and experience to represent a constituency at 16. When she speaks

:38:56. > :38:59.of logic, which she also comment on the fact that many of the members

:39:00. > :39:06.opposite arguing for this were the same people who increased the age of

:39:07. > :39:12.people who could smoke a few years ago to 18 will stop if they think

:39:13. > :39:19.they cannot make a decision about whether or not to smoke, how can

:39:20. > :39:30.they think they are capable of voting? That was exactly a point I

:39:31. > :39:38.had in some notes. I accept there are anomalies. Many of us do. I do

:39:39. > :39:44.believe, and I heard a member of say this is a once in a generation vote,

:39:45. > :39:55.well I have never voted on at so I accept that. I am looking forward to

:39:56. > :40:02.voting on this. If the logic was to be argued that it is once in a

:40:03. > :40:12.lifetime then surely 15, 14, were does one stop? We have to have an

:40:13. > :40:18.age limit on UK Parliamentary elections, 18, therefore those

:40:19. > :40:26.people below that age will live with the consequences. Would she accept

:40:27. > :40:35.that this is a huge change and therefore should not be made on the

:40:36. > :40:39.basis of one type of voting, like the referendum, but if we are to do

:40:40. > :40:50.this it should be looked at popular, with the anomalies -- looked at

:40:51. > :40:54.properly. It is that we should look at it properly so it is introduced

:40:55. > :41:01.with the general election if that is what Parliament wants. She is right.

:41:02. > :41:07.My friend on the front bench alluded to that. I won't stick include by

:41:08. > :41:10.saying that the SNP may fuel they have it just right in Scotland but

:41:11. > :41:20.that was their privileged to do that. I disagree that an example led

:41:21. > :41:23.by the SNP to say we have to explain to the young people of Scotland why

:41:24. > :41:31.they cannot do this is frankly ridiculous. This House has voted

:41:32. > :41:37.numerous times that we do not want to extend the franchise and the back

:41:38. > :41:43.door method using their Lordships' majority to overrule this is a

:41:44. > :41:52.dangerous precedent, to tack on the fundamental change is not the method

:41:53. > :41:59.to do it. There is a ?6 million bill associated with it and I object to a

:42:00. > :42:02.blank cheque being written but maybe they do not care where the money

:42:03. > :42:11.comes from. Frankly the main principle is for many of us is that

:42:12. > :42:16.extending the franchise is not the way to do it. If we were to do it

:42:17. > :42:24.for this referendum then it would be inevitable we would have to move the

:42:25. > :42:28.age for nationwide UK elections. I would say yet again until we are

:42:29. > :42:33.prepared to consider all the eventualities of that vote,

:42:34. > :42:38.including extending the ability of someone aged 16 to represent a

:42:39. > :42:43.constituency then we are not in a position today to consider all the

:42:44. > :42:51.options to accept this amendment and I hope the House rejects it.

:42:52. > :42:59.Thank you for the opportunity, as a Scottish MP, two discussed giving

:43:00. > :43:06.Scottish teenagers the vote in the European referendum. It seems

:43:07. > :43:15.something of an irony that members of the opposite... We have a simple

:43:16. > :43:19.solution which is to scrap the upper chamber. In this instance, I am glad

:43:20. > :43:25.they have given us the opportunity. I know it when we previously debated

:43:26. > :43:29.this back in June, there were members on both sides of the has

:43:30. > :43:34.said that the time will come, I hope they have taken the summer time to

:43:35. > :43:38.reconsider. Firstly, this is a question of democracy. The minister

:43:39. > :43:42.talked about this being a Westminster bubble issue. I do not

:43:43. > :43:46.see how giving more people the vote, more people the opportunity to

:43:47. > :43:54.participate in the democratic process is a Westminster bubble

:43:55. > :43:58.issue - quite the opposite in fact. Young people will have to live with

:43:59. > :44:03.the decision of the European referendum much longer than the rest

:44:04. > :44:07.of us. 16-year-olds can pay tax and get married, but I will concede that

:44:08. > :44:12.they cannot drive a bus. I will come to the member in just a moment. On a

:44:13. > :44:24.more sobering point, I'll was in at the devolution in 2010 many citizens

:44:25. > :44:31.who lost the lies and Iraq were too young to vote.

:44:32. > :44:32.Will the honourable gentleman assist me in expelling my 15 is not

:44:33. > :44:40.correct? I thank the member.

:44:41. > :44:45.-- explained to me. We believe that 16 is a good age for

:44:46. > :44:52.participation. It is when they pay tax. We think that is a good age to

:44:53. > :44:55.come in and start voting. Participation is a question which

:44:56. > :44:59.should always be high on the agenda of this house. We should always be

:45:00. > :45:03.trying to look at different ways to encourage people to be involved in

:45:04. > :45:07.the democratic process. Evidence suggests that the earlier we involve

:45:08. > :45:15.them, more likely people are to stay involved. If you vote at 16, if you

:45:16. > :45:19.vote early, you vote often. The other side of the house may not like

:45:20. > :45:31.that very much, but we think that is positive. I will come to him in just

:45:32. > :45:37.a moment. We in this house, we have a tale of two legislators. On the

:45:38. > :45:43.18th of June, the very day that this house struck down the amendment to

:45:44. > :45:53.give 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, the Scottish Parliament is dosed at the

:45:54. > :45:56.wiser institution, clearly - took about to extend the franchise to

:45:57. > :46:03.Holyrood elections, and they passed it unanimously. The fact that the

:46:04. > :46:08.leader of the Scottish Conservatives said that she, and I quote, a fully

:46:09. > :46:13.paid-up member of the votes at 16 club now. I welcome that, along with

:46:14. > :46:19.Labour and the Lib Dems which are now for about a 16 as well. In fact,

:46:20. > :46:28.any rarer show of unity, I hope I'm not jinxing this, the past leader of

:46:29. > :46:37.the Labour Party appeared to vote to back votes at 16. I hope I'm not

:46:38. > :46:41.speaking too soon on that one. Is my honourable friend also aware

:46:42. > :46:45.that both the Scottish and UK youth Parliament have endorsed votes at

:46:46. > :46:50.16? My honourable friend makes a good

:46:51. > :46:56.point. Indeed the electoral reform Society said the UK Government

:46:57. > :46:58.should follow holy red's example for the EU referendum and all other

:46:59. > :47:06.elections. Hollywood BUZZER .

:47:07. > :47:12.The gold standard set by the Scottish Referendum is one that we

:47:13. > :47:18.should follow here. It is a shame that we have not follow this

:47:19. > :47:23.example. It it is a shame that those who make such a huge contribution

:47:24. > :47:29.will not be able to vote. But members from across the spectrum

:47:30. > :47:35.were won over by votes for 16. Turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds

:47:36. > :47:43.was 75%. 97% of them saying they would contribute to voting again.

:47:44. > :47:47.The access to more information than any other age group. That makes all

:47:48. > :47:53.of us macro much more accountable. I give way.

:47:54. > :47:57.One wonders what we ever did before the SNP are right with their 56

:47:58. > :48:03.seats in this Parliament. We obviously struggled on manfully. The

:48:04. > :48:07.honourable gentleman will know that when the franchise was made to

:48:08. > :48:14.18-year-olds, since then, very rarely has turnout between 18-

:48:15. > :48:20.24-year-olds gone above 20%. But in the 70s it is in the high 70s. We

:48:21. > :48:23.have never had so much information about policy and politics. Why does

:48:24. > :48:29.he think that across the UK young people are so disengaged?

:48:30. > :48:37.Of course, the honourable member is not the only person so delighted to

:48:38. > :48:41.cease any new SNP members. We have the facts and we have the evidence,

:48:42. > :48:45.the evidence shows that with you involve 16-year-olds they get

:48:46. > :48:48.involved. Making an argument that Westminster elections have not

:48:49. > :48:52.inspired people to get involved in elections in the past, I think is

:48:53. > :48:56.more of a reflection on the Westminster politicians than it is

:48:57. > :49:00.on the general public at large. We have that evidence, they got

:49:01. > :49:04.involved. 16-year-olds campaigning was a good thing, a good thing for

:49:05. > :49:09.those got involved on the No side as wealthy Yes side. I pay tribute to

:49:10. > :49:17.those who got involved on both sides. -- as well as the Yes side.

:49:18. > :49:22.If you give these people the opportunity to get involved they

:49:23. > :49:28.will do so. The European referendum providers a chance to prove that

:49:29. > :49:32.case. I suspect that 16-year-olds will be better informed and get his

:49:33. > :49:36.Government a better hearing on the deal that they negotiate with

:49:37. > :49:43.Brussels than his own backbenchers will. This house has been left

:49:44. > :49:47.behind on votes for 16-year-olds. It is happening in Scotland, the Isle

:49:48. > :49:55.of Man and elsewhere. Let's not be left behind again and back votes

:49:56. > :50:02.were 16-year-olds. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

:50:03. > :50:07.rise to support the Government's position on the Lords amendment

:50:08. > :50:12.number one. A number of arguments deployed to why we should extend the

:50:13. > :50:17.boat to 16 and 17-year-olds for this referendum. I have listened both in

:50:18. > :50:25.this debate so far add other debates - they tend to distil into two broad

:50:26. > :50:31.camps. The first, we have just had an example of that from the

:50:32. > :50:35.honourable member for North East five - that is what they did in

:50:36. > :50:41.Scotland, and therefore what we should do across the UK. -- North

:50:42. > :50:45.East Fife. The other argument is that because it is there a future

:50:46. > :50:53.they should be able to have a say in their future because this is a 1 off

:50:54. > :51:01.election. I lived for a year on Deeside between Ballater and Aboyne,

:51:02. > :51:04.a truly wonderful part of the world. One of the things I discovered

:51:05. > :51:08.living up there is that there are a lots of things that they do in

:51:09. > :51:22.Scotland different to we do in England and Wales. And actually, any

:51:23. > :51:31.life like France. We do not want to create, generate a across the whole

:51:32. > :51:39.of the UK. With a member give quiz work in a moment.

:51:40. > :51:42.I expect one of the reasons why the members of the SNP are so passionate

:51:43. > :51:45.about independence is that they wanted to do things differently from

:51:46. > :51:51.England and Wales. Therefore I find it slightly strange that, in their

:51:52. > :51:54.collective desire to be independent and deference, what they are

:51:55. > :52:02.suggesting is what we should all be saying. I give way.

:52:03. > :52:06.Wasn't the point of the SNP's Speaker there was that when you give

:52:07. > :52:12.16-year-olds the right to vote they become more valued, more engaged,

:52:13. > :52:16.participation increases. They become part of the fabric of democratic

:52:17. > :52:22.society and Dr responsibilities and enrich our whole community. We

:52:23. > :52:27.should go ahead? Part of my speech addresses this

:52:28. > :52:31.very point he made. I'm not going to try and concertina my speech in

:52:32. > :52:35.response to that question, but I will come to that. If you feel is

:52:36. > :52:41.I've not given a satisfactory response, I invite him to intervene

:52:42. > :52:49.later on. I come back to the point about that is what happens in

:52:50. > :52:54.Scotland. There is a long-standing differential between things which

:52:55. > :53:00.16-year-olds can do in Scotland and those in the United Kingdom at

:53:01. > :53:10.large. Great Britain is famous because it is the first place that

:53:11. > :53:16.runaway lovers can yet to and take a voltage attitudes to the age of

:53:17. > :53:19.marriage. -- Gretna Green is famous. Seeing because it happens in

:53:20. > :53:29.Scotland it must therefore happen in the rest of the UK is I think a

:53:30. > :53:36.hollow argument. I would also advise the honourable members from the

:53:37. > :53:45.Scottish National Party to be a little bit careful what you wish for

:53:46. > :53:54.in this regard. Because, if your position is that any deep power you

:53:55. > :53:58.exercised must then, by extension, be absorbed by the rest of the

:53:59. > :54:10.United Kingdom, I believe it is going to create a lot of friction

:54:11. > :54:14.and disharmony. -- devolves power. People in the rest of the United

:54:15. > :54:22.Kingdom will feel aggrieved that there is an automatic assumption

:54:23. > :54:30.that the bold decisions made in Scotland will occur across the

:54:31. > :54:35.latest kingdom I think the honourable member misses the point.

:54:36. > :54:41.My colleague from North East Fife talks about the engagement of 15 and

:54:42. > :54:47.16-year-olds. What we have found in Scotland, and the evidence bags it

:54:48. > :54:53.up, we have found that by giving the franchise to 16 to 17-year-olds they

:54:54. > :54:58.have remained engaged in the political process be on the age of

:54:59. > :55:01.16. While the UK may have had low numbers in the Westminster

:55:02. > :55:09.elections, we have much higher, above 70%, in Scotland.

:55:10. > :55:12.I issue the honourable lady misunderstood the type of engagement

:55:13. > :55:20.I meant when I spoke about Gretna Green, but I will come onto that.

:55:21. > :55:30.The member for Vauxhall makes a very important point about the natural

:55:31. > :55:39.implication of extending the voting rights in the European referendum to

:55:40. > :55:44.other collections. I was, in a previous life, the youth ambassador

:55:45. > :55:49.to the Mayor of London. I spent a huge amount of time dealing with

:55:50. > :55:55.young people across London. I know there are many where you informed,

:55:56. > :56:03.engaged, articulate, thoughtful people who are aged 16 and 17. There

:56:04. > :56:08.are also some very well-informed, article, engaged 15-year-olds.

:56:09. > :56:14.Rightly, there are some 40-year-olds who I would not trust to tie their

:56:15. > :56:21.own shoelaces. So we recognise that there is a degree of arbitrary

:56:22. > :56:30.distinction when we bring about a voting age. But there must be a line

:56:31. > :56:38.in the sand. A number of people asked if 16, why not 15? If 15, why

:56:39. > :56:43.not 14? My two boys are the sons of a politician, we speak about

:56:44. > :56:49.politics at home, they listen to the nose, -- they listen to the news,

:56:50. > :56:52.and I would suggest they are better informed about UK and global

:56:53. > :56:58.politics then many people twice or thrice their age, so why not give

:56:59. > :57:03.them the vote? It comes onto the second argument, that it is their

:57:04. > :57:06.future. This referendum is their future, just as much it is the

:57:07. > :57:24.future for a 16 or 17-year-old. He may be surprised to know that I

:57:25. > :57:27.do not support votes at 16. What worried me was increasing pressure

:57:28. > :57:35.on childhood in our country. What worries me about this is that an

:57:36. > :57:39.adult will be an adult at 16 stop them petition is that have never

:57:40. > :57:49.been seriously looked at by my party or investigated. This opposition,

:57:50. > :57:54.the SNP as well, having never done a proper evaluation on the impact on

:57:55. > :58:04.children and the protection of children, which should be a top

:58:05. > :58:11.priority. That leads me to my closing remarks. For those people

:58:12. > :58:18.who say this is a one-off and will not be extensions, we have just

:58:19. > :58:24.heard members of the SNP saying they gave votes to 16-year-olds in the

:58:25. > :58:30.referendum and then at Holyrood elections and they are suggesting

:58:31. > :58:35.this is a natural evolution of the Democratic process. They are making

:58:36. > :58:44.the point that you warn against, that this will unlock the floodgates

:58:45. > :58:51.for the change of the mandate to 16 at many other elections and at a

:58:52. > :58:56.time when 16 and 17-year-olds are mandated to remain in education. We

:58:57. > :59:04.have made an explicit comment that we do not fuel they are fully formed

:59:05. > :59:18.because -- feel they are fully formed because if not we would not

:59:19. > :59:22.suggest they have to stay in education, so it is a ridiculous

:59:23. > :59:28.notion that in a one-hour debate tagged onto the European Union

:59:29. > :59:36.Referendum Bill that we should change the mandate. I recommend all

:59:37. > :59:43.members to support the Government's position. As members can see there

:59:44. > :59:59.are a few people who wish to speak. The debate must finish at 145 PM.

:00:00. > :00:05.Our young people are no longer children and they resent being

:00:06. > :00:07.treated as such. Our view is that if we entrust them with the

:00:08. > :00:16.responsibility they will act responsibly. These are not my words

:00:17. > :00:25.but the words of a late Lord during the debate which led to reducing the

:00:26. > :00:31.voting age from 21 to 18. The world has changed since then and so must

:00:32. > :00:37.we. It is about franchising young people in one of the biggest

:00:38. > :00:42.decisions to affect their lives. One of my first acts as an MP was to try

:00:43. > :00:48.to introduce a Private Members' Bill on this issue to give 16 and

:00:49. > :00:55.17-year-olds the vote whilst increasing political education. That

:00:56. > :01:00.bill is unlikely to be debated and voted on. I sincerely hope the

:01:01. > :01:04.Government will see sense today and support the amendment in front of

:01:05. > :01:12.us. I have spoken with many opposite who have agreed with me on this. The

:01:13. > :01:17.European question is quite simply one of the biggest decisions we can

:01:18. > :01:29.make. Do we want to live in a country with strong link is to our

:01:30. > :01:34.nature is where we can engage with various topics are to be wants to be

:01:35. > :01:38.cut off from the world becoming a smaller influence on the world

:01:39. > :01:45.stage? These arguments are for another day. Whatever the result,

:01:46. > :01:50.one thing can be sure to stop it will have a long-lasting impact on

:01:51. > :01:58.this country. The inn/out campaigns have been launched and people have

:01:59. > :02:04.started to talk about it but there is one group talking about it but

:02:05. > :02:08.who are being silenced and it is that group we are here to talk about

:02:09. > :02:16.today. The Prime Minister is spending close to ?1 billion

:02:17. > :02:23.empowering young people aged 16 and 17 through national citizen service.

:02:24. > :02:28.I took part over the summer judging community projects young people had

:02:29. > :02:33.designed themselves. National citizen service teachers young

:02:34. > :02:37.people about community engagement and encourages them to play the role

:02:38. > :02:43.of an active citizen in their community. Can the Prime Minister 's

:02:44. > :02:53.not see how ridiculous it is to refuse 16 and 17-year-olds at the

:02:54. > :03:00.ballot box? ? The case has been made as to why 16 and 17-year-olds should

:03:01. > :03:05.be given the vote. They can consent to medical treatment, sexual

:03:06. > :03:10.relationships, get married, join the armed forces, change their name,

:03:11. > :03:17.receive tax credits, welfare benefits, join a trade union, or a

:03:18. > :03:23.cooperative society. They can even do what many young entrepreneurs

:03:24. > :03:30.do, become the director of a company. 16 new rules in work or

:03:31. > :03:36.even required to pay income tax and national insurance. As Mike

:03:37. > :03:41.colleague pointed out in a Westminster debate last year, there

:03:42. > :03:46.is something fundamentally wrong with taxation without

:03:47. > :03:52.representation. It was the very cause of the American revolution.

:03:53. > :04:01.How long before it young people rise up? The last thing we need is more

:04:02. > :04:05.young people becoming militant. Many of my colleagues called for more

:04:06. > :04:11.momentum on this issue. These are people with voices and opinions they

:04:12. > :04:17.want to be heard. Yesterday I spoke to a year 12 political class at a

:04:18. > :04:22.college in my constituency. I asked them if they had anything they would

:04:23. > :04:25.like me to contribute to this debate. They were amazing,

:04:26. > :04:36.articulate and inspired young people. One of the things they asked

:04:37. > :04:40.was about my view on the House of Lords being abolished and if they

:04:41. > :04:44.had asked me a few months ago I might have had a different answer.

:04:45. > :04:53.It is because of the work of the other place that we are here today.

:04:54. > :05:02.I ask them to tell me about votes at 16. One young lad told me he felt

:05:03. > :05:08.unrepresented. He said there were millions of young people who have no

:05:09. > :05:16.say. He said voter turnout for 18-24 -year-olds is just about 40% and we

:05:17. > :05:20.needed the voices of 16 and 17-year-olds to be added to make

:05:21. > :05:28.sure young people are represented. I checked the statistics and he was

:05:29. > :05:35.bang on. If the Scottish referendum is anything to go by, we could see

:05:36. > :05:45.75% of all 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the EU referendum. He said you

:05:46. > :05:50.could count on one hand the number of MPs who had been in full-time

:05:51. > :05:54.education in the last decade so he said he couldn't understand what it

:05:55. > :06:03.was like from a learner's point of view. Fabian pointed out that you

:06:04. > :06:14.can only understand about Jewish and fees if you turned 18 at the right

:06:15. > :06:20.time. Lizzie said he wanted to march for church and fees but told he

:06:21. > :06:29.could not. He felt the direct action was his only choice. I will move on

:06:30. > :06:44.to one point and some up. Owen said for words to me. It just makes

:06:45. > :06:48.sense. And it does. I would like to speak briefly in support of the

:06:49. > :06:54.Government. It is not unusual to be patronised by the SNP. I noticed the

:06:55. > :07:01.member for garden is not in his place. I heard a rumour he was

:07:02. > :07:07.unveiling a statue of himself made out of chocolate so he could admire

:07:08. > :07:13.it and then eat it. The reason I am opposing this is not actually

:07:14. > :07:19.because I am against the substance of the debate. I am a floating

:07:20. > :07:23.voter. I began to look at the experience of younger people over

:07:24. > :07:29.the last year. We need a proper debate, a proper legislative

:07:30. > :07:37.framework to debate this issue, rather than tacked on to an EU

:07:38. > :07:41.referendum. I support lowering the age in principle but it seems that

:07:42. > :07:48.if you look at the bill the principal offer is if we want to

:07:49. > :07:56.make major changes we go to the public. We should have a national

:07:57. > :08:02.consultation about this as well. We have a gold standard template which

:08:03. > :08:18.we measure and that is the franchise. We have made changes in

:08:19. > :08:24.1969, 19 24. We accept all of that. Let's have a public debate, not just

:08:25. > :08:27.through the prism of the Scottish referendum and across all of the

:08:28. > :08:33.country where we can have differing views. The honourable lady carboxyl

:08:34. > :08:51.put her finger on the issue. It must not be tacked on. It must be

:08:52. > :09:01.decided... I find it inconceivable that the turnout would rise from 40%

:09:02. > :09:10.to 75% because you include 16 and 17 year -year-olds. That doesn't add

:09:11. > :09:17.up. This is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated unelected

:09:18. > :09:21.House of Lords have told us what the elected house should be doing when

:09:22. > :09:26.we have a settled view on it. They should learn their place and they

:09:27. > :09:33.must be subservient to the elected house and it is high time we had

:09:34. > :09:37.House of Lords reform. After my experience in the last Parliament,

:09:38. > :09:43.the irony of the hearing Conservative members arguing for

:09:44. > :09:51.reform of the House of Lords is never lost. There is a fundamental

:09:52. > :09:56.inconsistency in the position of the Government. In the last Parliament

:09:57. > :09:59.the Prime Minister gave the power to the Scottish Parliament to extend

:10:00. > :10:07.the franchise for the independence referendum. We knew what they were

:10:08. > :10:11.going to do with it. As the noble Lord in the other place put it, he

:10:12. > :10:18.acquiesced. And for a number of reasons. It was the most important

:10:19. > :10:23.vote we would face and because it was once in a generation. That is

:10:24. > :10:30.exactly the situation facing the House today. On the question of

:10:31. > :10:35.financial privilege, I have to say it appears to me that the Government

:10:36. > :10:42.having lost the argument now wants to play the trumpet card to thwart a

:10:43. > :10:47.very laudable aim. The honourable lady from St Albans said we were

:10:48. > :10:53.opposing the use of financial privilege because we do not care

:10:54. > :10:58.about where the money comes from. We do care. We care about the fact it

:10:59. > :11:07.is paid by, amongst others, 16 and 17-year-old taxpayers. They pay it

:11:08. > :11:13.so are entitled to have their say. 20 seconds remaining. I wish to

:11:14. > :11:20.argue and I will not take interventions. This makes absolute

:11:21. > :11:24.sense, we need to trust our young people and empower them. Let us give

:11:25. > :11:37.them this vote and chance. Question is that this house

:11:38. > :11:40.disagrees with the House of Lords in their amendment number one. As many

:11:41. > :11:44.as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Decision, clear

:11:45. > :12:48.the lobby. The question is that this house

:12:49. > :12:52.disagrees with the Lords amendment number one. As many as are of the

:12:53. > :19:43.opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". .

:19:44. > :23:36.Order, order. The ayes to the right, 303. The noes

:23:37. > :23:44.to the left, 253. The ayes to the right 303. The noes

:23:45. > :23:52.to the latter 253. The ayes habits, the ayes habit. Armlock.

:23:53. > :23:57.The next amendment to be undertaken is Lords amendment number five, and

:23:58. > :24:01.which we shall consider all the remaining Lords amendments and the

:24:02. > :24:09.selected amendments to them as on the paper. To move amendment a 2

:24:10. > :24:16.Lords amendment number five, I call Sir William Cash.

:24:17. > :24:23.Thank you Mr Speaker. The reason I tabled this amendment is because, in

:24:24. > :24:26.the House of Lords, not in the House of Commons, but in the House of

:24:27. > :24:31.Lords, amendments were removed and accepted by the Government

:24:32. > :24:35.respecting the question of publishing information, both on the

:24:36. > :24:42.outcome of negotiations between the member states and secondly in the

:24:43. > :24:47.other amendments, amendment number five, but in amendment number six

:24:48. > :24:51.due to publish information about membership of the European Union.

:24:52. > :24:57.That may sound all well and good, but if I may say, the problem is

:24:58. > :25:01.that this contains a whole raft of question marks which I wish to raise

:25:02. > :25:10.today. Not least of which is the fact that, and I will give a brief

:25:11. > :25:13.outline of amendment five, on the outcome of negotiations, the

:25:14. > :25:20.secretary of state will be under an obligation to publish a report -

:25:21. > :25:24.which also is loaded with other material - we do not know what that

:25:25. > :25:29.other material will involve. Setting out a statement as to what has been

:25:30. > :25:39.agreed by member states following negotiations. We have just seen the

:25:40. > :25:43.letter from Mr Task on the current assessment of EU negotiations, and I

:25:44. > :25:49.do not think it makes pretty reading for the Government by any means. I

:25:50. > :25:54.go further and say it also goes - and this I found quite astonishing -

:25:55. > :25:58.the object of the letter apparently was to satisfy and to provide a

:25:59. > :26:03.solution for the Prime Minister. I thought the real objective here was

:26:04. > :26:08.to satisfy the United Kingdom, particularly its voters. That is

:26:09. > :26:12.after all what this referendum is all about. It is not about what the

:26:13. > :26:18.Government thinks. Parliament is handing over this entire exercise to

:26:19. > :26:23.the voter, which is the proper way in which the matter should be dealt

:26:24. > :26:30.with, and indeed, for which I have campaigned for nearly 25 years. In

:26:31. > :26:38.addition to that, there is also in that report the proposal, in fact,

:26:39. > :26:44.the duty, to publish the opinion of the Government of the UK on what has

:26:45. > :26:48.been agreed. The opinion of the Government, from all we can gather

:26:49. > :26:52.so far, is going to be that we should remain in. So, not a

:26:53. > :26:58.naturally, those of us who come from a different possession - I say

:26:59. > :27:07.without any lack of candour that I am campaigning to leave the European

:27:08. > :27:11.Union - I need to be complete surely -- completely impartial and fair in

:27:12. > :27:16.that position. I am deeply concerned as to what that material might

:27:17. > :27:22.contain, and what the opinion of the Government, as exposed now report,

:27:23. > :27:28.what might be. The second amendment relates to amendment six. In that

:27:29. > :27:33.case, it refers to the secretary of state being under a legal obligation

:27:34. > :27:41.to publish a report, again with other material, of which we know

:27:42. > :27:45.nothing, relating to information to rights and obligations that arise in

:27:46. > :27:51.European Union law as a result of the UK's member ship of the EU. I

:27:52. > :27:56.must say, as one has been on the committee for 30 years, there has

:27:57. > :28:01.been a vast accumulation of rights and obligations. So much so that I

:28:02. > :28:05.really wonder whether it is conceivable that that information

:28:06. > :28:12.could ever be made available in the concise form that such a report

:28:13. > :28:14.would presuppose. In fact, it is everything which arises under

:28:15. > :28:18.sections two of the European sections two of the European

:28:19. > :28:24.communities act which has a massive effect on our daily lives and those

:28:25. > :28:29.of the voters. And it goes on to say, and samples of countries that

:28:30. > :28:34.do not have membership of the European Union but do have other

:28:35. > :28:39.arrangements with the EU, describing in the case of each country giving

:28:40. > :28:43.an example of those arrangements. This brings into mind the question

:28:44. > :28:46.the Prime Minister raised when he was in discussion with the EU the

:28:47. > :28:51.other day, and a speech he made about Norway. I can confidently tell

:28:52. > :28:55.you that for my part at any rate, and for most of my colleagues I

:28:56. > :29:01.think, the Norway option has never been on the table, because we just

:29:02. > :29:04.don't approve of those arrangements. There are other arrangements,

:29:05. > :29:10.certainly, but I do not intend to go into those today. But I will say,

:29:11. > :29:16.however, is that these matters are obligations on the Government to

:29:17. > :29:20.deliver reports. The innocent is of my amendments and those cases is

:29:21. > :29:27.very simple will stop -- the essence of my amendments. The electoral

:29:28. > :29:31.commission itself has important duties to all matters relating to

:29:32. > :29:36.referendums and elections has already made its views clear in

:29:37. > :29:42.relation to what went on in the House of Lords.

:29:43. > :29:49.We would love to have been able to debate this in the House of Commons

:29:50. > :29:52.properly. We have limited time so I will be brief. The fact is that

:29:53. > :29:59.these massive reports are bound to have a huge effect on public opinion

:30:00. > :30:03.and therefore it's absolutely essential that they are impartial

:30:04. > :30:07.and accurate. And, indeed, the electoral commission stated and

:30:08. > :30:15.repeated to me today in an e-mail they sent me, however, however, they

:30:16. > :30:21.go on to say, any provision legislation for these matters should

:30:22. > :30:25.ensure that voters can have confidence in the accuracy and

:30:26. > :30:29.impartiality of the information. There should also be sufficient

:30:30. > :30:35.balance given to the consequences of both the majority vote to remain a

:30:36. > :30:38.member of the European Union, and the majority vote to leave the

:30:39. > :30:46.European Union. I couldn't agree with that small. It's clear that has

:30:47. > :30:49.to be a balance. The problem is that everything from government in

:30:50. > :30:56.relation to this issue, all this speeches and arguments, are all

:30:57. > :30:59.towards the notion there is bats that a reformed EU would satisfy the

:31:00. > :31:06.requirements of what has been set out. The committee has been looking

:31:07. > :31:12.carefully at expert evidence about the outcome of the negotiations thus

:31:13. > :31:17.far. I don't think that I'm giving anything away if I say that last

:31:18. > :31:20.very big questions about what has been achieved under these

:31:21. > :31:24.renegotiations. There is time to go and I am aware that such a report,

:31:25. > :31:32.as I have mentioned, both reports would have to be published within

:31:33. > :31:37.the period of ten weeks, ending with the date of the referendum. The

:31:38. > :31:41.report must be published before the beginning of the final ten week

:31:42. > :31:46.period. For practical purposes, there will be ten weeks to evaluate

:31:47. > :31:50.all of this, but the report will have enormously persuasive

:31:51. > :31:56.significance. How do you envisage the report is

:31:57. > :32:01.scrutinised and who will sign off the report before it is published?

:32:02. > :32:04.I am quite confident the European scrutiny committee will be looking

:32:05. > :32:11.at this very carefully because one of the things that have come up

:32:12. > :32:18.during the course of the renegotiations is this, that we want

:32:19. > :32:22.to be sure that the Government does not come forward with something as a

:32:23. > :32:28.final offer. I see the Minister for Europe sitting there in his usual

:32:29. > :32:33.place. He knows what I'm saying and you don't want to be balanced by a

:32:34. > :32:36.final offer. We want to be able to assess the negotiations as they

:32:37. > :32:41.progress. That's what were doing and what we will continue to do because

:32:42. > :32:46.that is what our standing orders on behalf of the House of Commons

:32:47. > :32:49.requires. I am grateful to the honourable lady for her

:32:50. > :32:56.intervention, because it's really important that this house is not

:32:57. > :32:59.balanced. On the question, and this is all I really need to say on the

:33:00. > :33:04.amendments themselves, I am conscious of the fact that having

:33:05. > :33:10.spoken to the electoral commission today and received a note from them,

:33:11. > :33:13.that they regard the capacity of the electoral commission to provide the

:33:14. > :33:19.degree of impartiality that we would expect as being beyond their own

:33:20. > :33:21.functions. This, I think, is extremely regrettable because I

:33:22. > :33:28.think they should be given the opportunity to comment. I am aware,

:33:29. > :33:32.and I look to the Minister and I say this with very, very clear

:33:33. > :33:38.assessment, the committee will be looking at this very carefully and

:33:39. > :33:45.he knows what that means, and it is simply this. If any such report

:33:46. > :33:50.could not be guaranteed by him as the Minister for Europe as meeting

:33:51. > :33:54.the highest standards of impartiality and the highest

:33:55. > :33:59.standard of accuracy, would he not agree that that would effectively be

:34:00. > :34:04.misleading the British people? That is the test. On the basis that I

:34:05. > :34:09.hear from him something along those lines, I am prepared, of course I am

:34:10. > :34:19.very happy to give way in a moment, just at the finish. Due accuracy and

:34:20. > :34:24.in partiality is implicit in any report of this kind in regards to

:34:25. > :34:28.the importance of the voter being able to make a balanced choice when

:34:29. > :34:35.the time comes. Thank you for giving way. I am

:34:36. > :34:43.puzzled. He is demanding accuracy in the Government's analysis, and he is

:34:44. > :34:48.also demanding impartiality. Does he mean that the Government should not

:34:49. > :34:52.express an opinion on what is the most important issue facing this

:34:53. > :34:57.country for perhaps the next 40 years, because that would be absurd?

:34:58. > :35:04.He must not be saying that. Is he saying that if the Government

:35:05. > :35:08.produces an accurate report and then reaches a conclusion, that cannot be

:35:09. > :35:13.impartial. There is a difference between accuracy and impartiality.

:35:14. > :35:17.I will leave my own opinions out on this particular point as I have very

:35:18. > :35:21.strong views which will be developed during the course of the campaign as

:35:22. > :35:24.to why it is we should leave. But we already know from the speeches that

:35:25. > :35:29.have been made by the Prime Minister and by other ministers that there is

:35:30. > :35:34.a presupposition that a reformed union is the way to go. The tests

:35:35. > :35:36.that'll be applied to that is whether the reforms amount to

:35:37. > :35:41.anything very much, which I don't think they will. In addition to

:35:42. > :35:46.that, whether they meet the test of changing our relationship with the

:35:47. > :35:50.EU, which is also a relevant issue. On these questions are there will be

:35:51. > :35:58.much debate. All I am saying is that anybody with a fraction of judgment

:35:59. > :36:04.on that huge landscape, and the trust that has to be given to be

:36:05. > :36:08.voted to make the right decision as to whether to remain in order leave,

:36:09. > :36:11.will be tested against the question as to whether there is any

:36:12. > :36:16.significant bias in the manner in which reports are put forward. We

:36:17. > :36:21.have already been through the whole of the Purdie debate which was about

:36:22. > :36:26.using civil service machinery. If I may say, I think we won that one.

:36:27. > :36:31.This should not be a back door in relation to receiving the same kind

:36:32. > :36:33.of objectives. On that note, I propose to withdraw my amendment

:36:34. > :36:39.simply because I do want to know, from the Minister, whether or not he

:36:40. > :36:42.is prepared to accept the impartiality and accuracy point

:36:43. > :36:45.which I have made. He knows perfectly well what I mean and is

:36:46. > :36:50.more than capable of giving us a decent answer.

:36:51. > :37:04.The question is that amendment A 2 Lords Amendment five he made.

:37:05. > :37:06.I will speak very briefly giving that the honourable member has

:37:07. > :37:12.indicated he will withdraw his amendment. Amendments five and six

:37:13. > :37:21.passed in the other place reflects very closely amendments that we in

:37:22. > :37:24.this side moved to committee stage and report stage of the

:37:25. > :37:33.consideration of the bill here. Amendment five calls for information

:37:34. > :37:38.and report on the Government's renegotiation purpose. Amendment six

:37:39. > :37:42.calls for a report on the rights and obligations in tales in membership

:37:43. > :37:46.of the European Union, and it also calls for the Government to outline

:37:47. > :37:51.rights and obligations of some countries who have particular

:37:52. > :37:57.relationships with the European Union, but who are not members.

:37:58. > :38:04.Perhaps through the EEA agreement. I could refer the House to the recent

:38:05. > :38:10.policy network pamphlet on these issues called What Does Out Look

:38:11. > :38:14.Like? Which I think would make a great Christmas present for anyone

:38:15. > :38:20.considering these things. I have some copies available if you would

:38:21. > :38:26.like them. This is not the same issue. We are talking about

:38:27. > :38:31.something which is ten weeks out. It is not in a decent of the campaign.

:38:32. > :38:34.It is not a leaflet that is to be distributed to every household in

:38:35. > :38:39.the country or anything of that nature. What we are calling for is

:38:40. > :38:45.the Government to publish information on both of these

:38:46. > :38:50.aspects, the renegotiation and what out might look like, which will give

:38:51. > :38:56.the public the best information possible on a very important

:38:57. > :39:00.decision. The Government and the Prime Minister has placed great

:39:01. > :39:04.emphasis on the renegotiation itself, and we have seen the

:39:05. > :39:07.exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of

:39:08. > :39:13.the European council, who published his initial reply yesterday. We know

:39:14. > :39:19.there will be some discussion on these issues at the European Council

:39:20. > :39:24.next week, but probably not a conclusion until the European

:39:25. > :39:29.Council in February of next year. It remains to be seen what the outcome

:39:30. > :39:34.of these renegotiations is going to be. We had some indication in the

:39:35. > :39:38.letter from the President of the European Council yesterday. The

:39:39. > :39:44.point I would make is that for many of us on this side of the House, we

:39:45. > :39:46.do not place the same weight on this negotiation as the Prime Minister

:39:47. > :39:51.because we think there is a broader case for membership for the four

:39:52. > :39:54.points but the Prime Minister outlined in his letter last month to

:39:55. > :39:59.the President of the European Council. It is obviously also the

:40:00. > :40:05.case that many of the back benches opposite placed no weight at all on

:40:06. > :40:09.this renegotiation for the obvious reason that there is nothing in it

:40:10. > :40:14.that could possibly make them change their minds about the outcome of

:40:15. > :40:19.this referendum. I'll give way to the honourable lady in just a

:40:20. > :40:26.moment. I think it was the member for North Essex who said at the

:40:27. > :40:31.time, it is that it? When he saw the the Prime Minister's letter when it

:40:32. > :40:35.was published a few weeks ago. I understand the last comments, but

:40:36. > :40:40.that is all part of it. What is being asked, the response to what is

:40:41. > :40:43.being asked is all part of the calculations being made by many

:40:44. > :40:49.people who may be considering what unit looks like as well as out. If

:40:50. > :40:53.the negotiations are not treated with the respect and gravity they

:40:54. > :40:56.deserve, then that says a big message to those of us who have

:40:57. > :41:02.concerns about our ongoing membership.

:41:03. > :41:05.Thank you for your intervention. Different people will look at this

:41:06. > :41:09.renegotiation in a different way. The point I am making is that I

:41:10. > :41:15.think there is a broader case about membership of the European Union

:41:16. > :41:19.well beyond the four items listed in the Prime Minister's letter and the

:41:20. > :41:26.four cases in President Donald Tusk's reply. If for some voters it

:41:27. > :41:30.is all about those four points, that is a fair judgment that they want to

:41:31. > :41:34.make. What I am saying is that for most people on this side of the

:41:35. > :41:40.House, there is a broader case for membership.

:41:41. > :41:47.When it comes to voters casting their vote on whether we should

:41:48. > :41:53.remain in the European Union or leave, it will not in the end be the

:41:54. > :41:58.final points of the renegotiation that is in their minds. It will be

:41:59. > :42:07.the broader case, either bought in or out, that people will vote on.

:42:08. > :42:13.Amendment five deals with the report that we would like to see on these

:42:14. > :42:19.issues. Amendment sex on the broader issue of what being an would look

:42:20. > :42:25.like and what the outcome would look like -- Amendment 6-mac. If the

:42:26. > :42:28.country votes to leave there would then be process of extracting

:42:29. > :42:34.ourselves from the European union and not one can say with certainty

:42:35. > :42:39.what the outcome would be like. However, we do have examples of

:42:40. > :42:46.countries that trade with the single market that are not members of the

:42:47. > :42:51.European union, Norway, Switzerland, for example. I don't

:42:52. > :42:55.want to get into details on this today but they are out there and we

:42:56. > :43:02.can see what their obligations are, even though they are not members of

:43:03. > :43:05.the European union and do not have representation on the European

:43:06. > :43:10.Council representation in the European Parliament. It seems to me

:43:11. > :43:16.the opposition is falling into the trap yet again of thinking you can

:43:17. > :43:20.only trade with the EU if you have a special arrangement with them like

:43:21. > :43:24.Norway or Switzerland. All the world's countries trade with the EU

:43:25. > :43:30.and the badly drafted Lords Amendment invites comment on many of

:43:31. > :43:36.countries who have no special deal at all. I don't see the example of

:43:37. > :43:41.Norway is the only one out there, but it is a real live example which

:43:42. > :43:47.I think is relevant to this debate and certainly some in the campaign

:43:48. > :43:52.to leave have drawn attention to it as a model as others have drawn

:43:53. > :43:56.attention to the model of Switzerland. It would be good to

:43:57. > :44:02.understand from the League campaign what model they seek to support.

:44:03. > :44:06.What I think is right is in advance of the referendum the Government

:44:07. > :44:13.publishes as much information as possible so photos are clear about

:44:14. > :44:24.what is involved. -- voters are clear about what is involved. The

:44:25. > :44:30.honourable gentleman amendment did call on the Government's hallmark on

:44:31. > :44:34.this. They have said they do not want to do this and there is an

:44:35. > :44:39.appetite for more detailed information. But they say, we would

:44:40. > :44:48.not have the details to do so or the required expertise to judge a report

:44:49. > :44:54.to Parliament. I want to give him another chance to pluck his

:44:55. > :44:59.pamphlet. Because an ex he makes the point of the various options

:45:00. > :45:02.available to this country and in the context of the Government providing

:45:03. > :45:07.information this is quite a difficult ask of any Government

:45:08. > :45:11.because it is inevitably hypothesis. Nobody can know what the divorce

:45:12. > :45:17.settlement would be an certainly the Government wouldn't know. An

:45:18. > :45:21.essence, what these amendments are asking the Government to do is stick

:45:22. > :45:27.a finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing. It is

:45:28. > :45:30.hardly call that information. I respect the honourable member views

:45:31. > :45:34.on this matter but I disagree with him because the amendments are not

:45:35. > :45:40.asking the Government to stick a finger in the air and speculate as

:45:41. > :45:46.to what the arrangements for the UK exactly would be, having withdrawn.

:45:47. > :45:52.What they are, and I can read the relevant section of amendment six.

:45:53. > :45:57.It says, examples of countries that do not members of the European Union

:45:58. > :46:00.but do have other arrangements with the European union. That is not

:46:01. > :46:05.speculation, those examples are up there and we can study their

:46:06. > :46:10.obligations subject to these arrangements and they had been there

:46:11. > :46:14.for some time and negotiated specific deals with the European

:46:15. > :46:21.Union. It is not speculation and it is out there for us all to see. In

:46:22. > :46:29.conclusion, Mr Speaker, I am pleased the Government has, in effect,

:46:30. > :46:34.accepted requests we made during the committee and the report stage in

:46:35. > :46:40.this house of the Bell in accepting these broad amendments. It is

:46:41. > :46:45.important voters are clear on the renegotiation, clear about what the

:46:46. > :46:50.results of that renegotiation will be, clear about what being in the

:46:51. > :46:56.European union is like and requires and also as clear as possible about

:46:57. > :47:04.what being arts might look like. A referendum is a choice of two

:47:05. > :47:08.futures. , it is not an opinion poll on one future. That is like these

:47:09. > :47:13.amendments are important and it is right we have these kind of report

:47:14. > :47:20.and have maximum information made available to the public on a crucial

:47:21. > :47:28.choice for the country. I put my name to my honourable friend

:47:29. > :47:32.amendment because I think the two Lords's amendments, five and six,

:47:33. > :47:37.the debate because they are ill considered and unwise. If we take

:47:38. > :47:42.Amendment five, that is easy to deal with. I have no problem with it

:47:43. > :47:46.because it is stating the obvious. It says when negotiations are

:47:47. > :47:51.completed the British Government needs to share those views with

:47:52. > :47:57.Parliament and the people. Well, of course they well, that will happen

:47:58. > :48:03.naturally. I think it's just an unnecessary addition to what was the

:48:04. > :48:10.simple bill before the Lords got hold of it. The Lords amendment

:48:11. > :48:16.number six is far more worrying as it is so poorly drafted and leads to

:48:17. > :48:20.all sorts of arguments that are arguments for a referendum campaign

:48:21. > :48:25.rather than due to legislation to set up the referendum. The first

:48:26. > :48:30.part of this Lords amendment number six says the Government must set up

:48:31. > :48:34.the rights and obligations that arise under European law from our

:48:35. > :48:39.current membership. As has already been remarked, it would be a very

:48:40. > :48:47.long book to do that properly as we now have so many legal restrictions

:48:48. > :48:51.and obligations as a result of the treaty and thousands of directors.

:48:52. > :48:55.To fully fulfil that we met the Government would have to sit out all

:48:56. > :49:00.British people how there are now British people how there are now

:49:01. > :49:04.very large areas of law and public practice at the MS House are not

:49:05. > :49:11.free to determine as we see fit and as the people wish. That may be

:49:12. > :49:14.useful thing to do but I fear the Government may fall short and not

:49:15. > :49:20.wish to give a comprehensive list of other obligations. It is not good

:49:21. > :49:25.law to invite people to do things they don't really intend to do. I

:49:26. > :49:29.look forward to the Minister's clarification on if he will be

:49:30. > :49:34.publishing a full list on the thousands of legal restraints on

:49:35. > :49:38.this Parliament that restrict us doing the will of the British

:49:39. > :49:44.people, and also on the British people as they have two of the these

:49:45. > :49:51.laws. All of these laws, and our own laws, can be construed by European

:49:52. > :49:57.justice to the European Court Of Justice, which is now the true

:49:58. > :50:00.sovereign in this country, because we have submitted ourselves to the

:50:01. > :50:10.ultimate judgment of the European Court. Wiki also agree that the

:50:11. > :50:14.importance which I attach to the idea and the electoral commission

:50:15. > :50:19.have also attached to the idea but either or both of these reports, in

:50:20. > :50:25.fact both of them, should be produced on the basis of both

:50:26. > :50:28.impartiality and accuracy. We remember the review of competencies

:50:29. > :50:34.which was a whitewash and if it is anything like that we would be

:50:35. > :50:39.misleading the public, but we are not. That is why I share my

:50:40. > :50:44.honourable friend concerns about this amendment and I am worried the

:50:45. > :50:48.Government might fall short of the Phil remit. Will the Government

:50:49. > :50:57.spelt out to people we cannot control our own borders, energy,

:50:58. > :51:01.market regulation, corporation tax, all these things have gone to the

:51:02. > :51:05.superior power of the European union and this should be the very

:51:06. > :51:09.substance of the debate in the referendum on if we wish to restore

:51:10. > :51:13.the full sovereignty of Parliament for a British people or if we wish

:51:14. > :51:16.to continue on if we wish to restore the full sovereignty of Parliament

:51:17. > :51:20.for a British people or if we wish to continue which would mean even

:51:21. > :51:27.more powers are taken away. The second part of the Lords amendment

:51:28. > :51:32.six goes on to say the Government has set up examples of countries

:51:33. > :51:38.that do not have membership of the EU but do have other arrangements

:51:39. > :51:43.with them. Describing in the case of each country given, as an example,

:51:44. > :51:48.those arrangements. I have never heard anything so woolly for a long

:51:49. > :51:52.time. All countries not in the European union have some kind of

:51:53. > :51:55.arrangement with them, it does not even say a long time. All countries

:51:56. > :52:07.not in the European union have some kind of arrangement with them, it

:52:08. > :52:09.does not even say it straight able to trade with the rest of the

:52:10. > :52:12.European union everybody submitted ourselves to some of the powers that

:52:13. > :52:15.didn't suit the Mac through an arrangement similar to Norway and

:52:16. > :52:19.Switzerland. America is a mighty trading partner of the EU which does

:52:20. > :52:23.not have one of these arrangements and certainly does not pay a

:52:24. > :52:29.contribution to the European union in order to sell and goods. Not as

:52:30. > :52:34.India, China, Canada, Australia. Some individual countries have free

:52:35. > :52:39.trade agreements with the EU which is arguably better than our

:52:40. > :52:42.agreement, because they don't have to pay anything like the large

:52:43. > :52:48.contributions and levies that we have to pay when trading within the

:52:49. > :52:54.internal market. My friend makes a very powerful point. In which case

:52:55. > :52:57.the debate will be about what arrangements to find out and this

:52:58. > :53:01.report and could potentially be open to challenge based on what might

:53:02. > :53:05.right honourable friend is saying. That is why I am worried for the

:53:06. > :53:12.Government because I do not wish to see them get into legal trouble over

:53:13. > :53:17.sloppy drafting. Those of us who have decided we wish to leave the

:53:18. > :53:21.European Union have been invited to predict what the Leave campaign was

:53:22. > :53:27.eight when it is up and running efficiently. We will not be wanting

:53:28. > :53:32.to recommend either the Norwegian Swiss model. The UK is a far bigger

:53:33. > :53:36.country with a different set of relationships around the world and

:53:37. > :53:41.will have seen your relationships with the world's main bodies, so

:53:42. > :53:45.there will be a British solution to our relationship with the EU which

:53:46. > :53:51.would not include paying any contribution to that union in the

:53:52. > :53:58.way we currently have two. He has given a lot of examples of

:53:59. > :54:02.countries. Could he perhaps give an indication of countries he would

:54:03. > :54:06.like to move toward being like and that may help the Government to

:54:07. > :54:11.decide which countries we should be compared to when it goes to publish

:54:12. > :54:15.its report. Who does he think we should be like? I have already done

:54:16. > :54:20.that and if the honourable gentleman studies the text he will see I have

:54:21. > :54:25.answered exactly that point with great clarity. There will be a

:54:26. > :54:28.British answer but it will be closer to the answer of those countries

:54:29. > :54:34.that trade very successfully with the EU without needing to pay money

:54:35. > :54:38.into the EU by way of special contributions and without having to

:54:39. > :54:42.accept great legal positions on them. Anybody trading with the EU

:54:43. > :54:48.has to meet their standards for the goods and services they wish to

:54:49. > :54:51.buy, just as when we trade with United states of America we have to

:54:52. > :54:57.accept their standards for the dudes we wish to sell to them. It does not

:54:58. > :55:02.mean you have to enter into a common Government arrangements paid special

:55:03. > :55:06.taxes. Most of the world trade is peppered with successfully with the

:55:07. > :55:13.EU countries without having to do any such thing. I hope the Minister

:55:14. > :55:19.will understand that those of us on the Leave side will read the words

:55:20. > :55:24.the Lords have actually written, rather than the words the opposition

:55:25. > :55:30.would like interpreting and it would be very foolish to set out the

:55:31. > :55:35.Norwegian example, because it is not an example anyone might not wish is

:55:36. > :55:38.to copy, and not to example the examples of larger and Commonwealth

:55:39. > :55:42.countries that have trading arrangements. It would be wrong for

:55:43. > :55:46.the Government to confine itself in answering this question to the issue

:55:47. > :55:51.of trade, because trade is nowhere mentioned in the draft law before

:55:52. > :55:56.us. We do need to look at the political arrangements we have with

:55:57. > :56:01.EU countries and through needle and so forth. Things like pipeline

:56:02. > :56:11.agreements, aviation agreements and all those other things. My final

:56:12. > :56:18.worry with this clause is it a cemetery. And the opposition has

:56:19. > :56:24.shown us how they wish it to be asymmetric. They wish the Leeds side

:56:25. > :56:28.to hypothesise about what our relationship with the EU will look

:56:29. > :56:34.like in two or three years' time whereas they don't think it is

:56:35. > :56:38.incumbent on the inside to similarly hypothesise. I would not mind

:56:39. > :56:43.betting there would be more change if we stay in because if we do vote

:56:44. > :56:48.to stay in they would take it as an excuse to demand the UK conforms to

:56:49. > :56:52.more parts of the union than we are currently prepared to do so and we

:56:53. > :56:59.know from the President's report published this summer but as soon as

:57:00. > :57:04.our referendum is out of the way they wish to press on with their

:57:05. > :57:10.move to capital markets union, a full banking union and to political

:57:11. > :57:15.union. We on the Leave side will ask both on the opposition who want to

:57:16. > :57:19.stay in to describe to us how Britain would relate to the

:57:20. > :57:26.political union and to the very much stronger union generally which the

:57:27. > :57:30.euro members envisage. Be in no doubt, the euro members wish to use

:57:31. > :57:35.the institutions of the European union as a whole body on purposes

:57:36. > :57:38.and it would be difficult for Britain to be alongside but only

:57:39. > :57:43.half in in the EU but not in the euro. I would like to see a

:57:44. > :57:51.symmetrical request and it would be important to spell out what staying

:57:52. > :57:57.in looks like, as I believe staying in is away to more political union.

:57:58. > :58:00.That may not be to the Minister's liking, but I can assure him it will

:58:01. > :58:16.be a very important Thank you. I welcome the fact that

:58:17. > :58:20.the honourable member has replied to at least one of his amendments. It

:58:21. > :58:26.seems to me that there is a need and will be a need for information about

:58:27. > :58:31.the likely consequences of an in vote and the likely consequences of

:58:32. > :58:34.an out vote. I don't think that should be left entirely to

:58:35. > :58:38.individual campaigns because we already have arguments about who

:58:39. > :58:42.runs campaigns and how they will be funded. By definition, they will

:58:43. > :58:50.tell at best one half of the story. I think it is in order that the UK

:58:51. > :58:56.Government publishes appropriate information outfit that the

:58:57. > :58:59.background to the referendum. It was indicated one month ago that EU

:59:00. > :59:04.members are the worst at defining what the EU actually means. That is

:59:05. > :59:09.something we can't allow to continue. We can't allow the

:59:10. > :59:12.referendum to come upon us with a significant number of our citizens

:59:13. > :59:18.not really understanding what the vote means. Not because they can't

:59:19. > :59:22.predict what the vote mean -- what the future might be if we leave or

:59:23. > :59:26.stay in, but because they don't say what the present is. Too many people

:59:27. > :59:32.don't understand what the EE does for good or for bad. That is

:59:33. > :59:37.something that if we simply leave it, people were and are confused. --

:59:38. > :59:43.what the EU does. Incidentally, one reason why this might be one of the

:59:44. > :59:52.times to extend the franchise. 16-year-old and 17-year-olds'

:59:53. > :59:58.understanding may not be at the same stage as adults. But that it has

:59:59. > :00:01.been and gone. I find it surprising and ironic that we see so many

:00:02. > :00:08.contributions from the conservative side of the House, as we did -- who

:00:09. > :00:12.are very concerned about the idea that a government during a

:00:13. > :00:16.referendum campaign might publish information that was a little

:00:17. > :00:22.one-sided. Based members in here have not received for a number of

:00:23. > :00:30.us. Others received shortly before the referendum last year which was a

:00:31. > :00:35.glossy leaflet published by Her Majesty 's government. The UK

:00:36. > :00:45.Government is in advertising and for a post-individual all. -- as long as

:00:46. > :00:49.that kind of stuff goes on, we don't need to take any lessons from

:00:50. > :00:56.anybody on any side of the House about the dangers of letting the

:00:57. > :01:02.Government get involved --... 20 forgiving way. The committee I

:01:03. > :01:04.chaired previously conducted an enquiry into civil service

:01:05. > :01:09.impartiality and referendums in respect of the Scottish referendum.

:01:10. > :01:13.It is one thing if there is a government in Edinburgh on one side

:01:14. > :01:18.of the argument and a government in London on the other side each

:01:19. > :01:22.publishing arguments for and against a particular proposition. But where

:01:23. > :01:28.is the balance going to be in this referendum? Given that there is only

:01:29. > :01:31.one United Kingdom government. It is perfectly in order for the UK

:01:32. > :01:36.Government to take an impartial stance once we get closer to the

:01:37. > :01:43.referendum. We don't know what stands there going to be taking

:01:44. > :01:45.yet. There is a question as to whether it was appropriate for

:01:46. > :01:49.somebody else's government to interfere in a referendum that I

:01:50. > :01:53.know that's not an argument we will win just now. I can say that that

:01:54. > :01:57.kind of interference probably contributed to the fact that on most

:01:58. > :02:01.days, these benches are significantly more crowded. The

:02:02. > :02:05.point I am making is that if the Government doesn't produce

:02:06. > :02:11.information as opposed to campaigning opinion about how the

:02:12. > :02:16.European Union works now, and we think will produce it? If are happy

:02:17. > :02:20.for two opposing camps to produce the information, go ahead and do

:02:21. > :02:30.that. We know before we start but all that will happen is that people

:02:31. > :02:35.will be inspired by politicians or TV personalities associated with

:02:36. > :02:38.them, rather than being presented with a factually researched document

:02:39. > :02:46.which set things out. I will give way.

:02:47. > :02:50.Could I simply say that actually, we know that broadcasts and the

:02:51. > :02:53.information which will be delivered and published by the designated

:02:54. > :02:59.organisations on either side will provide that information. We have

:03:00. > :03:03.many other examples in other referendums in the European Union.

:03:04. > :03:09.Actually, the idea that the Government itself is not going to

:03:10. > :03:13.try to organise the view is that it does want, which is to stay in the

:03:14. > :03:20.so-called reformed union, is I think for the birds.

:03:21. > :03:25.Thank you for your intervention. Firstly, I wish I could show you

:03:26. > :03:28.absolute faith in the impartiality of broadcasters but that might be

:03:29. > :03:37.one of the small number of issues on which I disagree with the member. I

:03:38. > :03:40.do need to make some progress. The point about broadcasters is that if

:03:41. > :03:45.broadcasters are found to be in breach of the requirement for

:03:46. > :03:49.impartiality, there is a sanction available and ways they can be held

:03:50. > :03:53.to account. Certainly the BBC feel as if they are being very held to

:03:54. > :04:01.account by any number of committees in this place just now.

:04:02. > :04:04.I wasn't referring to the impartiality broadcasters in this

:04:05. > :04:08.context, I was referring to the fact that under the designated

:04:09. > :04:12.arrangements, each side will have the right to issue broadcasts and to

:04:13. > :04:16.provide information by way of literature. That's what I was

:04:17. > :04:24.concentrating on. I misunderstood the comments. My

:04:25. > :04:32.essential point is that I don't think it's enough to leave it to

:04:33. > :04:40.campaign groups to persuade. The point is to persuade them for the

:04:41. > :04:44.points they are making. They will choose not to provide information

:04:45. > :04:48.that doesn't support the point. That is what we all did in order to get

:04:49. > :04:51.elected. As long as it doesn't involve deliberately trying to

:04:52. > :04:57.mislead people, that is part of the democratic process. It's part of

:04:58. > :05:01.politics. It is up to the electorate to judge whose arguments they will

:05:02. > :05:05.believe. But if they are starting from a position of significant

:05:06. > :05:10.entrance, misconception or misunderstanding of what the

:05:11. > :05:18.European Union is about,... I will give Roy... 20 forgiving way.

:05:19. > :05:23.He has been very -- thank you for giving way. There is another issue

:05:24. > :05:27.when we talk about broadcasting. That is how it is funded. Whether

:05:28. > :05:32.there will be a balance of funding or not. That has been a big issue in

:05:33. > :05:38.the past with referendums. I'm talking about the one in 1975.

:05:39. > :05:41.My own personal views about how political campaigns and parties are

:05:42. > :05:48.funded probably would not get a huge amount of support in here. The

:05:49. > :05:52.honourable member does make a valid point. It is important that nobody

:05:53. > :05:56.has got the opportunity to buy a referendum any more than anybody

:05:57. > :06:02.should be given the right to buy electoral success. I would not want

:06:03. > :06:06.to see us going the way of America, needing buildings behind you before

:06:07. > :06:10.you can even stand for election. That doesn't address the fundamental

:06:11. > :06:15.problem that however well funded or badly individual campaigns are, if

:06:16. > :06:17.you're starting off in a position where we have the least

:06:18. > :06:22.well-informed electorate in the whole of Europe about such an issue,

:06:23. > :06:27.the Modi has two provide that information in order to bring people

:06:28. > :06:31.up to a bit of understanding. -- somebody has to provide. It's

:06:32. > :06:35.doesn't mean what it keeps getting presented as even from the Prime

:06:36. > :06:41.Minister. People need to understand what aspects of immigration to the

:06:42. > :06:49.European Union is involved in and what they are not. The same for

:06:50. > :06:55.refugees and the United Nations. These are massively important issues

:06:56. > :06:58.and a lots of this debate in this chamber over the last few months has

:06:59. > :07:02.not always helped to increase public understanding and appreciation of

:07:03. > :07:07.what it is the European Union does and doesn't do. If there are

:07:08. > :07:10.concerns that the Government may not be impartial or maybe overly

:07:11. > :07:14.enthusiastic on one side or the other, I am quite happy for the

:07:15. > :07:17.electoral commission to publish guidance and require the Government

:07:18. > :07:22.and everyone else to comply with that guidance. I don't think it is

:07:23. > :07:27.appropriate to ask the electoral commission to scrutinise the veto or

:07:28. > :07:32.censor documents. That would not be appropriate. It would be appropriate

:07:33. > :07:37.for the electoral commission to issue guidance on the conduct,

:07:38. > :07:42.including the con of information and should be funded and published by

:07:43. > :07:44.the Government. I find myself in the strings position of telling

:07:45. > :07:50.government backbenchers that they are wrong because the amendment

:07:51. > :07:53.seems to be allowing us to test Her Majesty's government. I'm not the

:07:54. > :07:58.biggest fan of the Government in this house. I'm not the biggest

:07:59. > :08:02.believer that we can trust them. But in this case, quite frankly, if the

:08:03. > :08:07.Government can't be trusted to present a fair case to the public

:08:08. > :08:11.than we are in trouble because the media certainly won't do it. The

:08:12. > :08:15.print media will not do it. Political campaigns won't do it

:08:16. > :08:21.because it is not their job to be impartial, it is their job to be

:08:22. > :08:27.partial. To be partisan as to the issues that we are campaigning

:08:28. > :08:35.about. I would welcome the fact that the honourable member is redrawing

:08:36. > :08:42.-- withdrawing his Amendment. In this case, I think there is a need

:08:43. > :08:46.for reliable information to be put into public domain. Let's not forget

:08:47. > :08:50.a few hours from here we have one of the most highly regarded research

:08:51. > :08:54.facilities anywhere in the world. Regarded not only for the quality of

:08:55. > :08:58.the research, but the speed in which it is done and the impartiality. If

:08:59. > :09:02.we can't rely on research facilities within this house to provide

:09:03. > :09:09.reliable, documented information, who do we rely on?

:09:10. > :09:18.The fact remains, in response to the honourable gentleman, whether he

:09:19. > :09:22.thinks it's just an irony or an accident or something more sinister,

:09:23. > :09:26.it is people who are in favour of Britain remaining in the European

:09:27. > :09:31.Union that tends to be championing Lords Amendment number six. And

:09:32. > :09:34.those who are supporting the leave campaign regarded as a Trojan horse

:09:35. > :09:40.for a lot of subjective judgments to be made which are in favour of one

:09:41. > :09:44.side and not the other. Mr Speaker, I referred a few moments ago to the

:09:45. > :09:56.report produced from the public administration committee at the end

:09:57. > :10:01.of the last Parliament. The reason we produce that report was to look

:10:02. > :10:06.at this question of impartiality, because there is a rather modern and

:10:07. > :10:10.corrosive view that impartiality means that as a civil servant, you

:10:11. > :10:13.are prepared to work for which of the party happens to be in office

:10:14. > :10:19.and therefore you are impartial. In the conduct of your work for which

:10:20. > :10:24.other party is in office, you can be as partial and loaded in your

:10:25. > :10:27.conduct under the Armstrong the doctrine that you have to be there

:10:28. > :10:32.to support the Government of the day. Actually, I think most people

:10:33. > :10:40.in this country regard the word impartiality as a quality that is

:10:41. > :10:46.rather more imprecise. It has a higher moral tone to add. That

:10:47. > :10:53.impartiality has something to do with objectivity, and partiality has

:10:54. > :11:00.been to do with balance and not being compromised as a mere

:11:01. > :11:10.cheerleader of one point of view or another. In addressing the

:11:11. > :11:20.amendments that my name is on, put down by my honourable friend, in

:11:21. > :11:32.respect of Lords Amendment five and six, I would say this. That I do not

:11:33. > :11:37.regard the proposed duty to publish information on the outcome of

:11:38. > :11:41.negotiations to be at all unreasonable. And in fact it would

:11:42. > :11:45.be rather odd if the Government were not to make such a publication. The

:11:46. > :11:51.advantage of having this obligation on the face of the bill, first of

:11:52. > :11:57.all means the Government has to publish it ten weeks before the

:11:58. > :12:02.referendum date. That means it will be properly scrutinised, not bounced

:12:03. > :12:07.on the electorate at the last minute. And it is perfectly

:12:08. > :12:09.reasonable in response to my honourable friend for Ashford is

:12:10. > :12:13.that the Government should express its own opinion in this document

:12:14. > :12:22.about its own negotiations, as it would in any white paper.

:12:23. > :12:34.The second duty to publish information. Bear in mind the White

:12:35. > :12:40.Paper only went through rice exports the less house actually contained a

:12:41. > :12:44.very specific precise promise of a veto on our national interest would

:12:45. > :12:49.never be abandoned and if that were it would endanger the very fabric of

:12:50. > :12:53.the European Community itself. That is some example of how unreliable

:12:54. > :13:00.white papers and Government reports may be. Indeed, but it would be

:13:01. > :13:06.interesting, it is unavoidable the Government will produce information

:13:07. > :13:11.of that kind. The second duty is not something I expected to appear on

:13:12. > :13:20.the face of the bill. It is asking the Government to produce judgments

:13:21. > :13:24.and opinions about such a vast topic using examples which, by their very

:13:25. > :13:28.nature will be subjective, as we have already heard. I am not at all

:13:29. > :13:36.surprised that the electoral commission has decided this is far

:13:37. > :13:41.beyond its competence, to make a judgment about what such a document

:13:42. > :13:49.might be. If the Government, which has accepted this amendment, is now

:13:50. > :13:53.going to justify retaining it, as I expect, I really think they must ask

:13:54. > :14:00.some questions about it. The first of these is what does the Government

:14:01. > :14:06.mean in this amendment by publish? It would be one thing to place in

:14:07. > :14:15.the library House of Commons a paper which is Leonard and technical and

:14:16. > :14:19.details and going to present in-depth analysis and information

:14:20. > :14:24.that the honourable member for Glenrothes thinks would be

:14:25. > :14:30.justified. Does it mean the Government is going to produce such

:14:31. > :14:34.a subjective set of information in a form which is going to be circulated

:14:35. > :14:40.to every household? How would we feel about that ten weeks before a

:14:41. > :14:45.referendum? I think it is a reasonable for the Government to

:14:46. > :14:49.explain the outcome of the negotiations, but not reasonable for

:14:50. > :14:55.them then to use public money to present its whole world view about

:14:56. > :15:04.European Union membership has what will be part of a campaign to remain

:15:05. > :15:10.in the EU. I give way. Does my honourable friend frilly set in his

:15:11. > :15:15.mind by what it means a Government response? Is a collective

:15:16. > :15:19.responsibility or if there are dissenting members of the Government

:15:20. > :15:25.what happened in that situation? It is a good question but in the event

:15:26. > :15:35.there is permission to, as we all expect, there will be before long

:15:36. > :15:39.and agreement amongst ministers that some will not be towing the

:15:40. > :15:44.Government line on this question. The reason you have a referendum is

:15:45. > :15:47.because its lights parties and you can't have a general election about

:15:48. > :15:53.something that's both parties across the house. You can decide on an

:15:54. > :15:57.issue and it would be absurd to have a referendum and try and force

:15:58. > :16:01.ministers to one point of view. The president in 1975 was exactly that

:16:02. > :16:10.and collective responsibility was abandoned. Yet that does not mean

:16:11. > :16:17.there is not a Government view. Assuming that aren't such a vast

:16:18. > :16:22.number of ministers, the majority, leaving the Government view to

:16:23. > :16:34.isolated to be credible. I certainly give way. Would he not agree with me

:16:35. > :16:40.at the country at large still has, whether we think they are right to

:16:41. > :16:44.or not, still has thrust in the Government, in inverted commas, and

:16:45. > :16:48.therefore our electorate would find it very strange that during a

:16:49. > :16:52.referendum campaign if people could not point to what the Government

:16:53. > :16:57.view was because the Government of the day would continue after the

:16:58. > :17:01.referendum. People will want to not what the Government, collective or

:17:02. > :17:07.otherwise, think about the issue. I have already said that the first

:17:08. > :17:12.publication is preferably justified, in my view. The Government is

:17:13. > :17:16.entitled to explain what it has negotiations and give its opinion on

:17:17. > :17:20.what is negotiation, but if you would like to explain how the

:17:21. > :17:23.Government is called to give information about rights and

:17:24. > :17:27.obligations that arise under European law as a result of our

:17:28. > :17:34.membership of the EU in a concise and simple fashion that is not

:17:35. > :17:39.loaded, perhaps you could tell us, which countries should be used as

:17:40. > :17:42.examples of countries that do not have European union membership to

:17:43. > :17:46.explain the consequences of leaving? It is a very subjective

:17:47. > :17:53.judgment. That is what the debate will be about and he is absolutely

:17:54. > :17:57.right. Yes, people do trust what the Government says, which is exactly

:17:58. > :18:02.why what the Government says should be curtailed and limited, because it

:18:03. > :18:07.has a disproportionate effect on voters. That is no doubt about that.

:18:08. > :18:11.If the leader of the party says something that is less than if the

:18:12. > :18:16.Prime Minister is seeing something and that is why we have the purdah

:18:17. > :18:20.period and the house and forced the Government to accept there will be a

:18:21. > :18:25.proper purdah beaded because if we had what we had in 1975 with the

:18:26. > :18:29.Government carries on regardless being the Government and expressing

:18:30. > :18:35.partisan views on one side of the argument, that create an unfair

:18:36. > :18:39.referendum. That is why all systems of referendum throughout the world

:18:40. > :18:43.have systems to try and contain what Government do during the last phases

:18:44. > :18:48.of a referendum to try and create fairness. I wonder if we have seen

:18:49. > :18:53.the poster I have seen produced by the pro-EU group which call what the

:18:54. > :18:59.governor of the bank of England under the headline, think the UK

:19:00. > :19:03.economy is stronger in Europe. They also co-opted the president of the

:19:04. > :19:09.United States and the President of India. Does he share my concern it

:19:10. > :19:13.appears the campaign is willing to court public officials who ought not

:19:14. > :19:19.to be dragged on to one side of such a campaign? Be mindful if that is

:19:20. > :19:25.taking us beyond the scope of this discussion. It does remind me of one

:19:26. > :19:30.thing, that one of the controversial elements of the Scottish referendum

:19:31. > :19:35.and the Government conduct within that, for which I have some

:19:36. > :19:39.sympathy, was the use of the permanent Secretary to give a speech

:19:40. > :19:43.on behalf of the Government view purporting to be the publication of

:19:44. > :19:52.advice to ministers, which should never be published, in my view, and

:19:53. > :19:58.any orthodox analysis, the opinions of civil servants in the form of

:19:59. > :20:09.advice to ministers should never be published. This was used as part of

:20:10. > :20:13.the propaganda and many on the honourable gentleman for Glenrothes

:20:14. > :20:16.benches would regard this as a gross misuse of the civil service during a

:20:17. > :20:21.referendum period and we should try and avoid this. I believe these two

:20:22. > :20:27.questions for my right honourable friend as he responds to this debate

:20:28. > :20:32.on these two new Lords amendments. What is published actually mean?

:20:33. > :20:35.What does the Government actually intend to do in the way of

:20:36. > :20:41.publication of these reports? Our update to be just white papers or

:20:42. > :20:46.are they to be propaganda, circulated by the Government, much

:20:47. > :20:56.more widely? And how is he going to ensure that this is done in the

:20:57. > :21:02.highest spirit of impartiality, not as, to use the word in the way most

:21:03. > :21:06.people would expect the word to be used, how is he going to ensure

:21:07. > :21:14.these publications are genuinely objective and not just a means of

:21:15. > :21:22.advancing one side of the argument against the other? Briefly, Mr

:21:23. > :21:27.Speaker, I want to turn to the other amendments in the name of my

:21:28. > :21:38.honourable friend, the member for Stoke,. I certainly give way. Does

:21:39. > :21:43.he not then accept the governor of the Bank of England, for example,

:21:44. > :21:47.giving advice on monetary policy committee on interest rate is in a

:21:48. > :21:51.very definite position from other public officials because his advice

:21:52. > :21:56.is often very public and it is perfectly clear if he has advised on

:21:57. > :22:01.this it should be a matter of public interest? I think the governor of

:22:02. > :22:06.the bank of England is any different case, he is not a civil servant and

:22:07. > :22:11.bound by the civil service codes and he is not giving advice to ministers

:22:12. > :22:16.as a private civil servants. He gives his advice very publicly.

:22:17. > :22:20.While I was prompted by the example, I think it is reasonable for the

:22:21. > :22:27.Governor of the Bank of England, judiciously, soberly, carefully, to

:22:28. > :22:30.prop up his advice. His advice on the currency question in the

:22:31. > :22:34.Scottish referendum was very germane. I don't think it was

:22:35. > :22:38.necessary for the permanent Secretary of the Treasury to give a

:22:39. > :22:43.similar advice. On the question of the speech the present governor made

:22:44. > :22:48.in respect of the European Union, what was remarkable about that

:22:49. > :22:52.speech was how little he was prepared to say that supported the

:22:53. > :22:57.Government's view. He did not put himself out on a limb, it was an

:22:58. > :23:03.incredibly damp squib of a speech as far as the Remain campaign was

:23:04. > :23:07.concerned. He was very careful about what he said, and that may be

:23:08. > :23:13.because he sees business is divided on if we should remain in, the

:23:14. > :23:16.country is divided also and the arguments are much more finely

:23:17. > :23:23.divided than on the currency question in the Scottish referendum.

:23:24. > :23:36.I now wish to turn to the Lords amendment number 13. This refers to

:23:37. > :23:45.another rather startling change that was made in the other place, which

:23:46. > :23:49.is about the designation of organisations to campaign for or

:23:50. > :23:55.against the particular proposition. I should declare an interest in

:23:56. > :24:04.this, but I am company vote to leave, which will be applying for

:24:05. > :24:08.designation. This added a clause that suggests it is perfectly OK for

:24:09. > :24:16.the electoral commission to designate one campaign, support one

:24:17. > :24:19.proposition, but not another campaign to support the opposite

:24:20. > :24:24.proposition. The reason this has been put into the bill is

:24:25. > :24:29.understandable. In the 2011 referendum in Wales, there was no

:24:30. > :24:36.application for indoor campaign and therefore it was impossible for the

:24:37. > :24:40.electoral commission to designate a campaign in favour of yes, even

:24:41. > :24:47.though there was a very respectable Yes campaign. It was suspected there

:24:48. > :24:54.was an element of sabotage by the And no campaign because they wanted

:24:55. > :24:59.to prevent the Yes campaign from getting this because the campaign

:25:00. > :25:04.was going to be very weak whether it was designated or not. The result of

:25:05. > :25:07.this amendment, which was included in the Scottish legislation passed

:25:08. > :25:13.by the Scottish Parliament in order to prevent the same thing it does

:25:14. > :25:20.offer the possibility that the commission, and I quote, May,

:25:21. > :25:30.unquote, made designate one campaign and not the other. Any restraining

:25:31. > :25:33.factors. I do not think we should question the electoral commission

:25:34. > :25:41.they would ever do such a thing, but this is what this amendment actually

:25:42. > :25:47.contemplates. There would of course be fought and this campaign fought

:25:48. > :25:51.for their only to be one designated campaign. It would be intolerable if

:25:52. > :25:53.parliament let this go on to be one designated campaign. It would be

:25:54. > :25:59.intolerable if Parliament let this go onto it would invalidate the

:26:00. > :26:02.result and destroy the purpose of having a referendum and mean the

:26:03. > :26:09.issue was not settled in a fair manner at all. We have framed an

:26:10. > :26:15.amendment to this new clause, which I hope will at least draw the

:26:16. > :26:22.minister out to explain how this might actually work. I give way.

:26:23. > :26:29.I'm enjoying listening to the observations. Would you agree that

:26:30. > :26:40.if such a bizarre decision was to be taken to, they would be open to

:26:41. > :26:44.judicial review on this point? That is what I am waiting to hear

:26:45. > :26:52.what the minister says. The proposed amendment, it changes the proposed

:26:53. > :26:56.wording and reads that they should only be allowed to do this if no

:26:57. > :27:04.permitted participant makes an application to be designated under

:27:05. > :27:08.section 109, except for a permitted participant whose application states

:27:09. > :27:14.that it is vexatious or frivolous. That would mean that if there

:27:15. > :27:18.was... Provided there were legitimate applications, the

:27:19. > :27:23.obligation would be clear on the face of the bill but they have to

:27:24. > :27:28.designate two campaigns. That is not clear in the bill at the moment. If

:27:29. > :27:36.one such campaign was frivolous or vexatious... Just there to try and

:27:37. > :27:40.spoil in some respects, than the electoral commission would have to

:27:41. > :27:44.justify that. What I hope the Minister would tell us is that he

:27:45. > :27:48.can accept this amendment. If he can't accept this amendment, I hope

:27:49. > :27:56.you will make clear that the substance of the amendment should be

:27:57. > :28:01.understood in any case that it would be unconscionable to have only one

:28:02. > :28:10.campaign designated in this referendum unless an application is

:28:11. > :28:15.made in such a way as to be vexatious or frivolous, or could be

:28:16. > :28:19.construed as those, then such an application would have to be

:28:20. > :28:24.considered because, have no doubt, there will be an application as I

:28:25. > :28:27.mentioned earlier. There will be an application in respect of both

:28:28. > :28:32.sides. I give way. I endorse what my honourable friend

:28:33. > :28:37.has just said. And also, just to repeat for the sake of clarity, but

:28:38. > :28:42.actually these amendments have come to us on the ping-pong between

:28:43. > :28:44.Commons and Lords. That is not the best place for any of these

:28:45. > :28:50.amendments to be considered because we haven't had a chance to have a

:28:51. > :28:53.good look at this in enough time. That therefore is a consideration

:28:54. > :28:57.which I hope the Minister will take into account when he gives us the

:28:58. > :29:02.full information we are asking for in all the amendments, five, six and

:29:03. > :29:07.13. I'm grateful. In closing I would

:29:08. > :29:13.simply add that all of these three amendments we have been discussing

:29:14. > :29:16.the potential role of the electoral commission. In respect of five and

:29:17. > :29:22.six, the electoral commission has actually shrunk from the possibility

:29:23. > :29:25.of being given an obligation that its not fit for. It is worth

:29:26. > :29:31.reminding ourselves that we have already developed that they will

:29:32. > :29:44.already give that advice about possible new regulations. They did

:29:45. > :29:47.not want that obligation but we gave it to them. In other countries,

:29:48. > :29:53.electoral commissions such as in Ireland or Denmark have a very much

:29:54. > :29:59.more active policing role in respect of fair referendum is. One which, in

:30:00. > :30:02.this country, we have not really set up the electoral commission to

:30:03. > :30:07.undertake. In response to my honourable

:30:08. > :30:14.friend, though the cases of amendment five and six, we need to

:30:15. > :30:20.bear in mind that this is a duty imposed. That duty implies and

:30:21. > :30:24.carries with it the potential for a judicial review. If there was any

:30:25. > :30:29.failure in carrying out that duty in the manner in which it would be

:30:30. > :30:31.expected that it should be done under all the precepts of

:30:32. > :30:36.administrative law, I think the Minister will accept that there is

:30:37. > :30:40.more than a high probability that there would be a challenge in the

:30:41. > :30:45.courts as to the manner in which any of these reports or any other

:30:46. > :30:48.matters arose, or any misleading nature of any of the information

:30:49. > :30:54.which was produced. I agree with that and I would also

:30:55. > :30:58.add the other point that I was going to make. Where the electoral

:30:59. > :31:06.commission has a duty, they can be judicially reviewed. In respect of

:31:07. > :31:10.the designation of only one campaign, I have absolutely no doubt

:31:11. > :31:17.there would be instantly a judicial review. I speak with knowledge and

:31:18. > :31:23.forethought. The other point I want to make is that in the absence of

:31:24. > :31:26.the duties and functions on the electoral committee, for example to

:31:27. > :31:30.provide for impartial and objective information from the Government, it

:31:31. > :31:37.is a moral imperative on ministers to make sure they undertake their

:31:38. > :31:42.obligations in the spirit of a fair referendum, and not to abuse the

:31:43. > :31:50.trust that this legislation puts in there with regard to the public

:31:51. > :31:55.creation of that information. Thank you for calling me to speak in

:31:56. > :32:00.this debate. It was on the 9th of June that I had the opportunity to

:32:01. > :32:03.begin my parliamentary career with my maiden speech on this very bill

:32:04. > :32:08.and therefore I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to

:32:09. > :32:12.speak the grain as the Bill makes its way through this house. -- speak

:32:13. > :32:17.again. The issue of our continued membership of the European Union or

:32:18. > :32:20.not is one of the most important issues of our generation. There are

:32:21. > :32:25.some elements of our relationship where we should be thankful and

:32:26. > :32:28.grateful, particularly our access to the single market and our

:32:29. > :32:34.noninvolvement with Schengen and the euro. There are other areas where we

:32:35. > :32:36.are not getting a good deal and the Prime Minister is right to

:32:37. > :32:41.renegotiate our relationship and ask for a better deal. He and the

:32:42. > :32:45.Secretary of State for business and other members have said we should

:32:46. > :32:50.not be afraid to leave if we find the deal is not good enough for our

:32:51. > :32:55.country and our future. As the country makes its decision, as the

:32:56. > :32:58.referendum period begins, I am mindful that the public will need

:32:59. > :33:03.information about what the offer is. It will need factual

:33:04. > :33:08.information. It will also need respected information about what in

:33:09. > :33:13.and out mean and what our future might be in a different arrangement.

:33:14. > :33:17.It will need legal information. The public might need political

:33:18. > :33:23.information, financial and economic information. Above all, it will need

:33:24. > :33:26.a well run referendum. Well administered referendum. There in

:33:27. > :33:31.lies a key role for the electoral commission. It will need information

:33:32. > :33:36.about what the Swiss model looks like. What the Norwegian model looks

:33:37. > :33:39.like? Could it be a good fit for this country? Or be better off

:33:40. > :33:46.staying in reformed union? Of course I will give way.

:33:47. > :33:49.Would you agree that there are not only two alternatives, Switzerland

:33:50. > :33:54.and Norway, there are lots of alternatives.

:33:55. > :33:58.That is a fantastic point and I certainly do agree there are a

:33:59. > :34:01.number of alternatives. I look forward to the referendum debate and

:34:02. > :34:07.also the debates in the media, in this house and in many other

:34:08. > :34:11.follow-ups. I also want to return to the central role that the electoral

:34:12. > :34:15.commission will play. My view is that the electoral commission should

:34:16. > :34:23.not be drawn into playing any sort of qualified judicial role. Any sort

:34:24. > :34:26.of -- any more beyond playing a functioning role in the central

:34:27. > :34:32.administration of the referendum. We should be mindful of the views of

:34:33. > :34:35.set out in a letter which has been distributed to members across this

:34:36. > :34:43.house and which we should certainly take heed of. I think other

:34:44. > :34:47.honourable members across the House are heartened about the vibrant

:34:48. > :34:51.members of our democracy. Even though we are still in the early

:34:52. > :34:55.stages of this debate, a number of campaigning groups have been

:34:56. > :35:02.produced and I am pleased to see senior members represented from

:35:03. > :35:07.across the House in today's debates. On this side of a house on our

:35:08. > :35:12.benches there is Conservatives Of Britain, which has been skilfully

:35:13. > :35:21.organised. I can also see my honourable friend for Howard and

:35:22. > :35:31.North Essex playing a leading role. On the opposite house, Labour In For

:35:32. > :35:39.Britain and, of course, Britain Is Stronger In Europe. Even before the

:35:40. > :35:43.referendum really gets under way, there is a vibrancy of debate across

:35:44. > :35:51.this house and also in this country which is very positive. My remarks

:35:52. > :35:55.will focus on the... I give way. I am very grateful and he is right

:35:56. > :36:01.to set out the span of organisations. I wonder if he will

:36:02. > :36:05.agree with me. Unless my inbox and constituents of North Dorset is at

:36:06. > :36:10.odds with the rest of the House. I get lots of e-mails about lots of

:36:11. > :36:23.things. Hundreds about bumblebees. I can't think the last time I had an

:36:24. > :36:30.e-mail about... We should just focus down to what is happening here.

:36:31. > :36:31.I thank my honourable friend for his characteristically copious

:36:32. > :36:34.intervention and two years absolutely right that beyond the

:36:35. > :36:38.walls of this place there are men and women, malaise, businesses are

:36:39. > :36:45.playing their day-to-day role and not necessarily concentrating on the

:36:46. > :36:50.referendum issue is that this house concentrates on. I give way.

:36:51. > :36:54.I vicariously might reform to the most recent opinion poll which

:36:55. > :36:58.showed that 52% of the United Kingdom electorate thought they

:36:59. > :37:07.should leave and only 48% thought we should stay in. 60% of those in the

:37:08. > :37:12.south-west did say they wanted to leave.

:37:13. > :37:19.I thank you for your intervention. I was just finishing my response from

:37:20. > :37:26.my honourable friend which is that I know there are many individuals,

:37:27. > :37:30.families, businesses outside the walls focusing on other things. I

:37:31. > :37:34.hope we debate in this house will be able to take a lead on those

:37:35. > :37:39.issues. I welcome e-mails on all sides of the argument.

:37:40. > :37:42.I give way. Surely the point of the British people fully understand,

:37:43. > :37:50.which is why they now wish to leave the EU, is that their concerns about

:37:51. > :37:57.migration, taxation, the 10 billion we pay a way to the rest of the

:37:58. > :38:04.European Union, our inability to form our own welfare laws, are vital

:38:05. > :38:08.concerns of our voters in the United Kingdom and are all European issues.

:38:09. > :38:13.Thank you for your passionate intervention. I will simply say to

:38:14. > :38:17.him as I respond to my honourable friend that those issues are very

:38:18. > :38:23.important and I welcome a more e-mails over the next year or so.

:38:24. > :38:29.Maybe that is not the best message for my constituents, but I know that

:38:30. > :38:33.members across the House will be receiving representation from their

:38:34. > :38:37.constituents on all sides of the debate, whether that is in the form

:38:38. > :38:44.of letters, e-mails or petitions. I will give way.

:38:45. > :38:54.Author in his thoughts, the honourable member for North Dorset

:38:55. > :38:58.mentioned bees. They are inadvertently to do with EU

:38:59. > :39:03.regulation. My honourable friend makes a good

:39:04. > :39:07.point. There are many issues we debate in this chamber, in

:39:08. > :39:12.Westminster Hall, and in other forms where Europe actually makes an

:39:13. > :39:19.important intervention. We should all be very mindful of that. My

:39:20. > :39:26.point is to talk about the role of the referendum and also the Lords

:39:27. > :39:31.Amendment Number five, six and 13. If I might be permitted I will

:39:32. > :39:35.remind the House about the text and intention of Lords Amendment number

:39:36. > :39:40.five, which as many members will know introduces a new clause which

:39:41. > :39:44.will create a duty for the Secretary of State to publish a report setting

:39:45. > :39:48.out what has been agreed by member states following the renegotiation

:39:49. > :39:53.of the UK's membership of the EU which has been requested by the UK

:39:54. > :39:58.Government. The report will also require the UK Government to set out

:39:59. > :40:02.an opinion on what has been agreed, and it will have to be published at

:40:03. > :40:05.least ten weeks before date of the referendum. The Secretary of State

:40:06. > :40:10.will also be required to publish a copy before Parliament. Lords

:40:11. > :40:18.Amendment can micro-number six will introduce a new clause which creates

:40:19. > :40:23.a duty to publish a report setting out information about the rights and

:40:24. > :40:26.obligations which arise from European law as a result of the

:40:27. > :40:33.UK's membership of the European Union. The rights of this case

:40:34. > :40:39.refers to the rights that the UK has as a member state and also writes

:40:40. > :40:42.but are granted to individuals and organisations under European law.

:40:43. > :40:50.This could include the rights of access to the single market.

:40:51. > :40:54.Obligations in this example, the first two obligations arising under

:40:55. > :40:58.EU law that apply to the UK as a member state, and also to

:40:59. > :41:02.organisations or two individuals. For example, this could include the

:41:03. > :41:11.obligation on the United Kingdom as a member state to amend national law

:41:12. > :41:14.to bring it into a particular area. Number six will require the

:41:15. > :41:16.Secretary of State to include reports about examples and

:41:17. > :41:20.arrangements that other countries have with the European Union,

:41:21. > :41:26.whether that is Switzerland, Norway or other countries that are not

:41:27. > :41:29.members of the European Union. The report would have to be published at

:41:30. > :41:33.least ten weeks before the referendum date and the Secretary of

:41:34. > :41:41.State will also be required to lay a copy before Parliament.

:41:42. > :41:48.And there are a number of amendment and I know he is not currently in

:41:49. > :41:52.his place but he has indicated he may well withdraw them. But it is

:41:53. > :41:58.useful for the house if I elucidate my views on the amendments depending

:41:59. > :42:02.on how other members feel. My view is the electoral commission should

:42:03. > :42:07.not be drawn into the debate in the way my honourable friend has

:42:08. > :42:13.indicated in his amendment. As I mentioned earlier, the electoral

:42:14. > :42:18.commission has written to all noble and right honourable members across

:42:19. > :42:21.the house and my honourable friend acknowledged in his remarks that

:42:22. > :42:28.they would consider any increase in their powers or rule for them in

:42:29. > :42:34.making adjudication to affect the current position and that is the

:42:35. > :42:37.view I agree with. To put the electoral commission into a

:42:38. > :42:41.politically sensitive commission IDD getting on the matter of the

:42:42. > :42:46.accuracy of the Government's report would probably be a step too far and

:42:47. > :42:58.steps into the realm of being acquired by judicial body. I give

:42:59. > :43:01.way. Actually, secretaries of State and ministers are answerable to this

:43:02. > :43:09.parliament and this House and it would take put them in the role

:43:10. > :43:14.taking on Parliament. She makes an outstanding point which I was going

:43:15. > :43:18.to come to in my remarks which is to give the electoral commission a role

:43:19. > :43:23.beyond its current role would be to tread upon the feet of honourable

:43:24. > :43:26.and right honourable members and this House and encroach on the

:43:27. > :43:31.democratic freedoms of this Parliament. My honourable friend is

:43:32. > :43:35.right that the electoral commission itself does not agree with the

:43:36. > :43:44.amendment or the intention posited by my honourable friend. There are

:43:45. > :43:47.better sources of information, literature from the various campaign

:43:48. > :43:53.groups that I mentioned, information from public bodies such as the

:43:54. > :44:00.Office For Budget Responsibility and the bank of England. I would also

:44:01. > :44:03.encourage members of the public and Hansard were speeches from members

:44:04. > :44:09.can be found, including from this very debate. I give way to my

:44:10. > :44:14.honourable friend. Geller can I also add it would be very useful if

:44:15. > :44:17.people really wanted to hear how the debate was progressing if they

:44:18. > :44:25.followed the transcripts and also the parliamentary channel for the

:44:26. > :44:28.European Scrutiny Committee and the foreign affairs select committee

:44:29. > :44:31.proceedings because that will help them an enormous amount about what

:44:32. > :44:37.is going on and what questions are being asked of ministers. I thank my

:44:38. > :44:41.honourable friend for this intervention and he makes a very

:44:42. > :44:48.cogent point. Proceedings in this chamber are available not only on

:44:49. > :44:53.Hansard but also on Parliament's own television channel as well as the

:44:54. > :44:55.BBC Parliament channel. I would encourage what members of the public

:44:56. > :44:59.and all interested in the proceedings of the South Union,

:45:00. > :45:06.particularly to his committee which he had fled with distinction for

:45:07. > :45:12.many years -- leather with distinction for many years. I am

:45:13. > :45:16.delighted to see two of my distinguished colleagues on these

:45:17. > :45:22.benches in the chamber today for this debate. Before my honourable

:45:23. > :45:26.friend intervention I was mentioning the electoral commission's own

:45:27. > :45:30.research that it undertook as part of its statutorily commitment on

:45:31. > :45:38.information the public would want to know. As my honourable friend said

:45:39. > :45:43.and also as the member for Glenrothes said, they found members

:45:44. > :45:47.of the public were not necessarily clear about the consequences of the

:45:48. > :45:51.referendum and there was no real understanding amongst large sections

:45:52. > :45:55.of the public about what leaving would entail and not enough

:45:56. > :46:00.information about what staying in would entail. There was also

:46:01. > :46:04.confusion about the very many campaign groups that have sprung up.

:46:05. > :46:10.What they don't see, which I thought was particularly heartening, is

:46:11. > :46:16.there is a strong appetite for more information about the implications

:46:17. > :46:23.of leaving and also about information about the implications

:46:24. > :46:27.of remaining. Also about information for other models of engagement that

:46:28. > :46:32.are possible, whether that is Switzerland, Norway, other members

:46:33. > :46:38.of the European economic area or other countries around the world, in

:46:39. > :46:42.Asia, Africa, north or south America. There are a number of

:46:43. > :46:48.models that can be invoked in this debate and the public are very keen

:46:49. > :46:54.to have more information. There is an appetite for more information,

:46:55. > :46:58.but the electoral commission also found that the information is public

:46:59. > :47:06.would actually like is not simply the wryly factual in nature, it is

:47:07. > :47:11.my contention that members of the public would like contextual

:47:12. > :47:17.information, for example, with work examples, explanations, case

:47:18. > :47:21.studies, views of various members from this House. Therefore, the

:47:22. > :47:25.electoral commission recommended that campaign groups which I

:47:26. > :47:31.mentioned at the start of my speech includes sections on their website

:47:32. > :47:36.and literature precisely with some of those work examples and real-life

:47:37. > :47:40.case studies, testimonies from members of this House and lemon

:47:41. > :47:45.members in the other place and experienced members of the public

:47:46. > :47:48.and that would help a lot in educating the public on the choice

:47:49. > :47:56.is to be made. The electoral commission also said it was very

:47:57. > :48:00.slow to want to adopt some of the extra powers that certain honourable

:48:01. > :48:04.members said it should have on the basis it is not powers to police

:48:05. > :48:10.what information might be put into the public domain. It is not

:48:11. > :48:14.legislative powers to regulate the information that might be put into

:48:15. > :48:17.the public domain alongside any Government reports. Finally, the

:48:18. > :48:22.electoral commission also made a very good point that I agree with

:48:23. > :48:27.that is it doesn't have the capabilities to undertake an

:48:28. > :48:33.extension of its current role which some noble lords and summer

:48:34. > :48:37.honourable members think it may have. They say, it is also the case

:48:38. > :48:45.we would not have the capabilities to do so. The electoral commission

:48:46. > :48:51.father says, we will have no insider knowledge of negotiations, nor the

:48:52. > :48:58.required expertise to judge the report from Parliament about UK's

:48:59. > :49:01.membership. I thank my honourable friend for highlighting the

:49:02. > :49:05.extensive assessment of the electoral commission has made of

:49:06. > :49:11.this amendment. Isn't he, does he agree with me that is what renders

:49:12. > :49:17.this amendment fatal? The electoral commission themselves have said they

:49:18. > :49:22.do not have the capabilities and insider knowledge to carry out the

:49:23. > :49:28.duty that would be imposed upon them if this amendment were to be

:49:29. > :49:33.passed? I thank my honourable friend. I know she is very loaded in

:49:34. > :49:38.these matters as a barrister and I entirely agree with her it is very

:49:39. > :49:43.persuasive when one considers the electoral commission's or a letter

:49:44. > :49:48.to members across this House which many members will have received in

:49:49. > :49:52.the inbox is not long ago. I quote, we have no inside knowledge of the

:49:53. > :49:58.negotiations nor the required expertise to judge a report on the

:49:59. > :50:03.UK's membership of the EU. I give away. I think he will have heard

:50:04. > :50:07.that the electoral commission have had the duties imposed upon them by

:50:08. > :50:11.parliament before, what we are driving at in this amendment, above

:50:12. > :50:15.all else, and I see that with respect, not only to him but to the

:50:16. > :50:19.honourable lady who has just spoken, that the real point they

:50:20. > :50:25.made is there should be proper impartiality and accuracy and if

:50:26. > :50:29.they can do it, the Government can. And if they don't, the courts will

:50:30. > :50:33.ensure they do. I thank my honourable friend for his

:50:34. > :50:37.intervention and explanation. My interpretation of the letter was

:50:38. > :50:40.they do not want to take on more powers, simply for the fact they

:50:41. > :50:47.already have core duties which is the administration of elections and

:50:48. > :50:51.referendums. I also want to say to my honourable friend that my

:50:52. > :50:56.interpretation of the letter was the electoral commission was considering

:50:57. > :51:02.they are not experts in constitutional law, politics or

:51:03. > :51:08.other negotiations of the UK's remaining membership. That is the

:51:09. > :51:11.role I want them to fulfil as the referendum process continues. My

:51:12. > :51:17.interpretation of that letter was the electoral commission was

:51:18. > :51:22.saying, very frankly and openly, they lack the expertise to make any

:51:23. > :51:25.sort of determination about the Government's report. That is one

:51:26. > :51:32.other observation I would like to bring this amendment and that is

:51:33. > :51:38.next year, as many members will know, we will be experiencing local

:51:39. > :51:42.elections, can the elections, and also Police Commissioner elections,

:51:43. > :51:46.which will increase the workload of the electoral commission in its

:51:47. > :51:50.current guys, whether that is arbitrating on voter rolls,

:51:51. > :51:56.interpreting aspects of election law or undertaking it other statutory

:51:57. > :52:00.duties which I feel are already quite draining its resources. My

:52:01. > :52:05.contention is simply electoral commission lacks the expertise, as

:52:06. > :52:10.my honourable friend said, but also will be burdened with a heavy

:52:11. > :52:14.workload and the number and frequency and geographic spread of

:52:15. > :52:22.elections it is having to be involved in. My view is that is no

:52:23. > :52:25.role for the electoral commission in the respect that has been positive

:52:26. > :52:32.in the amendment and therefore the Government's view should... Madam

:52:33. > :52:35.Deputy Speaker if you permit me I wanted to briefly to Lords

:52:36. > :52:41.amendments 13 which has been tabled in the other place where the noble

:52:42. > :52:46.Baroness. I know this has some support in this house and if you

:52:47. > :52:50.permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to elucidate what this stars and also

:52:51. > :52:56.share my views on its place and this House. As Orrell and right

:52:57. > :53:04.honourable members will law, section 108 of the political parties act

:53:05. > :53:07.2000 allows the electoral commission to designate permitted participants,

:53:08. > :53:12.likely to be one of the campaign groups mentioned earlier, to the

:53:13. > :53:19.organisations to whom assistance will be available. Such a system is

:53:20. > :53:26.being logistical, financial and in some cases the opportunity to

:53:27. > :53:34.present itself in the media. Where a referendum has only two outcomes as

:53:35. > :53:39.is in the case in this referendum, that the section one or eight of

:53:40. > :53:43.that act of the 2000 act, the electoral commission can only

:53:44. > :53:49.exercise the power to designate one organisation for each of the

:53:50. > :53:53.outcomes or none at all. Lords amendment 13 would enable the

:53:54. > :53:58.electoral commission to designate the league campaign for one side of

:53:59. > :54:04.the argument, whether that be remain or leave at the referendum, without

:54:05. > :54:09.designating a leading campaigner for the other side. This would only

:54:10. > :54:14.apply where for a particular outcome whether that be leaving or

:54:15. > :54:18.remaining, had no applications on the other side, or the electoral

:54:19. > :54:24.commission was not satisfied there was an applicant that adequately

:54:25. > :54:29.represented those campaigning for that outcome. Clearly an adequate

:54:30. > :54:33.troops would be discarded by the electoral commission. In the event

:54:34. > :54:37.that only one campaigner was designated, that campaigner would be

:54:38. > :54:44.entitled to a high spending limit, a free mail out to voters and also

:54:45. > :54:48.access to public meeting rooms, for example a public council buildings

:54:49. > :54:52.or other municipal buildings. They would not be entitled, and I think

:54:53. > :54:57.it is important for the house to have cognisant of this point, to a

:54:58. > :55:06.grant from the electoral commission of up to ?600,000, under section 110

:55:07. > :55:10.of the 2000 act. Nor would they be allowed to make a referendum

:55:11. > :55:18.broadcast to the people of this country under section 127 of this

:55:19. > :55:23.Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, having reviewed the amendments both in this

:55:24. > :55:26.place and the other place and also read representations from the

:55:27. > :55:31.electoral commission and broadcasters as well, my view is

:55:32. > :55:35.that is a fair compromise. This amendment implement recommendations

:55:36. > :55:43.that the electoral commission itself made following the 2011 referendum

:55:44. > :55:47.on voting systems. As I said at the start of my remarks, we must heed to

:55:48. > :55:54.what the electoral commission itself says while also taking into account

:55:55. > :55:59.the views of members in this House. Based on those experiences from

:56:00. > :56:03.2011, the electoral commission recommended the steps that should be

:56:04. > :56:09.taken should be steps that reduce the potential advantages under the

:56:10. > :56:13.political parties electoral referendums act. To decide against

:56:14. > :56:19.applying for designation. The electoral commission found they had

:56:20. > :56:23.identified an example when a campaign that mere tactical

:56:24. > :56:28.advantage in not seeking designation with a view to frustrating the other

:56:29. > :56:31.side's access to these benefits. I find that a particularly cogent

:56:32. > :56:36.observations on behalf of the electoral coalition. I said I would

:56:37. > :56:41.touch briefly on Lords amendments 13 and I will continue my promise. I

:56:42. > :56:43.think the Government position on all the amendment should be supported

:56:44. > :56:48.and they deserve the support of the house.

:56:49. > :56:55.I beg to move that this house do agree with Lords Amendment five and

:56:56. > :56:58.I want to start by thanking right honourable and honourable members

:56:59. > :57:03.who have taken part in the debates this afternoon. Indeed, the member

:57:04. > :57:06.for Wolverhampton south-eastward even so generous as to offer an

:57:07. > :57:14.additional filler for my Christmas stocking. I'm sure that the pamphlet

:57:15. > :57:19.he proffered to me will take an honoured place alongside on my

:57:20. > :57:27.shelves the collected works of another honourable member. The House

:57:28. > :57:35.will be aware that this bill receives detailed scrutiny in the

:57:36. > :57:38.Lords and this particular group of amendments and Lords amendments this

:57:39. > :57:46.afternoon we are talking about quite a wide range of changes that the

:57:47. > :57:50.other house imported into the bill. Many of those amendments were

:57:51. > :57:53.technical and procedural in character and were designed to

:57:54. > :57:58.strengthen the furnace and robustness of the campaign

:57:59. > :58:02.framework. The Lords main technical amendments ensure that the bill

:58:03. > :58:07.works appropriately for Gibraltar and feeble response to

:58:08. > :58:12.recommendations for House of Lords delegated powers and regulatory

:58:13. > :58:17.committee. Finally, and these are the subjects which have preoccupied

:58:18. > :58:20.the House most this afternoon, in response to concerns from members of

:58:21. > :58:24.the House of Lords that the British people might not have access to the

:58:25. > :58:27.information they need to take an informed decision, the Lords added

:58:28. > :58:33.to the bill be duty to report on three topics. The results of the

:58:34. > :58:37.renegotiations, what membership of the European Union in tales in terms

:58:38. > :58:41.of our current rights and obligations? And examples of already

:58:42. > :58:45.existing alternatives to EU membership. In the time that remains

:58:46. > :58:51.I want to address these areas of change in return. Let me go straight

:58:52. > :58:58.to amendments five and six concerning the provision of public

:58:59. > :59:04.information. Of course, as my right honourable friend the member for

:59:05. > :59:07.Ashford and my honourable friend the member for Harrow and North Essex

:59:08. > :59:12.both at college, the Government at the end of the negotiating process

:59:13. > :59:19.is clearly going to express its view to the British people for when the

:59:20. > :59:25.electorate votes at the promised referendum. -- both acknowledged.

:59:26. > :59:34.But what we now have our obligations written onto the face of statute for

:59:35. > :59:38.the Government to publish particular items of information. There was a

:59:39. > :59:43.clear appetite in the Lords to have such provision and in fact, the

:59:44. > :59:48.Lords tables and debated a series of amendments that called upon the

:59:49. > :59:51.Government to set out in a very prescriptive detail the potential

:59:52. > :59:55.consequences of remaining in the European Union and also what the

:59:56. > :59:59.consequences of withdrawal would be on a number of areas of national

:00:00. > :00:05.life. Noble Lords called on the Government to set out what that

:00:06. > :00:10.means to government's in the Jewish relationship would be with the EU

:00:11. > :00:20.under a vote to leave. ... Envisaged relationship. -- envisaged

:00:21. > :00:25.relationship. In our view, it is for the designated lead organisations to

:00:26. > :00:30.lead the debate on the two side of the argument. However, the electoral

:00:31. > :00:35.commission and their research into the question did identify that there

:00:36. > :00:38.is an appetite among the general public for information, both on what

:00:39. > :00:43.remaining in the EU would leave and on what leaving could mean. Given

:00:44. > :00:47.the strongly held views that were expressed in the other place, we

:00:48. > :00:52.accepted the principle that the Government should be obliged to play

:00:53. > :00:57.a role, a limited role, in ensuring that the public is able to make an

:00:58. > :01:01.informed decision. In our view, the most useful role for the Government

:01:02. > :01:05.here is to give information about the renegotiation deal that is

:01:06. > :01:12.achieved, and also on the factual nature of membership to try to aid

:01:13. > :01:16.understanding and to inform the public. Then, it'll be for the

:01:17. > :01:24.designated elite campaigners to interpret that information and about

:01:25. > :01:31.own information on both sides. -- on their own. Amendment five is tabled

:01:32. > :01:35.by my noble friend who everyone in the House would accept is not

:01:36. > :01:42.someone normally regarded as an unqualified admirer of the European

:01:43. > :01:44.Union. That amendment set a requirement for the Government to

:01:45. > :01:51.report on the outcome of the renegotiation. Building on this, the

:01:52. > :01:54.Lords Amendment five that we now have before us would require the

:01:55. > :01:59.Government to report on what it had been agreed by EU member states as a

:02:00. > :02:03.result of the renegotiation, and for the Government to give its view on

:02:04. > :02:09.this. Amendment six takes us further. It requires the Government

:02:10. > :02:13.to published a report. That report was set out information about rights

:02:14. > :02:18.and obligations that arise and EU law as a result of the UK's

:02:19. > :02:21.membership of the EU. This would enable us to describe what

:02:22. > :02:25.membership for the EU in tales in this country.

:02:26. > :02:33.And who tabled amendment six? Amendment six was tabled by my right

:02:34. > :02:36.honourable friend... Noble friend following debate in the Lords as a

:02:37. > :02:42.way to try to build consensus in that house to give their passage to

:02:43. > :02:48.the bill. Perhaps it would be useful for me to explain, in response to

:02:49. > :02:54.the Commons that have been made this afternoon, how the Government

:02:55. > :03:00.interprets the obligation imposed on us by these amendments and how we

:03:01. > :03:10.would propose to see those obligations implemented. By right,

:03:11. > :03:13.as set out in amendment six, we mean rights but United Kingdom has as a

:03:14. > :03:18.member state and also the rights granted to individuals and

:03:19. > :03:22.businesses as a result of our membership of the European Union

:03:23. > :03:26.such as access to the single market. By obligations, I refer to those

:03:27. > :03:33.things that are membership of the European Union obliges us to do.

:03:34. > :03:37.Most obviously, this is at the level of the member state. But also their

:03:38. > :03:45.would-be implications for businesses or individuals. An obvious example

:03:46. > :03:50.is our obligation as a member state to transpose EU laws in particular

:03:51. > :03:55.areas and accept the climate of EU law so long as we are a member of

:03:56. > :03:59.the European Union. The duty that has been written into amendment six

:04:00. > :04:03.does not require the Government to set out information about every

:04:04. > :04:06.single right and obligation. I think such a report would not be

:04:07. > :04:11.meaningful and the purpose of the duties is to provide useful and

:04:12. > :04:15.relevant factual information to allow for greater public

:04:16. > :04:22.understanding. Amendment six also requires the Government to divulge

:04:23. > :04:26.where the existing -- to explore some of the existing arrangements

:04:27. > :04:30.were at... That members who are not a member of the EU already have.

:04:31. > :04:34.I don't understand how the Government can say is only going to

:04:35. > :04:37.mention some of the obligations. Surely, the bill is drafted says the

:04:38. > :04:41.obligations and that must include all the legal requirements on

:04:42. > :04:48.individuals, companies and the states, as well as legal supremacy.

:04:49. > :04:52.I hope you will mention in the next clause that there is nothing said

:04:53. > :04:55.about trade and he must not limiting themselves to trade. He must look at

:04:56. > :05:00.all sorts arrangements, not just trade.

:05:01. > :05:06.First of all, on the wording of the amendment, the amendment refers to

:05:07. > :05:16.rights and obligations, not to the rights and obligations. It gives the

:05:17. > :05:19.Government the discretion to select those where we think the

:05:20. > :05:23.presentation of rights and obligations are the ones that will

:05:24. > :05:28.best aid public understanding. I do want to make it clear that our

:05:29. > :05:34.purpose in recommending acceptance of these amendments is that we

:05:35. > :05:36.should be able to provide for greater public understanding. I

:05:37. > :05:42.completely agree with my right honourable friend from Wokingham

:05:43. > :05:48.that membership of the EU touches on things in addition to matters of

:05:49. > :05:51.trade or economic policy. It'll be a matter for vigorous debate during

:05:52. > :05:58.the referendum campaign as to relative balance or advantages -- of

:05:59. > :06:04.advantages or disadvantages that arise out of EU membership. But that

:06:05. > :06:07.is not a debate which we see as taking place in the context of the

:06:08. > :06:12.obligation placed on us by amendment six. Amendment six is about

:06:13. > :06:17.providing factual information on the basis of which the public can make

:06:18. > :06:20.an informed decision. What the amendment also does is to describe

:06:21. > :06:25.some of the existing arrangements that require us to describe existing

:06:26. > :06:29.arrangement that other countries which are not members already have

:06:30. > :06:36.with the European Union. We think this is a better course of action

:06:37. > :06:38.and for the Government to attempt to hypothesise what the future

:06:39. > :06:45.relationship of the United Kingdom would be with the EU in the event of

:06:46. > :06:53.a vote to withdraw. Because that depends on assumptions made both

:06:54. > :06:56.about the future intentions of the British, but also the likely

:06:57. > :07:01.response of other European countries in those circumstances.

:07:02. > :07:05.On this question about the rights and obligations, as compared to the

:07:06. > :07:10.other, I think he is already beginning to move the argument into

:07:11. > :07:15.the arena on the question of impartiality and accuracy because in

:07:16. > :07:19.fact, if they pick and choose, then there will be no way for the public

:07:20. > :07:23.to have a clue as to whether or not the ones they've chosen are the ones

:07:24. > :07:30.that suit them or the public and the voters who have to make the choice.

:07:31. > :07:37.I think that if the... To follow your logic, the implications of a

:07:38. > :07:46.requirement to provide an exhaustive list would mean going through the

:07:47. > :07:55.entire corpus of EU law, not just the particular areas of expressed in

:07:56. > :08:01.the treaties, and trying to draw out from. What would be a voluminous

:08:02. > :08:06.list of both rights and obligations are derived from those measures. I

:08:07. > :08:09.simply don't think that will aid public understanding. I think it

:08:10. > :08:14.will act as a deterrent for many members of the public to read the

:08:15. > :08:18.document at all. The honourable member asked about the form of

:08:19. > :08:23.publication. No decision has been taken about this yet, but certainly

:08:24. > :08:28.I would envisage that is being comparable to a white paper, if not

:08:29. > :08:31.an actual white paper. As would be normal these days, such a

:08:32. > :08:35.publication would be available online and therefore it would be

:08:36. > :08:38.widely accessible. The report would have to be published at least ten

:08:39. > :08:42.weeks before the referendum which would give campaign is clear time to

:08:43. > :08:50.lead the public debate. I would emphasise that neither amendment

:08:51. > :08:51.five or six in any way affect the section 125 restriction on

:08:52. > :08:57.government publications during the final 28 days of the campaign. I

:08:58. > :09:01.hope that my honourable friend, in view of what I have said and in view

:09:02. > :09:05.of the electoral commission 's X Best view that they do not agree

:09:06. > :09:14.with his amendments today, will at the end of this debate agree to...

:09:15. > :09:18.I have asked him several times before I declare whether I will

:09:19. > :09:21.withdraw these amendments or not, for him on the half of the

:09:22. > :09:26.governments to make it absolutely clear that when they are giving this

:09:27. > :09:30.information under five or six they will do so with due accuracy and

:09:31. > :09:35.impartiality. Is he going to do that, or is he not?

:09:36. > :09:45.Certainly that is the case because I actually think it will probably have

:09:46. > :09:50.a perverse impact on the Government's recommendation, at the

:09:51. > :09:56.end of the day, if the Government were to be seen to be acting in an

:09:57. > :10:03.excessively partisan manner. I would say again, the Government is clearly

:10:04. > :10:06.going to express its view, its recommendations and its reasoning.

:10:07. > :10:13.But the statutory duties which are laid out in these amendments we see

:10:14. > :10:16.about being about the provision of accurate and factual information.

:10:17. > :10:22.Amendment 13 was also debated in some detail this afternoon. This

:10:23. > :10:26.would allow the electoral commission to designate a lead campaigner for

:10:27. > :10:31.only one side of the argument in the event that for a particular outcome

:10:32. > :10:35.there were no applications, or the electoral commission was not

:10:36. > :10:37.satisfied that any applicant met the statutory test of adequately

:10:38. > :10:43.representing those campaigning for that outcome. Given the vigour that

:10:44. > :10:47.we already see in opposing campaigns, I think it is very

:10:48. > :10:51.unlikely that we are going to end up in that territory. I hope the House

:10:52. > :10:57.will accept this Lords Amendment to prevent gaining by one side of the

:10:58. > :11:06.campaign to the disadvantage of the other.

:11:07. > :11:10.Simply to say that in the light of the clear assurance that there will

:11:11. > :11:15.be due impartiality and accuracy, I am prepared to withdraw my

:11:16. > :11:24.amendments with respect to five, six and 13.

:11:25. > :11:28.Amendment by leave withdrawn? Minister to move to agree to Lords

:11:29. > :11:32.Amendment five formally. Formally.

:11:33. > :11:38.The question is that this house agrees with the Lords and their

:11:39. > :11:46.amendment five. Say aye. On the contrary, no. I think the ayes have

:11:47. > :11:51.it. Under the standing order I must now put the question to dispose of

:11:52. > :11:56.the remaining Lords amendments. The question is that this house agrees

:11:57. > :12:05.with the Lords amendments six, two and four, and 7-46. Say aye. Say no.

:12:06. > :12:16.I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

:12:17. > :12:30.other minister David Lillington in the chair of the committee and the

:12:31. > :12:38.call of the committee do withdraw immediately. The question is that a

:12:39. > :12:45.committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords

:12:46. > :12:50.for the amendment one. Judith Cummins, David Langdon, Pat

:12:51. > :12:58.McFadden, James Morris and Owen Toms of the members of the committee, but

:12:59. > :13:02.the David Livingstone be the committee and three the record of

:13:03. > :13:04.the committee and the committee do withdraw immediately. As many as are

:13:05. > :13:11.of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it.

:13:12. > :13:18.The ayes have it. We now come to the motion on cross-border cooperation

:13:19. > :13:23.to tackle serious and organised crime - Prum. I am from the house

:13:24. > :13:27.the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Sir William

:13:28. > :13:32.Cash and will be debated together with the main motion and the

:13:33. > :13:42.amendment will be put at the end of the debate. Minister to move? Thank

:13:43. > :13:47.you and I beg to move the motion standing in my honourable right

:13:48. > :13:51.honourable friend name. Recent events in Europe, particularly in

:13:52. > :13:56.Paris, highlighted the real need to cooperate with other countries to

:13:57. > :14:00.keep our citizens save and hunt them criminals and terrorists. Following

:14:01. > :14:03.the attacks in Paris we know the French authorities have been

:14:04. > :14:07.coordinating and cooperating with a wide range of law enforcement and

:14:08. > :14:13.other countries and 301 of the tools they have found the most effective

:14:14. > :14:17.is the Prum mechanism, the subject of two-day's debate. It is thanked

:14:18. > :14:23.to Prum they were able to identify one of the attackers so quickly.

:14:24. > :14:27.Prum, so called after the German town it was agreed to develop this

:14:28. > :14:30.mechanism is about the sharing in strictly controlled circumstances of

:14:31. > :14:34.the sharing in strictly controlled circumstances of PNA, fingerprints

:14:35. > :14:39.and vehicle registration that are in order to investigate crime. Mike

:14:40. > :14:43.French counterpart wrote to me recently setting out his first hand

:14:44. > :14:47.experience of Prum and how he hopes the UK and France will be able to

:14:48. > :14:55.improve our cooperation through it. While I never unquestioningly accept

:14:56. > :14:58.the views of others I think it is wise to listen to those with

:14:59. > :15:03.experience of such chilling recent event and they believe the system to

:15:04. > :15:07.be beneficial. The experience of France and others and our own

:15:08. > :15:13.detailed study of Prum believes me it isn't at the national interest to

:15:14. > :15:19.sign up to it. I will go on to set out in more detail why I think that

:15:20. > :15:24.is the case. I give way. I am sure that my right honourable friend

:15:25. > :15:30.accepts the carnage in France which was dreadful was, to some extent, as

:15:31. > :15:33.a result of the failures of authorities in that country. Why

:15:34. > :15:41.should we played so much trust in those who, from those kind of

:15:42. > :15:46.experiences? I have to say, the carnage that took place in France

:15:47. > :15:50.and the blame for that lies squarely with the terrorists who undertook

:15:51. > :15:54.that and I believe it is right we listen to those who have experienced

:15:55. > :16:00.and I will go on to explain other examples of why the exchange of this

:16:01. > :16:04.that is a beneficial in various circumstances. First it might be

:16:05. > :16:08.helpful to the house and how we have come to this point and what the

:16:09. > :16:13.system is and what it is not. This is primarily about the sharing of

:16:14. > :16:18.DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data in order

:16:19. > :16:22.to prevent and investigate crime. It is worth noting we already share

:16:23. > :16:26.such that with other countries via Interpol so the debate is about

:16:27. > :16:30.whether or not we should do that, but how. What this system does is

:16:31. > :16:34.automate the front end of an existing manual process to access

:16:35. > :16:38.that information and make information exchange subject to the

:16:39. > :16:41.touch of a button rather than a lengthy manual process, meaning it

:16:42. > :16:45.will be quite act easier for our police to check the national

:16:46. > :16:50.databases of other member states, hugely increasing the reach of UK

:16:51. > :16:55.law enforcement. I would like to point out it is not a centralised EU

:16:56. > :17:00.database and that is an important point to remember. I give way. Given

:17:01. > :17:04.that she makes a very strong case for the technical function but I am

:17:05. > :17:08.concerned the threats we face go far beyond Europe and the European

:17:09. > :17:11.Union. Could she say a little bit more about why it is so difficult to

:17:12. > :17:17.get Interpol and the poor countries to adopt a similar system. I have to

:17:18. > :17:21.say to my honourable friend, if you look across the board at Interpol

:17:22. > :17:28.and the number of countries involved and the amount of information

:17:29. > :17:32.available, there is a very real difficulty in the physical issue of

:17:33. > :17:37.getting a lot of all of those countries to agree to this. What has

:17:38. > :17:40.happened in the EU is countries have come together and decided it would

:17:41. > :17:48.be beneficial to have this sort of automated process and so far those

:17:49. > :17:52.discussions have not... I will in just a moment. So far Interpol has

:17:53. > :17:58.retained the manual processes and I will come on a little later to

:17:59. > :18:01.exemplify the difference that occurs through the automated process as

:18:02. > :18:10.opposed to the manual process of Interpol. I give way. She is right

:18:11. > :18:15.to opt in to this mechanism. It is not about giving information away,

:18:16. > :18:21.it is about sharing information. One of the lessons from Paris is the

:18:22. > :18:26.importance of EU countries knowing who is coming through the external

:18:27. > :18:30.borders. Would she agree with me that what is essential is where

:18:31. > :18:37.countries have concerns about individuals, they put them on the

:18:38. > :18:40.databases as quickly as possible? The right honourable gentleman makes

:18:41. > :18:44.an important point and one of the arguments we are making within a

:18:45. > :18:50.European context is there are other databases use, for example the door

:18:51. > :18:54.that database, we are arguing about how we can better use these

:18:55. > :18:59.databases to ensure we do the job we all want to do. Criminals and

:19:00. > :19:03.terrorists do not stop our borders and it is important the gap that is

:19:04. > :19:07.shared between countries so we can both identify and lead to ringing

:19:08. > :19:14.those criminals and terrorists to justice. I am grateful to the Home

:19:15. > :19:18.Secretary for giving way. Ideally we want Interpol to come to an

:19:19. > :19:21.agreement about sharing of information through an automated

:19:22. > :19:26.system. The fact that Interpol are not in that position does not been

:19:27. > :19:30.we cannot take action with our European partners and share that

:19:31. > :19:34.information in an automated fashion. Is it not the case that given the

:19:35. > :19:39.tragic events in France this is the time for the and cooperation with

:19:40. > :19:46.our European partners, rather than retrenching our own silo? My friend

:19:47. > :19:50.back at an important point, both about the interplay between Prum in

:19:51. > :19:55.the European union and Interpol but also, yes, now is the very time we

:19:56. > :19:59.need to work more in collaboration with our partners to ensure we are

:20:00. > :20:05.sharing the necessary dad to keep us safe. I have been very generous in

:20:06. > :20:13.giving way but I will give way to my right honourable friend. I am very

:20:14. > :20:17.grateful. As someone who wishes her to use all these and means to track

:20:18. > :20:21.down terrorism I think it is a good idea to get more access to

:20:22. > :20:27.information but I also want to help us uphold our manifesto promise of

:20:28. > :20:30.no transfer of powers to the EU and reduction in EU powers so why can we

:20:31. > :20:34.not do this by intergovernmental agreement than rather than

:20:35. > :20:40.submitting to the European Court of Justice? I have to see a right

:20:41. > :20:44.honourable friend that this is one area where he will have challenged

:20:45. > :20:49.the only similar issue in the past, but of course the fact is because

:20:50. > :20:53.within the European Union that is the existence of this agreement and

:20:54. > :20:58.the existence of Prum, then attempts to do this exchange of dapper in

:20:59. > :21:02.other ways would, first of all, require not just by

:21:03. > :21:06.intergovernmental agreement but also the building of separate systems and

:21:07. > :21:13.would take far longer so we would not have access to the data for the

:21:14. > :21:18.long period of time and there is another mechanism available at if we

:21:19. > :21:25.wish to exchange dapper in this way we should join that particular

:21:26. > :21:31.mechanism. For DNA, a crime scene programme is sent from one country

:21:32. > :21:34.to another, to all the other countries simultaneously where it is

:21:35. > :21:40.automatically searched against the profiles held on those countries

:21:41. > :21:44.databases. If there is a match the requesting country receives a report

:21:45. > :21:49.back. At that stage no information is exchanged that would allow a

:21:50. > :21:55.person to be identified. Prior to personal information being released

:21:56. > :22:01.all text must be confirmed. For fingerprints this is a similar

:22:02. > :22:06.report. At a reported 15 minutes for DNA and 24 hours for fingerprints.

:22:07. > :22:08.The average time to report a hit currently has four months. Four

:22:09. > :22:19.months. For a vehicle registration dapper, a country that is

:22:20. > :22:25.investigating a crime is able to get the information and ten seconds. Our

:22:26. > :22:27.police will be able to get information on foreign registered

:22:28. > :22:34.vehicles in ten seconds, rather than the months it can take at the

:22:35. > :22:38.moment. As I said to the house in July last year, Prum is an easy and

:22:39. > :22:51.efficient comparison of dapper when appropriate. Members will note that

:22:52. > :22:56.Prum was one of the measures we opted out of and that was the

:22:57. > :23:00.greatest repackaging of powers in this country's hastily. I thank the

:23:01. > :23:05.Home Secretary for giving way and welcomed the statement. Should she

:23:06. > :23:09.outlined to the house if there has been any discussion with the

:23:10. > :23:16.Republic of Ireland on introducing Prum or does she believe they will

:23:17. > :23:20.in the future? I myself have not held any of those discussions.

:23:21. > :23:25.Within the EU they are a small number of member states who have not

:23:26. > :23:29.joined Prum and who are all being encouraged to do so precisely

:23:30. > :23:34.because of the value seen by those member states using the system at

:23:35. > :23:40.the moment. We had repatriated powers and we did not seek to rejoin

:23:41. > :23:44.Prum at that time because, when the party opposite sign us up to the

:23:45. > :23:49.measure, they didn't do anything to implement it, which meant if we

:23:50. > :23:54.rejoin it would have opened us up to fines for not implementation. There

:23:55. > :23:58.was a pragmatic decision taken at the time. As I also said at the

:23:59. > :24:02.time, all honourable members want the most serious crimes to be solved

:24:03. > :24:06.and their perpetrators brought to justice. In some cases that means

:24:07. > :24:10.the police comparing the police comparing DNA fingerprint data

:24:11. > :24:18.Gaelic Mac dapper with other countries. This is an operational

:24:19. > :24:22.necessity and the comparison is already happening and must do so if

:24:23. > :24:28.we are to solve cross-border crime. It would be negligent if I did not

:24:29. > :24:32.consider the proposal carefully. I proposed to run a small pilot

:24:33. > :24:37.focused on DNA with other countries and produce a full business case on

:24:38. > :24:42.Prum. The final decision on whether or not to sign up to Prum would be a

:24:43. > :24:47.case for this house. We have now won that pilot and published a thorough

:24:48. > :24:52.business case and we are here today to decide if we should participate

:24:53. > :25:00.in Prum are not, and I believe strongly we should. I will give way.

:25:01. > :25:04.These are inevitably it matters whether balances to be struck off

:25:05. > :25:07.sometimes conflicting interests and I think she abroad it got this one

:25:08. > :25:12.right and she will have the support of my party today in the division

:25:13. > :25:18.lobbies. I would be interested to know about the use of matches. She

:25:19. > :25:24.will be aware that the only thing provided by Big Brother Watch today

:25:25. > :25:27.makes specific reference to the European arrest warrant and what

:25:28. > :25:40.will be required for the use of a match coming from Prum. If you have

:25:41. > :25:44.any DNA profile is sent and the first response is is there a hit on

:25:45. > :25:49.the database are not. There is then a separate process to determine if

:25:50. > :25:55.the individual 's personal details will go forward. What we intend to

:25:56. > :25:59.do is then you have two scientific legal look at that match to make

:26:00. > :26:05.sure it meets the requirements we set out we will set higher threshold

:26:06. > :26:10.than others. It will then be possible, if the other country

:26:11. > :26:16.wishes to move to a European arrest warrant, to arrest an individual, if

:26:17. > :26:21.they have the ability and sufficient evidence to do that. We have brought

:26:22. > :26:24.an extra safeguard around the use of European arrest warrants. It also

:26:25. > :26:32.means it will be possible for foreign criminals to be extradited

:26:33. > :26:37.but also for criminals who have undertaken activities here in the UK

:26:38. > :26:38.and then gone abroad, potentially to be brought back to the UK for

:26:39. > :26:49.justice. On that specific point, where we

:26:50. > :26:56.have the second check, the second set of scientific safeguards, would

:26:57. > :26:59.that be a manual check done by a human or would that process also be

:27:00. > :27:04.automated? I think there will be an automated

:27:05. > :27:12.element to it but this is not something that will be done... If my

:27:13. > :27:16.honourable friend is concerned that immediately the whole system does

:27:17. > :27:22.that check, there is a decision to then make that check. We are setting

:27:23. > :27:25.a higher threshold. I'm getting into scientific waters here that perhaps

:27:26. > :27:31.I'm not best qualified to refer to. But the issue is what I called

:27:32. > :27:39.low-carbon and the matches on the DNA. Many countries will use six or

:27:40. > :27:45.sometimes ate, we will use eight. That is the threshold that we set --

:27:46. > :27:55.or sometimes eight. We will use time. If you have thus micro we will

:27:56. > :28:00.use ten. One of the reasons I believe that we should be going into

:28:01. > :28:06.Prum is that the results from the small-scale pilot we conducted, I

:28:07. > :28:10.was very clear the exchange could only take place after we have

:28:11. > :28:13.understanding in place with the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and

:28:14. > :28:20.France and that would only take place under close tight guards --

:28:21. > :28:24.under tight safeguards. An impressive 118 hits were seen. That

:28:25. > :28:28.is nearly double the number of profiles are police sent abroad are

:28:29. > :28:33.checking in the whole of 2014. We got hits for each of the four

:28:34. > :28:39.countries. We got hits to serious crimes and people you are French,

:28:40. > :28:45.Dutch, remain young, Albanian. We did not get hits two Britons. --

:28:46. > :28:54.Romanian. Crucially, this is leading to... INAUDIBLE a DNA crime scene

:28:55. > :29:01.profile recovered from an attempted rape was sent to all four preferment

:29:02. > :29:08.pilot countries. The profile held in France. After further cooperation

:29:09. > :29:11.with France, the National Crime Agency obtained demographic

:29:12. > :29:14.information on a Romanian National. This individual was stopped in

:29:15. > :29:18.London in November this year on suspicion of a motoring offence

:29:19. > :29:25.which would not have led to a DNA search being taken. Due to the Prum

:29:26. > :29:27.hit, the warrant for his arrest was revealed. He was arrested and

:29:28. > :29:31.charged with the attempted rape and is currently on remand. In other

:29:32. > :29:36.cases of rape we know the police have requested extradition papers.

:29:37. > :29:40.As the director-general of the National Crime Agency has said,

:29:41. > :29:46.these would not have been without the pilot. Is because of cases like

:29:47. > :29:52.this but the director of public and have said that Prum will reduce the

:29:53. > :29:55.number of unsolved crimes, such as murder and rape, committed by

:29:56. > :30:02.foreign nationals. And improve service to public, victims and

:30:03. > :30:04.families. We will set in place a process that will catch foreign

:30:05. > :30:09.nationals who have committed crimes here. We will set in place a process

:30:10. > :30:13.by which criminals can be deported and by which bring nationals who

:30:14. > :30:17.have committed crimes in the UK can be linked to crimes abroad and sent

:30:18. > :30:21.to those countries to stand trial. In short, it will be a vote to keep

:30:22. > :30:26.foreign criminals off our streets and make communities safer. The

:30:27. > :30:30.numbers are stark. If and I hope when the UK connects with all other

:30:31. > :30:33.Prum countries, evidence suggests there could be up to 8000 verified

:30:34. > :30:39.hits following the initial connection. Up to 8000 foreign

:30:40. > :30:43.criminals are police can track down for crimes they have committed in

:30:44. > :30:46.the UK. There will be an ongoing daily process which will produce

:30:47. > :30:53.more hits. Such exchanges will become part of business as usual.

:30:54. > :30:58.This is the sort of process we must grasp. Experience and those already

:30:59. > :31:03.operating in other countries shows how important it is. To those who

:31:04. > :31:08.say we don't need to be in Prum to do this, I think we should look at

:31:09. > :31:13.the figures. The existing processors are so cumbersome and convoluted

:31:14. > :31:18.that last year police sent just 69 DNA profiles abroad. The ease of the

:31:19. > :31:23.processes we used in the pilot means we've already sent 14,000% more this

:31:24. > :31:29.year. And changing the Interpol process would require the agreement

:31:30. > :31:34.of all into poor members. A near impossibility. -- all Interpol

:31:35. > :31:41.members. It is not true we can go on to other processes. Countries signed

:31:42. > :31:45.up to Prum can also check the EU database containing the fingerprints

:31:46. > :31:49.of asylum seekers and others detained illegally crossing the

:31:50. > :31:52.borders of the EU. It was this ability to make checks with that

:31:53. > :31:56.database that allowed Austrian authorities to identify eight of the

:31:57. > :32:01.71 people tragically found dead in the back of a lorry on the 27th of

:32:02. > :32:04.August. It was that thing ability that allows the Austrians to

:32:05. > :32:10.identify one of the suspects in that case. -- that same ability. We also

:32:11. > :32:16.know one of the individuals involved in the Paris attacks and the EU

:32:17. > :32:25.through grease. Police across the whole of the United kingdoms -- we

:32:26. > :32:28.have engaged closely with Police Scotland, the Northern Ireland

:32:29. > :32:32.Department of Justice and police service Northern Ireland. Their

:32:33. > :32:40.views have been given a great deal of weight when formulating our

:32:41. > :32:44.policy. That is why all of those organisations will have places on

:32:45. > :32:49.the oversight group. Their views will continue to be important

:32:50. > :32:54.personally and to the Government more generally as we progress this

:32:55. > :32:59.matter. We will consider the honourable and learn it lady, the

:33:00. > :33:04.member for Edinburgh South West. We will ensure every member of the

:33:05. > :33:09.Magic Kingdom has their voice heard. I am sure that is why I received

:33:10. > :33:16.letters of support. -- every member of the United Kingdom. And also from

:33:17. > :33:20.Bernard Hogan Howe, who has said that the scale of the potential for

:33:21. > :33:25.individuals to commit crime across Europe is such that a solution such

:33:26. > :33:28.as Prum, with all the necessary safeguards, is the only effective

:33:29. > :33:32.way to track down these dangerous criminals.

:33:33. > :33:38.I agree wholeheartedly and I give way.

:33:39. > :33:42.I am as keen as anybody to ensure that our streets are safe. Can you

:33:43. > :33:48.assure the House that these powers can be exercised by our immigration

:33:49. > :33:52.authorities at the point of entry in relation to anybody seeking to come

:33:53. > :33:55.into this country, whether they be an EU citizen or from outside the

:33:56. > :34:01.EU? There are separate arrangements. One

:34:02. > :34:07.of the reasons we opted back into this was to give immigration

:34:08. > :34:12.officials the ability to deal with issues as people come across the

:34:13. > :34:15.border. It is possible to check the EU database for the fingerprints of

:34:16. > :34:20.asylum seekers and others detained illegally crossing borders of the

:34:21. > :34:25.EU. I welcome the fact that my right honourable friend said he fully

:34:26. > :34:28.supported being able to take measures that enable us to take

:34:29. > :34:31.measures and catch criminals and identify those who should be brought

:34:32. > :34:36.to justice. I look forward to him joining me in the lobby to going to

:34:37. > :34:41.Prum this evening. While it is incumbent on us to give the police

:34:42. > :34:44.they need, it is also incumbent on us to balance that against any Civil

:34:45. > :34:49.Liberties worries that some may have. We haven't made this decision

:34:50. > :34:53.without looking at how we can protect British citizens. I was

:34:54. > :34:58.proud to be a member of the Government that abolished ID cards.

:34:59. > :35:00.And that stopped the indefinite retention of DNA profiles and

:35:01. > :35:07.fingerprints of those arrested and not convicted. And proud that we

:35:08. > :35:13.were formed stop and search. Where there are genuine concerns, I have.

:35:14. > :35:16.The first concern I have heard is that innocent Britons could get

:35:17. > :35:18.caught up in overseas investigations. I believe this is

:35:19. > :35:24.about catching criminals so we should ensure that only DNA profiles

:35:25. > :35:29.of those convicted of a crime can be searched again and we will write

:35:30. > :35:31.that into legislation. Secondly, there has been concerned that some

:35:32. > :35:38.countries lose lower scientific standards than the UK. -- use lower

:35:39. > :35:42.scientific standards. There was concern it could lead to false

:35:43. > :35:45.positives. That is why we will legislate to ensure that UK

:35:46. > :35:52.scientific standards will apply before any personal data can be

:35:53. > :35:55.revealed. This means we will be -- there will be a less than one in 1

:35:56. > :36:03.billion chants of the match not being true. We accept these

:36:04. > :36:13.standards locally and I suggest we employ them internationally.

:36:14. > :36:17.I support the safeguards, but can you explain how you will ensure they

:36:18. > :36:23.remain in place after the UK has been brought within the jurisdiction

:36:24. > :36:28.of the... Of the cause of justice of the European union.

:36:29. > :36:35.That is because how we deal with the data on the databases here is a

:36:36. > :36:38.national matter. The European Court of Justice does have some

:36:39. > :36:44.jurisdiction that they have jurisdiction over the process of the

:36:45. > :36:52.hit, no hit process, that mechanism that takes place. Beyond that it is

:36:53. > :36:56.within... How we hold the process on the database is a matter for

:36:57. > :37:01.national decision. I understand that this will bring

:37:02. > :37:05.the whole of our arrangements under the Charter of fundamental rights.

:37:06. > :37:08.Therefore the manner in which we retain DNA will be subject to

:37:09. > :37:14.European standards rather than standards set by this house.

:37:15. > :37:21.No... I have to say that we are able to determine the database, how and

:37:22. > :37:28.what we hold, is a matter for national decision. Articles two, one

:37:29. > :37:31.and three of the principal Prum decision say we need to inform the

:37:32. > :37:36.general public but which profiles will be made available for searching

:37:37. > :37:40.under Prum. Article five of the principal Prum decision-makers clear

:37:41. > :37:50.that the fault process to a head is subject to national law, not EU law.

:37:51. > :37:54.You have made a persuasive case. Can I ask for a moment of clarity as the

:37:55. > :38:00.expansion of judicial engagement into areas that of formerly been for

:38:01. > :38:04.the court of Parliament, I was wondering if you could just make it

:38:05. > :38:11.very clear the remit of the UK courts on this matter so that when

:38:12. > :38:17.it gets to a judicial review or a trial in front of the Supreme Court,

:38:18. > :38:21.they look back on the work spoken in the dispatch box today and see the

:38:22. > :38:24.will of Parliament in the decision and not the interpretation and they

:38:25. > :38:28.choose to make at that particular moment?

:38:29. > :38:32.I'm happy to say to my honourable friend not only that I am willing to

:38:33. > :38:37.make a comment, which I will do now, about the application of the

:38:38. > :38:40.European Court of Justice's jurisdiction in relation to our

:38:41. > :38:43.position. But in terms of the legislation. You will find if you

:38:44. > :38:48.look at the command paper that we are making clear those areas where

:38:49. > :38:53.national law applies. And indeed other tries to indicate earlier, the

:38:54. > :38:58.Prum Decisions are all about the exchange of data, not the manner in

:38:59. > :39:02.which the data is held here in the UK. Article 72 makes it clear that

:39:03. > :39:05.how we deal with DNA for our own security is a matter for member

:39:06. > :39:11.states and not for European jurisdiction. Just as a further

:39:12. > :39:15.safeguard, we will ensure that if a person is a minor when a DNA or

:39:16. > :39:18.fingerprints were taken, demographic details can only be released if a

:39:19. > :39:24.formal judicial request for assistance is made. Finally, as I

:39:25. > :39:27.made reference earlier, I will establish an independent oversight

:39:28. > :39:33.board to ensure Prum operate effectively. Commissioners will have

:39:34. > :39:36.seats on that board, so raw the Scottish police authority and other

:39:37. > :39:42.bodies from Scotland and northern Ireland. It's because all of these

:39:43. > :39:46.clear and stringent safeguards, it's because of all of these at the

:39:47. > :39:50.National DNA ethics board felt they could write to me in support of our

:39:51. > :39:55.decision to participate. I hope that those who have principal Civil

:39:56. > :39:59.Liberties concerns will listen to their views. There are costs

:40:00. > :40:05.associated with implementing this. When Labour signed up, they

:40:06. > :40:08.estimated a ?31 million cost. That was without providing any safeguards

:40:09. > :40:12.and without ensuring that Scotland and Northern Ireland would benefit

:40:13. > :40:16.fully. I have looked at this carefully and I am pleased to tell

:40:17. > :40:20.the House that at the same time as ensuring operational benefits

:40:21. > :40:22.nationwide, UK citizens get the protection they deserve, the

:40:23. > :40:27.Government will only need to spend ?30 million. Money spent

:40:28. > :40:37.implementing approval be recouped many times over. Members may have

:40:38. > :40:41.heard about it woman attacked and raped for dead in Beeston. West

:40:42. > :40:45.Yorkshire Police had only the victim's statement and the

:40:46. > :40:50.attacker's DNA. Suspecting that the assailant may not have been British,

:40:51. > :40:53.they submitted forms to Interpol and had the DNA profile searched against

:40:54. > :40:58.profiles held in other European countries. In two over two and a

:40:59. > :41:06.half months before a match was found in Slovakia. During that time,

:41:07. > :41:11.police had an followed over 1400 separate lines of enquiry after high

:41:12. > :41:15.cost. If it had been done good Prum, it would have taken 15 minutes. Just

:41:16. > :41:20.think of the time and money that would save the police, not to

:41:21. > :41:23.mention the benefit of the victim of knowing her attacker would be

:41:24. > :41:31.brought to justice. I can agree with Russell Foster. I'm going to... I

:41:32. > :41:35.need to make progress. The Assistant Chief Constable in West Yorkshire

:41:36. > :41:39.has said, I can state without any doubt whatsoever that enabling the

:41:40. > :41:43.EU Prum Decisions in this country will be of significant benefits to

:41:44. > :41:48.all UK law enforcement agencies. Do we want to save the police time and

:41:49. > :41:53.money? Do we want to catch more foreign criminals? Do we want to

:41:54. > :41:56.speed up and improve our cooperation with our closest allies? Do we want

:41:57. > :42:03.to extend the reach of our police across Europe? Do we want to benefit

:42:04. > :42:06.the whole of the United Kingdom? The answer to all these questions has to

:42:07. > :42:11.be yes and with the safeguards I've set out today I am confident we can

:42:12. > :42:19.protect the British public was also protecting Civil Liberties. Prum

:42:20. > :42:24.means more crimes solved or justice for victims. Money saved. All of the

:42:25. > :42:27.United Kingdom benefiting and civil liberties protected. Signing up to

:42:28. > :42:33.Prum is in the national interest and I commend this motion to the House.

:42:34. > :42:42.One big question is added on the order paper. Andy Burnham. Back in

:42:43. > :42:48.what feels like the mists of time, May 2005, to be precise, I was

:42:49. > :42:52.appointed to the Home Office and given responsibility for the

:42:53. > :42:56.development of the European Arrest Warrant. I think about the

:42:57. > :43:02.discussions I used to have with the honourable member for Stone on the

:43:03. > :43:07.issue. I also remember how the nature of that debate changed

:43:08. > :43:11.quickly in the aftermath of the seven slash seven bombings and in

:43:12. > :43:17.the field bombings on the 24th of July. It was found one of the bomb

:43:18. > :43:21.went to the Eurostar to Paris in the immediate aftermath of that failed

:43:22. > :43:26.bombing and travelled on to Rome where he was finally arrested on

:43:27. > :43:32.July the 29th. European arrest warrant was issued by the British

:43:33. > :43:37.police, agreed by the Italian courts on August 17 and after an appeal was

:43:38. > :43:42.rejected he was flown back to the UK on the 22nd of September, just two

:43:43. > :43:48.was a case that proved the value of was a case that proved the value of

:43:49. > :43:52.the European arrest warrant, to the heat out of the political debate

:43:53. > :43:57.about it and illustrated how the security of people here in the UK is

:43:58. > :44:02.in fact better self I ever closer cooperation between European law

:44:03. > :44:06.enforcement agencies. I give way to the honourable gentleman. As the

:44:07. > :44:11.right honourable gentleman is referred to me just now, can I just

:44:12. > :44:14.say that in Staffordshire there was a case under the European arrest

:44:15. > :44:21.warrant where a person was actively convicted of murder and was made

:44:22. > :44:26.subject to penalties and it was clear from subsequent evidence he

:44:27. > :44:34.wasn't even in Italy at the time, he was in Staffordshire. There are many

:44:35. > :44:38.similar examples. In any process, judicial process, there is the

:44:39. > :44:42.potential for mistakes and the miscarriage of justice. I would like

:44:43. > :44:44.to know without the honourable gentleman is honestly saying that he

:44:45. > :44:49.was right way back then about the European arrest warrant and that it

:44:50. > :44:55.has been a bad thing and should be scrapped. I think he would be in a

:44:56. > :44:59.small minority, as people have seen the benefits that have come to UK

:45:00. > :45:03.law enforcement since its introduction. I mention that case at

:45:04. > :45:08.the beginning of the day's debate because I see a parallel between

:45:09. > :45:15.that debate and address. Ten years on, as the Home Secretary said, we

:45:16. > :45:18.find ourselves in the aftermath of a horrific attack in one member state

:45:19. > :45:26.that was conceived and planned in another. I'm not the letter she has

:45:27. > :45:30.received from the minister encouraging our full participation

:45:31. > :45:35.in Prum. In these difficult times all others in this Howes have an

:45:36. > :45:42.obligation to consider every possible measure to protect public.

:45:43. > :45:47.It seems to me the case for greater data sharing access to data across

:45:48. > :45:52.Europe is now unanswerable and we have an obligation to support it. It

:45:53. > :45:58.is no exaggeration to say our national security depends upon it.

:45:59. > :46:02.This is why, as the Home Secretary said, the last Labour Government

:46:03. > :46:08.took the original decision to sign to the Prum in 2007, recognising

:46:09. > :46:15.their potential for our law enforcement agencies. It is also

:46:16. > :46:19.why, back in July 2013, we explicitly warned the Government

:46:20. > :46:24.against opting out of a whole range of EU Justice and home affairs

:46:25. > :46:29.measures, including Prum. As I understand it, the Government

:46:30. > :46:34.received warnings from other senior figures in UK law enforcement and

:46:35. > :46:39.they should have listened to them, Madam Deputy Speaker, because, as

:46:40. > :46:44.was pointed out back then, that decision seemed to be driven less by

:46:45. > :46:49.an objective assessment of the impact on crime prevention and

:46:50. > :46:53.detection, and more a political desire to appease the never

:46:54. > :46:58.satisfied forces of the euro scepticism on the benches opposite.

:46:59. > :47:03.As tempting as it is to say we told you so to the Home Secretary today

:47:04. > :47:08.will try and resist that and instead congratulate our eventually arriving

:47:09. > :47:13.at the right decision and encourage her to resist the forces of darkness

:47:14. > :47:21.who are again revealing their heads today. I will give weight to my

:47:22. > :47:26.honourable friend. In fact, the Home Secretary's speech today was the two

:47:27. > :47:31.at the fourth as to why we should have been in Prum last year. Think

:47:32. > :47:36.of the number of criminals we could have caught, or potential terrorists

:47:37. > :47:43.are found if we had only joined one year ago. It was a compelling -- yet

:47:44. > :47:49.it was a compelling and powerful case the Home Secretary has just set

:47:50. > :47:55.out. Revealing the zeal of the convert to the case and she was

:47:56. > :48:00.right to make her case with such force. I would say and I'm sure my

:48:01. > :48:06.right honourable friend would agree with me, the problem with the motion

:48:07. > :48:13.in the name of the member for Stone and others the ceiling is simple, it

:48:14. > :48:18.invites the house to prioritise the civil liberties are British citizens

:48:19. > :48:23.and risks UK sovereignty over and above risks to national security.

:48:24. > :48:29.That is what the amendment to the main motion invites us to do. Of

:48:30. > :48:34.course our liberties and sovereignty are important considerations, but

:48:35. > :48:39.the safety of the public must come first and indeed that is the primary

:48:40. > :48:46.duty of any Government and that is why the Government is right not to

:48:47. > :48:50.listen to the honourable member. The truth is they got themselves into

:48:51. > :48:53.difficulty two years ago by listening to those forces and local

:48:54. > :48:57.members on the Government benches will not make the same mistake

:48:58. > :49:04.today. I hope they will learn an important lesson from this episode.

:49:05. > :49:08.It was the European Council that required the Government after

:49:09. > :49:13.notification of the opt out to conduct and publish in business and

:49:14. > :49:17.implementation case assessing the costs and benefits of Prum. In other

:49:18. > :49:21.words. The EU forced the UK Government to face up to the

:49:22. > :49:24.benefits of European cooperation and in bringing this motion today house

:49:25. > :49:29.tonight they are effectively conceding the EU was right all

:49:30. > :49:33.along. That assessment was informed by a pilot undertaken earlier this

:49:34. > :49:40.year that the Home Secretary referred to. It found an

:49:41. > :49:45.overwhelming case to opt back in. It involved DNA samples from 2530

:49:46. > :49:50.unsolved British motors, rates and burglaries that were automatically

:49:51. > :49:55.checked against European police databases, searching the profiles

:49:56. > :50:06.against the databases of those member states revealed 71 seeing the

:50:07. > :50:16.person matches and 41 scene to scene matches. I give way. On his earlier

:50:17. > :50:20.point, it is not the greatest defence of security the civil

:50:21. > :50:27.liberties of the people? I would put it to the honourable gentleman that

:50:28. > :50:34.security comes first and that is the primary duty of any government-to

:50:35. > :50:39.keep the public safe. Once we have secured people's safety, their

:50:40. > :50:44.liberty comes from that security and that is why I believe the motion

:50:45. > :50:48.that is before the House tonight is before the Houston eight has got

:50:49. > :50:51.things the wrong way round. I considered there are incredibly

:50:52. > :50:55.important considerations but they are not more important than national

:50:56. > :51:01.security and any measures that enhance the security of the public

:51:02. > :51:05.in the end contribute to enhancing their liberty and that is why

:51:06. > :51:11.security must come first. As well as the matches the pilot found, it also

:51:12. > :51:17.found that information was provided in a much more timely manner that it

:51:18. > :51:22.had been under the old arrangements. In a matter of seconds, minutes or

:51:23. > :51:26.hours, drastically improving the speed and quality of

:51:27. > :51:30.investigations. At present, request by the British police DNA checks

:51:31. > :51:34.with other European forces require a request to the National crime agency

:51:35. > :51:39.which is then passed to Interpol before being passed to the relevant

:51:40. > :51:45.national police force. On average this takes 143 days for the results

:51:46. > :51:48.to come back. It is clear the benefits the UK law enforcement of

:51:49. > :51:51.opting in to come back. It is clear the benefits the UK law enforcement

:51:52. > :51:56.of opting into the Prum decisions are clear intent of speed of

:51:57. > :52:01.investigation and resources. DNA checks available than 15 seconds.

:52:02. > :52:08.Numberplate checks within ten seconds. Fingerprint matches within

:52:09. > :52:14.24 hours. She is emphasising the importance of DNA checks. Can he

:52:15. > :52:18.explain why the regulations specifically exclude the possibility

:52:19. > :52:26.of being able to take DNA samples from asylum seekers who are entering

:52:27. > :52:30.the European Union? I think that is to conflate two issues. That is not

:52:31. > :52:35.the issue we are discussing today. Let's be clear, so there is no

:52:36. > :52:40.misconceptions about this debate, we're talking here about the DNA of

:52:41. > :52:46.people convicted, if I understand the Home Secretary correctly, of a

:52:47. > :52:51.recordable crime. It seems to me that that provide sufficient

:52:52. > :52:58.safeguard against the abuse of such data. If he is making an argument

:52:59. > :53:02.for the wider collection of DNA as opposed to fingerprints, because

:53:03. > :53:05.fingerprints of people entering the country are collected, that would

:53:06. > :53:06.raise other civil liberties concerns that he would have to discuss with

:53:07. > :53:11.his colleagues. It seems to me he is his colleagues. It seems to me he is

:53:12. > :53:16.in bridging going even further than the Prum decisions. I do not believe

:53:17. > :53:21.we're at that point yet but perhaps he would like to return to that

:53:22. > :53:25.point with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. If these

:53:26. > :53:29.things in which we live, Madam Deputy Speaker, the speed of

:53:30. > :53:34.investigation is essential. I would invite every member of this house to

:53:35. > :53:41.cast their minds back to those hours after we heard about the Paris

:53:42. > :53:47.bombings, or indeed the hours after the shocking attacks in London a

:53:48. > :53:51.decade or so ago. People hanging on the news, waiting for news of Leeds

:53:52. > :53:57.against those who may have committed these atrocities. That is what

:53:58. > :54:01.people want, they want the police and security services, in those

:54:02. > :54:06.moments, too that the cleanest line of sight possible across Europe so

:54:07. > :54:10.they can pursue immediate Leeds to track down those people. That is

:54:11. > :54:15.what we need to remember when we consider these issues before the

:54:16. > :54:19.house tonight. Whether or not we are prepared to give the police and

:54:20. > :54:24.security services, not just here, but across Europe, that ability to

:54:25. > :54:28.get on the trail of people, committing atrocities against us and

:54:29. > :54:34.track them down and in my view the case this unanswerable. We should

:54:35. > :54:41.give them that power. We should also ensure British police and security

:54:42. > :54:46.services have access to a much larger collection of biometric

:54:47. > :54:51.biographical data, which will lead to many more crimes she being sold

:54:52. > :54:56.that are currently unsolved. More victims if you are getting justice,

:54:57. > :55:01.which today they are denied. That must also be something in the

:55:02. > :55:06.forefront of our minds bash the earlier detection of crimes and the

:55:07. > :55:18.conviction of those responsible. Would you like as other countries to

:55:19. > :55:24.join Prum, such as Iceland 's? I personally see no objection to that,

:55:25. > :55:28.Madam Deputy Speaker,. I thinks that within Europe and get a clear set of

:55:29. > :55:32.standards and arrangements within Europe. One of the benefits of the

:55:33. > :55:35.EU which I would put Julie honourable gentleman is that it sets

:55:36. > :55:39.the standards that the rest of the world then begins to follow and we

:55:40. > :55:45.see that now with Norway and Iceland. They in effect how to

:55:46. > :55:51.follow all the norms of the EU if they want to be a trading partner,

:55:52. > :55:54.full partner, so I would not see a problem because the Home Secretary

:55:55. > :55:59.has said there are many safeguards here. Would the honourable gentleman

:56:00. > :56:03.be happy with someone committing a crime here, going back to Iceland

:56:04. > :56:08.and then avoiding justice? No, I would not be happy with that and I

:56:09. > :56:14.would with majors in place to ensure they could be brought to justice. It

:56:15. > :56:19.will also lead to much better use of police time and resources as the

:56:20. > :56:24.Home Secretary has said, and indeed, improve the intelligence picture

:56:25. > :56:30.that the crime and terrorism authorities have. In order so they

:56:31. > :56:31.can better understand the pattern that are taking place across Europe.

:56:32. > :56:41.I give way. I want to tease out a tiny bit

:56:42. > :56:45.further because he said earlier that security trumps civil liberties. Do

:56:46. > :56:53.you believe that security trumps the protection of our common-law system?

:56:54. > :56:58.I would reiterate that security comes first. It is the first

:56:59. > :57:03.responsibility of any government to secure the people who live here. To

:57:04. > :57:08.take reasonable measures to reduce the risk to them. From that

:57:09. > :57:14.foundation of security comes all of our traditions, our laws and our

:57:15. > :57:20.liberties. That's why I would say that cooperation in this field is a

:57:21. > :57:24.good thing, giving about the nature of crime now is international. If we

:57:25. > :57:31.fail to understand that, our own legal system will never be able to

:57:32. > :57:38.respond to the changing nature of crime that we face. I give way.

:57:39. > :57:42.I agree with the appointees making that it's sensible to cooperate, but

:57:43. > :57:47.does this cooperation and need the institution of the European Union?

:57:48. > :57:52.Why shouldn't it, if the corporation is improved by the institution of

:57:53. > :57:56.the European Union? He is putting a kind of in-built dislike and

:57:57. > :58:01.distrust of those institutions are head of the actual issue before us.

:58:02. > :58:07.This is what I think some honourable members on the other side are doing.

:58:08. > :58:09.Judge this on its merits. Surely the better you can facilitate that

:58:10. > :58:14.cooperation, the more benefit it will bring back to the police and

:58:15. > :58:18.security services? If I was working through established institutions I

:58:19. > :58:22.would imagine that cooperation will be enhanced rather than making ad

:58:23. > :58:26.hoc arrangements government to government. That is the benefit of

:58:27. > :58:30.the European Union, which I know he probably doesn't accept. I would say

:58:31. > :58:37.that the Government has come to the right decision, albeit in a

:58:38. > :58:42.roundabout way. But I would like to press the Home Secretary on a few

:58:43. > :58:47.points of detail. First, cost. She said in her remarks that back when

:58:48. > :58:53.the original assessment was made about the cost of opting in to Prum,

:58:54. > :58:57.the cost was 31 million. She now says it is 13 million. We are

:58:58. > :59:03.prepared to accept that now on face value, but she can she say what is

:59:04. > :59:07.acceptable for such a significant reduction in the cost? The business

:59:08. > :59:11.and implementation case say the Testament is based on a high-level

:59:12. > :59:18.requirement. It implies it isn't a fully fledged level of Prum, just a

:59:19. > :59:22.high-level. And what are the downstream operational running costs

:59:23. > :59:29.that the business refers to? How much will it cost every year to run

:59:30. > :59:34.the systems that are bent -- set against the benefits she says it

:59:35. > :59:44.would bring? Can she also say watch the UK will be liable to pay back if

:59:45. > :59:47.the House doesn't back this decision this evening? I understand it is a

:59:48. > :59:54.significant sum of money, maybe it would help the house to know that.

:59:55. > :00:00.We welcome the appointment of the oversight board. There is concern,

:00:01. > :00:05.however, that extradition should not be possible under a European arrest

:00:06. > :00:09.warrant purely on the basis of a DNA or a fingerprint match. I think this

:00:10. > :00:13.was the point that the honourable gentleman for Orkney and Shetland

:00:14. > :00:19.was raising earlier. I understand that other corroborating evidence

:00:20. > :00:23.should also be required before extradition can be granted. I think

:00:24. > :00:26.the Home Secretary was confirming that, but it would be helpful to the

:00:27. > :00:34.House if she could stay a little more on that at some point. I'm

:00:35. > :00:41.reassured that... I apologise to the member for Orkney

:00:42. > :00:47.if I slightly misunderstood the question that he had asked. It'll be

:00:48. > :00:50.my expectation of the European arrest warrant would require more

:00:51. > :00:54.evidence. We have put a number of safeguards in to the way in which

:00:55. > :00:59.European arrest warrant is operated to ensure that we don't see people

:01:00. > :01:03.erroneously being extradited from the UK. I would expect there to be

:01:04. > :01:07.more evidence on the basis of the European arrest warrant being

:01:08. > :01:10.issued. Normally those processes will apply even when there has been

:01:11. > :01:14.a Prum hit. I think the whole house will find

:01:15. > :01:20.that explanation helpful because I have shared concerns with others but

:01:21. > :01:23.if the match could then trigger a European arrest warrant immediately

:01:24. > :01:26.without any other evidence, everybody would find that's

:01:27. > :01:33.worrying. She has reassured the House on that point. It is also

:01:34. > :01:36.reassuring that it's only people convicted of recordable crime that

:01:37. > :01:42.can be searched by another police force. That still doesn't take away

:01:43. > :01:46.the higher level of concern that there would be about the sharing of

:01:47. > :01:49.DNA profiles from named individuals. I think that would be

:01:50. > :01:54.where a lot of concern about this is. Can the Home Secretary say

:01:55. > :01:59.whether she feels the need to be a higher proportionality test in this

:02:00. > :02:03.area links to more serious crime and terrorism, and whether she would

:02:04. > :02:08.favour such a strict test before DNA information can be shared with

:02:09. > :02:12.another police force? That would be something where perhaps a higher

:02:13. > :02:16.safeguard could be introduced. It might limit blanket person to person

:02:17. > :02:20.searches which bring potential for abuse. Could she say who would

:02:21. > :02:27.actually take the decision whether or not to share personal information

:02:28. > :02:30.if a match is made? Would it be a designated individual within a

:02:31. > :02:40.police force, or would all decisions be taken at national level by MCA

:02:41. > :02:43.officials? I think it is important to have clarity about who would be

:02:44. > :02:47.making these decisions. If it is an individual only making one or two in

:02:48. > :02:50.the course of a year as opposed to officials dealing with many of them,

:02:51. > :02:54.people would have more confidence if they were dealing with a good number

:02:55. > :02:59.so they were able to weed out the more frivolous requests. Can she say

:03:00. > :03:06.whether all participating nations will collect DNA profiles from crime

:03:07. > :03:10.scenes using a shared quality assurance standard? That, too, is a

:03:11. > :03:13.cause of concern that there isn't uniformity across Europe on those

:03:14. > :03:20.points and people will want to be reassured on it. Finally, if she

:03:21. > :03:24.could say something about the extent to which the jurisdiction of the

:03:25. > :03:30.European Court of Justice is extended by the Prum decision if we

:03:31. > :03:35.choose to opt into it. As I understand, it is quite a minor

:03:36. > :03:39.extension of their jurisdiction. The fear is not as expressed by some in

:03:40. > :03:47.the motion of this evening. If you could say exactly what it does to

:03:48. > :03:52.extend the jurisdiction. With those caveats, and they are just caveats,

:03:53. > :03:57.I would want to conclude by saying we believe on these benches that the

:03:58. > :04:00.Government has reached the right decision. Albeit in a roundabout

:04:01. > :04:06.way. But they do deserve our support this evening. I hope they will agree

:04:07. > :04:11.with me that this whole issue and the way in which this point has been

:04:12. > :04:17.reached illustrates how our continued membership of the European

:04:18. > :04:22.Union in Hanson is the security of our country in these difficult times

:04:23. > :04:26.-- enhancers. The Home Secretary has made a convincing and powerful case

:04:27. > :04:31.tonight to rejoin the Prum decision and she will have our support in

:04:32. > :04:34.taking an important step to catch more criminals and keep our country

:04:35. > :04:42.safe. Sir William Cash.

:04:43. > :04:48.Thank you. In these troubling times, this debate raises troubling

:04:49. > :04:53.questions in respect of vital matters of policy and of principle.

:04:54. > :04:58.And not only for the United Kingdom as a whole and our Parliament, but

:04:59. > :05:05.also our civil liberties and our common law. First and foremost,

:05:06. > :05:10.before reaching a decision on our participation in Prum, we should

:05:11. > :05:14.weigh carefully the implications for our Parliamentary sovereignty from

:05:15. > :05:20.which all law should ultimately derive. The Government should have

:05:21. > :05:23.clearly set out the areas in which the United Kingdom would be

:05:24. > :05:30.accepting exclusive EU competence by opting into Prum, which means that

:05:31. > :05:39.only the EU could act in those areas and take the decision away from

:05:40. > :05:43.Parliament. How assiduously has the Government considered alternative

:05:44. > :05:49.means of securing the benefits that Prum offers in a way that will be

:05:50. > :05:57.less damaging to our Parliamentary sovereignty? Secondly, in a written

:05:58. > :06:03.act of the EU as a whole, what is so special about our concerns regarding

:06:04. > :06:06.security and the question of terrorism and organised crime, and

:06:07. > :06:10.all these things which we all deplore and wants to control that

:06:11. > :06:17.makes it so special about the European Union itself has compared

:06:18. > :06:21.an example in relation to matters which arise in other parts of the

:06:22. > :06:25.world? What is the real distinction to be drawn in terms of protecting

:06:26. > :06:31.our citizens, whether it is the EU on the one hand or any of the other

:06:32. > :06:34.countries in the world on the other? Secondly, by participating in Prum,

:06:35. > :06:39.the United Kingdom would be compelled to accept the jurisdiction

:06:40. > :06:43.of the Court of Justice. The extension of that court's

:06:44. > :06:50.jurisdiction under the Lisbon and treaty to sense that areas of

:06:51. > :06:54.criminal law was the key factor in the previous government's decision

:06:55. > :07:01.to opt out... Of course. Listen carefully to what he said. He

:07:02. > :07:05.asked what is so special about national security in that it

:07:06. > :07:12.requires... He did. Which means it requires a European dimension. Does

:07:13. > :07:17.he not agree that the Paris attacks were exclusively planned in another

:07:18. > :07:22.member state and says his question? No, it does not. Because the reasons

:07:23. > :07:27.why that terrible carnage took place have a great deal to do with the

:07:28. > :07:32.insecurity and instability as a result of the failure is of border

:07:33. > :07:36.controls, and the manner in which people made their way to Paris. We

:07:37. > :07:41.haven't got time and it's not the subject of this debate to go into

:07:42. > :07:46.all those matters here and now, but I question whether in fact the

:07:47. > :07:50.national security, with respect to the United Kingdom's citizens, which

:07:51. > :07:54.is our prime concern here, will be advanced by surrendering of these

:07:55. > :08:02.powers to the European Court. I shall continue. The question of the

:08:03. > :08:10.Government, even today, arises that the Government concedes itself.

:08:11. > :08:15.Accepting the court's jurisdiction would not be risk-free, the

:08:16. > :08:19.Government should have explained what practical impact the extension

:08:20. > :08:25.of the court's jurisdiction in relation to the UK would be expected

:08:26. > :08:29.to have had. It has not done so. Thirdly, the Government says it

:08:30. > :08:34.intends to put in place extra safeguards to ensure that Prum would

:08:35. > :08:38.operate in a way, and I quote, that respects the civil liberties of

:08:39. > :08:43.British citizens and liberty themselves gave evidence to the

:08:44. > :08:47.House of Lords on a number of matters in this respect. In the

:08:48. > :08:53.report of the European scrutiny committee, which was being

:08:54. > :08:57.published, the other day, we make clear that there is an important

:08:58. > :09:00.balance to strike between law-enforcement cooperation,

:09:01. > :09:04.particularly when it involves the exchange of personal data, and the

:09:05. > :09:08.need to protect individuals against the risk of false incrimination and

:09:09. > :09:14.unwarranted interference in direct depravity. The Government's

:09:15. > :09:20.implementation case is only to provide anecdotal evidence of where

:09:21. > :09:27.Prum has been instrumental in advancing investigation or securing

:09:28. > :09:31.a conviction. The evidence of the value and impact of Prum which we

:09:32. > :09:36.have been given in respect of law enforcement makes it very difficult

:09:37. > :09:41.to measure its added value and to ensure an appropriate balance is

:09:42. > :09:46.being struck. We find this lack of transparency and accountability very

:09:47. > :09:50.troubling. I will give way. I can only assume that I slightly

:09:51. > :09:53.misheard what he said. He appeared to say the only evidence we have

:09:54. > :09:59.given about the benefits of Prum is anecdotal. We have undertaken a

:10:00. > :10:04.pilot with four other member states in the European Union. That was

:10:05. > :10:10.based on the exchange of a certain number of DNA profiles. It led to

:10:11. > :10:14.hits and as in the case of the remaining rapist identified, it led

:10:15. > :10:18.to somebody being charged. That is not anecdotal, it is something that

:10:19. > :10:24.has happened. Somebody being brought to justice as a result of Prum.

:10:25. > :10:30.The Home Secretary used the expression "pilot scheme". That was

:10:31. > :10:35.only a small-scale pilot scheme. It's very small and that is the

:10:36. > :10:40.basis on which we question, or I certainly question, the extent to

:10:41. > :10:45.which the evidence she is referring is sufficiently broad-based to

:10:46. > :10:49.justify this extremely grave extension of powers to the European

:10:50. > :10:55.Court of Justice. The main risks highlighted by the Government are

:10:56. > :11:00.the remaining possibilities of so-called false positives, leading

:11:01. > :11:07.to the false incrimination of innocent individuals. Cost, confirm

:11:08. > :11:12.all of jurisdiction on the court, and a high volume of requests

:11:13. > :11:13.bearing in mind the UK has the largest criminal fingerprint and DNA

:11:14. > :11:28.databases. I appreciate his explanation on this

:11:29. > :11:33.issue. To pick up on the point he made about the lack of scale of the

:11:34. > :11:39.pilot, what does he say about the fact and evidence being that our

:11:40. > :11:45.security and law enforcement services will have access to over 5

:11:46. > :11:49.million fingerprints and DNA profiles, and in the pilot the

:11:50. > :11:55.British police sent out over 2500 profiles. When it comes to scale,

:11:56. > :12:00.surely the evidence is compelling? The scale is to be weighed against

:12:01. > :12:06.the extension into the realm of the court of justice. That is the TSU.

:12:07. > :12:13.The fact is the European jurisdiction is now considered by

:12:14. > :12:20.the Government, which it was refusing to do before. In addition

:12:21. > :12:28.to this, this entire exercise represents the most entire Utah in

:12:29. > :12:33.Government policy since 2013. There has been some focus on the scale of

:12:34. > :12:39.the pilot scheme. Heidi honourable member had a chance to consider page

:12:40. > :12:42.23 of the command paper? Which helpfully outlines the delay with

:12:43. > :12:49.the Interpol system and the very first example indicates someone who

:12:50. > :12:52.after four or five months of Interpol application, having

:12:53. > :12:57.committed more offences from London through to Essex, whereas through

:12:58. > :13:03.Prum he could have been detected much earlier. There are a number of

:13:04. > :13:07.cases with some improvements can be made, but in respect of the

:13:08. > :13:12.difference between what we're doing in the European Union as it affects

:13:13. > :13:16.the UK and what is happening in the EU as compared to other countries,

:13:17. > :13:22.we still have those problems in the other countries, and extending the

:13:23. > :13:27.range of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice will not

:13:28. > :13:31.deal with the problem. In reaching a decision, parliament is entitled to

:13:32. > :13:37.know which measures the UK would be opting back into by joining Prum.

:13:38. > :13:42.The relevant factors that have prompted this change of policy in UK

:13:43. > :13:46.participation in Prum and how the concerns expressed by the previous