PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

679 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
680
2.51 pm
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I
would like to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for
selecting the amendment standing in my name and
those of other hon. Members, and I would like to thank
those Members who have signed it for their unwavering
support. There can be no doubt that the nature of our
relationship with the EU is of fundamental importance
to this country, but the EU has changed since we first
joined, and it is still changing. “More Europe” is the
cry, and “More political and economic harmonisation”
is the shout, but that is not why we joined.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Does it not
follow that the time for the British people to be given
their say is long overdue and that we should give them
every assurance that they should have that say?
Mr Baron: I completely agree. I think that the political
system has denied the electorate their say for far too
long and that Parliament needs to understand that.
That is why some of us on the Conservative Benches
have been campaigning for some time for a referendum
in the next Parliament. I am pleased to say that the
Prime Minister deserved credit for listening. In January
he became the first major party leader to offer the
country a referendum in 2017. But we, as a group on
these Benches, have also long argued that our commitment
must be both credible and believable. It is credible
because the referendum in 2017 has an “out” option,
but it is not yet believable.
The British electorate, quite understandably, are deeply
sceptical of any politicians making promises about
matters European, particularly EU referendums. Too
many promises have been broken in the past. They
remember Tony Blair’s broken promises about a referendum
on the EU constitution, which never materialised. They
are constantly reminded about Liberal literature promising
an in/out referendum, which never materialised, even
when they came to power. That is why we on these
Benches have also campaigned for legislation in this
Parliament for a referendum in the next, not because we
do not trust the Prime Minister, but because the electorate
do not trust politicians generally. I would argue that we
as a party are more united on this issue than we have
been for a generation. We have all signed up to the
referendum in 2017; what we disagree on is the best way
of convincing the electorate of the seriousness of our
intent.
Mr Bone: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that 2017
is the back-stop, the latest date for the in/out referendum,
and that it might in fact be earlier?
Mr Baron: It could well be earlier, but I am very
content having a referendum in the next Parliament,
because that will give time to renegotiate. However, that
option does exist.
That is why legislation is more believable than election
manifesto promises, too many of which have been broken
in the past. That is why I very much welcome the party’s
promise to support a private Member’s Bill, something
that was not on offer when I asked a week ago. I also
support the publication of the draft Bill yesterday. It
just goes to show that a week can indeed be a long time
in politics. However, the problem with a private Member’s
Bill is that it is the second best option. We all know that
a determined minority can block it by letting it run out
of time. The Bill will fail, as so many others do, on a
soggy Friday afternoon when no one notices.
That is why I urge the Prime Minister—I am pleased
to see that the Chancellor is still in his place—to support
the amendment. It provides him with a golden opportunity.
If we were to win, that would provide him with the
mandate to try to introduce legislation through the
normal channels, which would stand a far better chance
of succeeding. He should seize the moment. He could
claim, quite rightly, that the situation was not of his
making and blame me or us as a group. It would
therefore be outside the confines of the coalition agreement.
I must say to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that
the Liberals would be very hard pressed indeed to
refuse to give time, given that Parliament would have
expressed its view and that of the electorate. Let the
media then knock at the Liberals’ door to ask questions.
The argument that there is no certainty that we would
win such legislation is weak. There is no downside in
trying. We may well win. Some MPs on other Benches—
honourable and principled Members—support the concept.
Even if we fail, we will have tried. On a matter of this
importance, political transparency is paramount, and
the electorate could then take note.
As a group on these Benches, I hope that we have
helped in a small way to move the party closer to the
electorate on this issue, but it is more important than
party politics. I encourage other Members to do likewise
within their own parties. Were the amendment to pass
tonight, we as a Parliament would be opening the door
to the possibility of introducing legislation that would
stand a far better chance of succeeding. It would take a
majority to defeat that legislation, rather than the
determined minority it takes to defeat a private Member’s
Bill. I therefore urge Members across the House to
support it. I urge my own Front Benchers to support it.
I urge the doubters to put aside their doubts and
support it.
For too long the electorate have been unable to
express their opinion on the changing nature of our
relationship with the EU. The political establishment
have essentially closed ranks over the past 30 years and
denied the electorate a choice. We now have a golden
opportunity to right that wrong. We should be bold of
heart, seize the moment and do what is right by the
electorate, and indeed by the country. I therefore intend
to move the amendment.
2.58 pm
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): I will first say
a few words about employment, particularly in the light
of statistics released today, and then a few words about
Europe. The employment situation in the UK and in my
constituency is frankly depressing, and the figures released
today by the Office for National Statistics emphasise
that. Nationally, 3.8% of those aged 16 to 64 are on
jobseeker’s allowance. Today in Knowsley the number
of JSA claimants is 4,245, which equates to 6.3% of
Knowsley residents, well above the national rate. Similarly,
the JSA count for those aged 18 to 24 is 7.2%, whereas
in Knowsley it is 13.2%. In my view, therefore, there is
no room for complacency.