House of Commons

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 26 January 2011

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

1. What recent steps he has taken to promote business growth and inward investment in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

Before I answer the question, may I pay tribute to Mr Phil Gallie, whose passing has sadly been announced this week? He served this House and his party well while he was here, and he went on to serve his party and his constituents with distinction in the Scottish Parliament. He did that rare but important thing—while a feisty defender of his party’s positions on all sorts of things, he became popular across party lines. Our condolences go to his family.

Economic growth is at the centre of the Government’s agenda for this Parliament, and I promote that agenda in my regular engagements with the business community in Scotland and the UK and with international partners.

[Mark Menzies]

May I join the Secretary of State in his condolences to the family of Phil Gallie, a fellow Ayrshireman and someone I knew well?

The Secretary of State mentioned the efforts to promote jobs. Will he update the House on what he has done to follow up on the visit of the vice-premier of China, in particular on the trade links between Scotland and China?

[Michael Moore]

A very significant part of the vice-premier’s visit, which of course we welcomed enthusiastically here in the United Kingdom, was that he started it in Scotland. I had the great privilege of welcoming him to the UK on behalf of the Government. In the course of that visit, we in Scotland and the rest of the UK were able to see very clearly the opportunities for us to develop our plan to be partners for growth, whether in renewable energy or in many other spheres.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

May I add my condolences to those expressed to the family of Phil Gallie? He and I came into this place on the same day, and I have to say that he was more working-class than most Labour MPs are today, and a feisty fighter as well.

Does the Secretary of State think that inward investment to Scotland would be helped if Glasgow Prestwick airport were renamed Robert Burns airport?

[Michael Moore]

From one great defender of Ayrshire to another. The family will be pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman’s tributes to Phil Gallie. As far as the hon. Gentleman’s idea for the renaming of the airport is concerned, I am sure that those who make such decisions will have heard him.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

As the Secretary of State will know, the north-east of Scotland and Aberdeen is a powerhouse of the UK economy, providing much-needed tax revenues and inward investment. Crucial to the future of attracting inward investment is good communications technology. Will he meet me to discuss the barriers that mean that we have not yet seen the next generation of broadband reach Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland?

[Michael Moore]

First, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of Aberdeen and the regional economy not just for Scotland but for the UK as a whole. He is right to emphasise that. I met senior business leaders in Aberdeen only a few weeks ago, and we discussed how they could develop growth. Broadband is an important part of that, and he will be aware of our plans to speed up the introduction of superfast broadband. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss the matter further.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I associate myself and my colleagues with the condolences in relation to Phil Gallie’s death.

Does the Secretary of State understand that thousands of individuals and businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are suffering because of rocketing fuel prices?

[Michael Moore]

I recognise that the increase in fuel prices is a real challenge for individuals and businesses, which is why the Government are looking carefully at ways in which we can tackle that issue, including proposals for a fuel duty stabiliser.

[Angus Robertson]

Two years ago the Liberal Democrats promised a rural fuel duty derogation. What specific action have the UK Government taken with the European authorities to secure that? Specifically, has a formal request been made to the European Commission to make it possible?

[Michael Moore]

Referring to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, it is important for Scotland and the whole UK to get a fuel duty regime that reflects the challenges that exist, particularly in rural parts of the country. On the derogation specifically, he will be aware that the Government are working very hard to ensure that we can get the right processes in place in Europe, so that we get the pilot up and running as quickly as possible.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s moves towards a lower rate of fuel duty for the islands, but under the plans that they inherited from the Labour Government, fuel duty is due to go up by more than 4p a litre in the Budget. The rural economy could not stand such an increase, so I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the Chancellor not to go ahead with Labour’s 4p increase.

[Michael Moore]

I know the particular challenges in my hon. Friend’s area, where some of the highest fuel prices in the whole country can be found. His representations to me and to the Chancellor are carefully noted, and of course the decision on the future of fuel duty will come in the Budget.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Good transport links to other parts of the UK are vital for the Scottish economy. As the Secretary of State is aware, I wrote to him and to the Secretary of State for Transport on Monday last week to express my concerns about reports that bmi is about to axe its Glasgow-Heathrow service, which will put more than 100 jobs at risk. To date, I have had no reply from either him or his colleague. Will he inform the House today what steps he and his Government are taking to persuade both bmi and BAA to save that vital transport connection?

[Michael Moore]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns, which are shared by people not just in Glasgow, but across Scotland. I have spoken to senior managers both at bmi and BAA, and it is clear that they have some very difficult contractual arrangements as a result of the review of landing charges at Heathrow. I am keen that they recognise—I impressed this upon them—the importance of those links to Glasgow and to Scotland.

[Ann McKechin]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response, but given that there is increasing evidence that domestic air links between Scotland’s major airports and the UK’s largest airport might be substantially diminished, and the inevitable worries that increased fares will result if there is only one remaining carrier, will he undertake today to make contact with the EU, which is responsible for regulation, and ask it to consider possible changes better to protect strategically important domestic air links, and to ensure better competitive practices to protect Scotland’s economy and our customers?

[Michael Moore]

If I may be forgiven, I am not sure that I remember the previous Labour Government doing that. I do not want us to lose sight of the fact that Glasgow, Edinburgh and other major Scottish cities have a range of links to different London airports—substantial links that we want to be enhanced and to grow. The issue that the hon. Lady raises is obviously one of concern, and the Government will continue to discuss it with the parties involved.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

2. What progress the Government have made on implementation of recommendations of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution; and if he will make a statement.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

6. What progress the Government have made on implementation of recommendations of the Calman Commission on Scottish devolution; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

The coalition agreement contained a commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution, which is also known as the Calman commission. The Government introduced the Scotland Bill on 30 November—St Andrew’s day—2010. The Bill will have its Second Reading in this House tomorrow and I look forward to hon. Members taking part in the debate.

[Iain Stewart]

I very much welcome the provisions in the Scotland Bill to make the Scottish Parliament more fiscally accountable, but can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the business community on both sides of the border will be fully consulted about the implementation of the tax powers, so that it does not suffer an undue administrative burden?

[Michael Moore]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments—I know that he has more than a passing interest in those particular powers. I can give him absolutely the assurance that he wants. Through the high-level implementation group, which brings together experts from a range of bodies, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs technical groups, we are consulting very carefully and taking on board all the comments being made.

[David Mowat]

Calman acknowledged that the Barnett formula no longer reflected need. As a consequence, constituencies such as mine—Warrington South—receive many millions of pounds per year less than equivalent constituencies in Scotland. Does the Minister have any plans to amend the Scotland Bill to put the allocation on to a basis of need?

[Mr Speaker]

All I will say to the Secretary of State is that that question is very wide of the considerations of the Calman commission, and I feel sure that he will be dextrous enough to provide an orderly reply.

[Michael Moore]

The answer is no.

[Mr Speaker]

I am confirmed in that view.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The problem is that the recommendations of the Calman commission are not being implemented—they are not in the Scotland Bill. The proposal on the aggregates levy, the proposals for the devolution of the marine environment and the proposal on air passenger duty have all been abandoned. Is that a lack of imagination on the part of this Government, or merely a lack of ambition for Scotland?

[Michael Moore]

We certainly do not lack ambition for Scotland. We have a set of proposals that are being thoroughly scrutinised in the Scottish Parliament, and from tomorrow, they will be scrutinised in the House as well. As far as the specifics are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in respect of the aggregates levy, we have said that given the current court case, it is inappropriate to devolve that just now, but we will do so in future. I recommend that he goes back to the Command Paper and studies it carefully.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect in Scotland of the increase in the basic rate of value added tax.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on Phil Gallie? Phil was a true, great Conservative in Scotland.

I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a range of issues. The VAT rise is a tough but necessary step towards Britain’s economic recovery. Income tax and national insurance increases would have had a more damaging impact on poorer people in our society.

[Gordon Banks]

Almost half the respondents to a recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses said that they would increase prices because of the VAT rise, and 45% of those respondents said that the rise would decrease turnover and have an obvious impact in hindering job creation and growth. How can the Secretary of State and the Minister continue to sell out the people of Scotland and support this abysmal tax rise?

[David Mundell]

How can the hon. Gentleman continue to fail to take responsibility for his Government’s record, which took our country to the brink of bankruptcy and required the VAT rise to fill the black hole? If anyone is responsible for the issues that Scottish business currently faces, it is his Government.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of recent trends in business confidence in Scotland.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of recent trends in business confidence in Scotland.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of trends in business confidence in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

Returning the UK to sustainable economic growth is the Government’s overriding priority. The Government are doing everything they can to create the conditions that enable all businesses to be successful and create more jobs.

[Fiona Bruce]

Business organisations have welcomed the Government’s plans to reduce the headline rate of corporation tax and simplify the tax system. Does the Secretary of State agree that cuts are vital for boosting enterprise?

[Michael Moore]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a moment ago. The priority for economic growth in this country is to cut the deficit of £155,000 million that we inherited from Labour. Cuts in corporation tax, reducing the national insurance burden and keeping interest rates low are important parts of the package.

[John Stevenson]

Given the over-reliance on the public sector in Scotland, does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government should be following the policies of the national Government by encouraging private sector investment and ensuring a balanced economy?

[Michael Moore]

We certainly believe that the private sector has a central role to play in returning us to sustainable growth in this country, whether in Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament debates the Scottish Government’s budget this afternoon and no doubt some of these points will be made in that debate.

[Mike Freer]

Is the Secretary of State worried that the Scottish Government’s plans to introduce a business surcharge will damage business confidence?

[Michael Moore]

The Scottish Government have received serious representations on their proposals, and I am confident that those will be debated extensively this afternoon.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

A double dip in the housing market in Scotland would be a disaster for the country. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Scottish banks about more flexible lending?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman will be more familiar than most with the situation that we inherited, in which bank lending—to businesses or to householders—was not in a good state. We are determined to increase the amount of lending and I have regular discussions with the banks on a range of issues. This issue is a central part of those discussions.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that business confidence will have been extremely dented by yesterday’s appalling growth figure announcements? Does he now accept that the Government’s cuts go too far, too fast, and will the Government now pull back from this reckless course?

[Michael Moore]

I recognise that yesterday’s growth figures were very disappointing. We have said for months that the recovery would be choppy. There are special circumstances about the weather in yesterday’s announcement, which she will be aware of, but if we do not tackle the deficit, introduce measures to help businesses to grow or invest in infrastructure and science funding, we will not get the recovery from the situation that we inherited from the Opposition.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the Secretary of State’s last answer, he referred to investment in infrastructure. He will know, from the Scottish business organisations that are in London today to appear before the Select Committee, that an important part of increasing confidence is having the right transport links and access to markets. Given that, and the future of the Secretary of State for Wales notwithstanding, will the Secretary of State clear up the confusion on his position on High Speed 2 and its extension to Scotland? I know from the discussions a couple of weeks ago that people from Glasgow and Edinburgh are slightly confused about where he stands. Can he clear this up and put on the record his support for High Speed 2 being extended to Edinburgh and Glasgow for the future of the economy of the whole UK?

[Michael Moore]

I would not accuse the hon. Gentleman of wilfully misinterpreting the outcome of that particular meeting. I was pleased to arrange the meeting between the leaders of Glasgow and Edinburgh councils and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is sitting on the Front Bench. I am a passionate supporter of high-speed rail coming to Scotland, as is my right hon. Friend and the rest of the Cabinet.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

5. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on universities in Scotland of the increase in the maximum fees chargeable by universities in England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Education is devolved, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish Government are currently consulting on the future of higher education in Scotland. The UK Government are developing a White Paper on higher education in England that will fully consider the effect of their proposals on higher education in the devolved Administrations.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, although it was not quite an answer to my question. He will know, as I do, that the tripling of university fees in England will bring nothing but pain and misery to Scottish universities and Scottish students, whether in funding or support for students, or through the intolerable pressure on the Scottish Government to respond. What does he have to say to the university students who will suffer so much because of the appalling decision made by his party and the Scottish Liberals?

[David Mundell]

Higher education in Scotland is devolved. The UK Government are taking account of the impact of their policies in Scotland, but I tend to agree with Sir Andrew Cubie when he said that the Scottish Government were behind the curve in responding to the Browne report and bringing forward their own proposals. They are followers, not leaders. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a constant hubbub in the Chamber. People outside must think that it is extremely discourteous.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

The Minister should be aware that what is not devolved are decisions on research funding—decisions that are arrived at here in Westminster and which will have an impact, not least for those Russell group universities in Scotland. Will he give us an undertaking that he will ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland stays closely in touch with Mike Russell’s all-party working group at Holyrood, so that whatever the political composition after May, we get an outcome for Scottish universities that does not replicate the errors of policy judgment that have sadly been arrived at here?

[David Mundell]

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an undertaking about the Scotland Office liaising with the relevant Scottish Parliament committee, and also to assure him that the Scotland Office works closely with Universities Scotland on all issues affecting universities in Scotland.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

8. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employee bonuses to be paid by banks based in Scotland.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

12. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the level of employee bonuses to be paid by banks based in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Questions 8 and 12 together. I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues. As the predominant shareholder in RBS, the Government expect the bank to be a back-marker and not a market leader on bonuses. People across the country are having to make adjustments as we come out of recession and repair our public finances. Everyone expects bankers to be part of this process.

[Anas Sarwar]

Given that the Financial Services Authority report found that 1.1 million customer complaints were made against RBS in one year and that more than 50% were shown to have been dealt with inappropriately, does the Minister think it appropriate for RBS executives to receive lavish bonuses this year, and if not, what is he going to do about it?

[Michael Moore]

As we have made clear, we have inherited an arrangement with RBS that was put in place by the last Government—the hon. Gentleman’s Government, not this one—to pay bonuses at market rates this year. We want to see bonuses lower this year than last year. That is absolutely clear-cut. As far as customer service is concerned, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I am sure that RBS managers will have heard it.

[Mr Speaker]

Eric Joyce is not here.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

With the collapse of the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland, does the Minister agree that an independent Scotland would be as successful as Ireland and Iceland at the moment?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman makes an astute point as ever.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Driving Standards Agency on its operations in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I have had no such discussions with the agency. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from the Westminster Hall debate that he secured on the proposed closure of Arbroath and Forfar driving test centres that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) has agreed to look further into the arrangements surrounding driving test centre closures.

[Mr Weir]

The Minister is obviously aware that local driving test centres in rural areas such as Angus are being closed without any consultation whatever, with services moved to multi-purpose test centres. Does he accept that this is an unacceptable way for a Government agency to act? Will he press the Secretary of State for Transport, who I notice is sitting two along from him on the Front Bench, to impose a moratorium on closures until, at the very least, there is adequate consultation with local communities before the removal of such important services?

[David Mundell]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in pursuing this issue, as he also did in his Westminster Hall debate. He knows that the Transport Minister took away the issues that he raised in that debate and agreed to look into them.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effects of the outcomes of the recent state visit to Edinburgh and London of the vice-premier of the People’s Republic of China on the renewable and low-carbon energy industries in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

China and the United Kingdom are key partners for growth in the future. This visit was another positive step in strengthening relationships, and it confirms Scotland’s reputation as a world leader in the continuing development and application of the new technology that helps to deliver clean green energy globally.

[Mike Crockart]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he agree that investment worth £6 million in Scottish companies by the largest energy consumer in the world will provide a perfect showcase for the benefits of green technology? Does not the fact that Edinburgh seems set to see the creation of a renewable energy cluster in Leith docks further the case for the city to be the location for the new green investment bank? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. That is unfair on the hon. Member asking the question, and on the Minister answering it. It also sends out a very bad signal to those listening to our proceedings.

[Michael Moore]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

On my hon. Friend’s first point, may I just emphasise what I said earlier, which was that the vice-premier was very impressed by what he saw of Scotland’s renewable energy sector when he visited Edinburgh, and not only by the presentations that he saw about the country’s potential but specifically by seeing the Pelamis factory in Leith? My hon. Friend also makes a strong and compelling case for the green investment bank, and we will announce details of that shortly. We look forward to making an announcement about its location at an appropriate moment.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the support that the Secretary of State has given to the establishment of the green investment bank headquarters in Edinburgh. Given that leading economists have said this morning that Scotland faces an even greater danger than the rest of the UK of a double-dip recession, does he accept that the decision on the location of the bank should be taken sooner rather than later? We want it to be set up so that we can have the advantage of the jobs that it will bring now, not in three or four years’ time.

[Michael Moore]

Unlike the previous Government, we have actually made a firm commitment to the green investment bank, and we intend to deliver on that. We will be making further announcements on the detail as soon as possible.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

13. What recent representations he has received on the boundaries between devolved and reserved policy matters; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The Commission on Scottish Devolution was established to look into this issue, and we are taking forward recommendations of the commission in the Scotland Bill.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to revisit the boundaries between reserved and devolved areas in farming matters? Does he believe that we in England could benefit from the way in which the common agricultural policy has been applied in Scotland?

[David Mundell]

The Calman commission looked at these issues across the full spectrum and determined that there was no need to make any changes in respect of agriculture, other than in certain aspects of animal health funding. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear Mr Robert Halfon.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

14. What recent representations he has received from the Scottish Executive on the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The most recent such representations related specifically to the financial provisions of the Scotland Bill, received around the time of its introduction on 30 November 2010. Since May last year, Scotland Office Ministers have not received any representations from Scottish Ministers describing the detail or the estimated economic impact of any alternative proposals to deliver financial accountability to the Scottish Parliament.

[Robert Halfon]

On average, the Government spend about £7,000 a year per person in England, but they spend about £8,500 per person in Scotland. What comfort can the Minister give to my hard-pressed taxpayers in Harlow that their money is being spent wisely?

[David Mundell]

The Government understand that concerns have been expressed about the Barnett formula, but their priority is the stabilisation of the public finances. That is our priority for this Parliament.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

While the VAT rise was swift, we are still waiting for the rural fuel derogation in the islands. In my constituency, fuel costs £1.45 a litre, but I have information that, in the tiny Faroe Islands, the price is 94p a litre for diesel and £1.10 for petrol. The islands control their own fuel taxation. Should not Scotland, with 5 million people, have at least the powers of an island group of 48,000?

[David Mundell]

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that we finally have a Government who are taking forward the issue of fuel prices in remote and rural areas and who are looking to hold a pilot in constituencies such as his to establish how exactly it would operate in practice.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

15. What the outcome was of the recent visit to Scotland of the vice-premier of the People’s Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I had a very constructive meeting with Vice-Premier Li Keqiang, which builds on the existing relationship between our countries. As I said in response to an earlier question, China and the UK are key partners in growth for the future.

[Mel Stride]

While I welcome the commercial success of the Chinese deputy premier’s visit to Scotland and recognise the importance of China having good relations with Scotland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important for the Government to continue to press the Chinese Government on the issue of human rights and also to call for the prompt release of the Nobel peace laureate, Liu Xiaobo?

[Michael Moore]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that in the course of the extensive visit by the vice-premier, we not only focused on our important commercial ties and developing our partnership for growth, but took the opportunity to have an ongoing dialogue about human rights and other issues. We will continue to do that—and I believe we will be successful.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 January.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest condolences to all those affected by the appalling terrorist attack in Moscow on Monday. Our thoughts should be with the families of all those killed and injured, but especially with the family of Gordon Cousland of the United Kingdom. I spoke to President Medvedev on Monday evening and offered him our complete support in ensuring that the terrorists should never be allowed to win.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Campbell]

On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to join in the tribute that the Prime Minister has paid. We would also wish to send our best wishes to a soldier from Northern Ireland who was injured in Afghanistan last week.

Every week, £600 million in fuel duty flows into the Treasury from hard-pressed motorists right across the United Kingdom. That is £600 million each week since the Prime Minister said that a fuel duty stabiliser was

“a sensible, balanced policy that protects families from big increases in the oil price.”

He has talked about a fuel duty stabiliser; he has promised it; he has answered questions on it—so when is he going to introduce it?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not believe in making tax changes outside a Budget, which is the proper way we do things in this country. There is a strong case for looking at this area, because I want to see a situation where, when oil prices rise, we try to help motorists and share the burden with them. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly reminded me of something I said, so perhaps I can remind him of something he said, as he stood on a manifesto that emphasised the need to “reign back public spending” and stated:

“A key priority of the next Government must be reducing debt”.

I agree with that.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I am delighted that the Government’s new enterprise allowance will be announced and will begin in my home area of Merseyside on Monday. Will not initiatives like that that spark enterprise and start businesses in some of the most deprived parts of the country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that Labour Members will encourage people to start up businesses and get enterprise going, as it is a private sector-led recovery that this country needs. We should also give special help to areas such as hers, which I visited recently, to try to ensure that we do everything to help growth in Merseyside and improve the prospects of the Atlantic gateway—a very exciting prospect for her area and for everyone who lives and works on Merseyside.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in sending deepest condolences to the families of those killed in the bombing at Moscow airport. Our thoughts are particularly with the fiancée, family and friends of Gordon Cousland.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what, in his view, is the cause of yesterday’s disappointing growth figures?

[The Prime Minister]

First, they are disappointing growth figures—and they are disappointing even excluding what the Office for National Statistics says about the extreme weather. The point I would make is that this country has a very difficult economic situation for two main reasons. First, we have the biggest budget deficit in Europe, and we have to get to grips with it, which is difficult. Secondly, we had the biggest banking boom and the biggest banking bust anywhere in Europe, and we have to deal with that. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England and I have all said, it is inevitable that, as we recover from those things, it will be choppy and it will be difficult. The worst thing to do would be to ditch our plans on the basis of one quarter’s figures.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister has been going around for months saying that our economy is out of the danger zone. Only a month ago, he told the House:

“It is because Britain’s economy is out of the danger zone and recovering.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 901.]

May I ask him to confirm that? He said that if we set aside the bad weather, the figures were not good. In fact, if we set aside the bad weather, growth was completely flat. There was no growth in the last quarter of 2010: no growth at all.

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly what the figures show, yes.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the danger zone. The point that I would make is this. Britain is no longer linked with countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Everyone was clear about the position before the last election. The Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the Governor of the Bank of England all said that there was no credible plan to deal with the deficit.

If you do not deal with your debts, you will never have growth. That is the truth, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister does not get it. If you do not have growth, you will never cut the deficit. That is what we saw in the last quarter of 2010.

As millions of families and businesses are worried about their livelihoods and see unemployment rising, inflation rising and growth stalled, what the country wants to know from the Prime Minister is whether he is going to change his strategy in any way in order to get the economy moving.

[The Prime Minister]

What we need to do in our country is get the deficit down, and at the same time do everything that we can to encourage growth. Let me read to the right hon. Gentleman what the head of the OECD said about the British economy, because I think that it is absolutely vital. He said:

“the UK was exceptional in terms of its needs of fiscal consolidation because the deficit had gone completely out of control.”

He also said:

“I think dealing with the deficit is the best way to prepare the ground for growth in the future. In fact, if you don't deal with the deficit you can be assured that there will not be growth because confidence will not recover.”

This man, who is entirely independent and in charge of the OECD, is giving us good advice, and I advise the right hon. Gentleman—as he has a new shadow Chancellor and can make a new start—to follow it.

[Edward Miliband]

The difference is that when we left office the economy was growing. Now the Prime Minister is in office, and it is not.

I have a very specific question to ask the Prime Minister. He has already made clear his decision on VAT, but he still has a choice to make about whether to go ahead with the decision to take another £20 billion out of the economy this year when the recovery is fragile. Is he telling the House and the country that he is determined to go ahead, irrespective of the figures and irrespective of what people up and down the country are feeling?

[The Prime Minister]

We have now heard what I think we are going to hear a lot more of: the theory that there was a golden inheritance from the Labour party. That is one of the most laughable propositions that I have ever heard put in the House of Commons.

We will not forget that we had the biggest budget deficit in the whole of Europe, and that we were spending £120 million every day just on the interest on that deficit. We inherited a situation in which, because of the regulation carried out by the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor when they were in the Treasury, we had the biggest boom and the biggest bust in our banking system. We had a growth model that was based on uncontrollable boom in housing, uncontrollable boom in financial services, uncontrolled public spending, and uncontrolled immigration. We inherited a completely bust system from the two people who worked in the Treasury throughout the last Labour Government.

[Edward Miliband]

I suppose we can take it from that answer that the Prime Minister is not going to change course. He is not going to do anything to bring about growth in the economy. This is how out of touch he is. What people up and down the country are saying is that he is going too far and too fast with deficit reduction, and that that is what is inhibiting growth in this country.

The evidence shows that while cuts are being made in the public sector and while jobs are being lost in the public sector, jobs are not being created in the private sector. Why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, put his arrogance aside, and admit that he knows how to cut jobs but has absolutely no idea how he is going to create them?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has got to stop writing his questions before he comes to the Chamber and actually listens to the answer. He asks about changing course, and I have to say to him that he seems to have replaced a shadow Chancellor who did not understand Labour’s programme with one who does not agree with it. He asks specifically about cuts next year. Let me just remind him that it is Labour’s own plan for significant cuts in spending to start in April this year. He shakes his head, but that is his plan, which he is meant to be committed to. If he is now saying that that has all gone and Labour is just going to spend more and borrow more, he ought to tell us. As far as I can hear, his only plan is to borrow money we have not got, to spend money on things we cannot afford, and not to do the work we need to do to sort this economy out.

[Edward Miliband]

I am surprised that the Prime Minister is raising personnel issues this week of all weeks, because who has made the right judgment, me, who appointed the shadow Chancellor, or him, who clung on to Andy Coulson for months?

When people listen to the Prime Minister they know what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) meant when he said that the Prime Minister and Chancellor

“don’t have a sense of what a large part of the country”

feels. They are out of touch with people’s lives, they are taking a reckless gamble, and what these figures show is that for millions of people up and down the country it is hurting but it is not working.

[The Prime Minister]

If it was such a good decision to have the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) as shadow Chancellor, why did the right hon. Gentleman not appoint him in the first place?

Let me just make the point that the absolute key for this country and our economy is two things: we have to deal with our deficit; and we have to help deliver growth from our private sector. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to what the Governor of the Bank of England said last night in his speech. [Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members will want to listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, who said:

“The UK economy is well-placed to return to sustained, balanced growth over the next few years”.

He said that this was partly as a result of the

“credible…path of fiscal consolidation”.

He continued:

“the right course has been set, and it is important we maintain it.”

I prefer the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England to that of the man sitting opposite.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to hear Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Is not the lesson from the noble Baroness Thatcher that, when you have set an economic course, you should stick to it—“there is no alternative”?

[Hon. Members]

More!

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has a huge following in all parts of the House. The point he makes is important: it is that whatever your plans to encourage growth in the economy—we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7, we have abolished Labour’s jobs tax, and we are investing in science and skills, all of which are necessary—without a plan to deal with the deficit, they are nothing.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Q2. I think the Prime Minister would accept that he has had better weeks. He has lost the support of the CBI because he does not have a growth strategy; the economy has taken a highly predictable downturn; he has lost his Essex man; and I understand that there were forecasts of snow for the end of the week. Is there anyone remaining in the Government who still understands or is in touch with the concerns of ordinary people, whose jobs are under threat because of his policies?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make is that the CBI says very clearly that it is absolutely essential that we get to grips with the deficit. What it said at the time of Labour’s last Budget was that there was not a credible plan; it believes that there now is a credible plan. This is not going to be easy. The Labour party is committed to cuts from April this year. This will not be easy, but it has to be done.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Q3. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition that has been running Reading borough council since last May has uncovered the fact that over the past 12 years the previous Labour administration spent £1.4 million of taxpayers’ money funding the salaries of three full-time union officials. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money and that full-time union officials should be paid for by union subscriptions?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It seems that in local government the Labour politicians pay the unions, whereas in national politics the unions pay for the Labour politicians. It is nice work if you can get it.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q4. The Government have switched the indexation of benefits and public sector pensions from the retail prices index to the lower consumer prices index, but when it comes to hiking up petrol, they continue to use the higher retail prices index. In the interests of fairness, how can the Prime Minister justify using the higher indexation for petrol? Should the Government not at the very least use one or the other?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give the hon. Gentleman one tip. Before writing the question, it is always good to work out one’s own party’s policy. The Opposition are now committed to increasing benefits by CPI rather than RPI. His party is backing our policy and is far from opposing it.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

Q5. Recent work by the Nuffield Foundation has shown that Britain has the lowest proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds studying mathematics of any of our competitor countries in the OECD. Just as bad, we have a chronic shortage of maths teachers in our schools. What action are the Government going to take on this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Nuffield Foundation has produced an extremely worthwhile report on how badly we are doing with maths teaching and in terms of the number of people studying maths. We will be taking a series of steps to sort this out, which will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. One is to expand Teach First, which is an excellent scheme to get graduates from our best universities into schools, and which, for the first time, will include primary schools. Many of them will be maths teachers. We also want to raise the bar for teachers as regards the qualifications they need to teach maths. That is vital in our country and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

Q6. Last Friday, I visited my constituent Vera Gaskin at her Livingston home. Mrs Gaskin has hepatitis C, having contracted it in 1985 through a transfusion of contaminated blood. She had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease at the time. Of course, her situation is not dissimilar to that of the several thousands of people who also suffered due to the tainted blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s. Sadly, many have passed away since. Obviously, I am aware of previous debates in the House on the matter and the statement by the Health Secretary on 10 January, but this does not bring closure to many victims and their families. Will the Prime Minister personally prioritise this matter, work with the devolved Administrations and introduce a proper compensation scheme, thus finally bringing justice to the innocent victims of this terrible tragedy?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He has had constituents come to him about this extremely difficult issue and I have had exactly the same experience in my constituency. Although previous Governments had put arrangements in place, there was a basic unfairness, particularly towards those who caught hepatitis C, because the evidence about what happens to people with AIDS and hepatitis C has changed over the years. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary made the statement last week that we would increase what was being given to those suffering from hepatitis C. I am not sure that there is ever a level of payment that will bring closure for such an appalling accident, but I believe that the conditions in this country were different from those in other countries that campaigners often compare it with, such as the Republic of Ireland. I think we have the right answer.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

Q7. The mobility component of disability living allowance for people in care homes is being reviewed. Whatever improvements are made, will the Prime Minister assure me that disabled people in care homes will still have access to individually tailored mobility support, and that that will be, as the coalition agreement implies, at no extra cost to them or their families?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. The intention here is very clear: we want to ensure that the treatment of people in hospital is the same as the treatment of people in residential care homes in terms of the mobility component of DLA. That was behind the announcement we made, and that is what we want to make sure happens.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister may be aware that one of the Members elected to this House has decided to emigrate, and he may want to chalk that up as one of his achievements. The hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr Adams) seems to be extremely embarrassed about applying for an office for profit under the Crown although he has shown no such embarrassment in profiting from his office in this House for many years at taxpayers’ expense. When will the Prime Minister deliver on his pre-election pledge to hard-pressed taxpayers that he will abolish parliamentary money for parliamentary purposes going to those who do not fulfil their parliamentary duties?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, just in case everyone has not caught up with the news, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the hon. Member for Belfast West has accepted an office of profit under the Crown, which is of course the only way to retire from this House. I am not sure that Gerry Adams will be delighted to be a Baron of the Manor of Northstead, but none the less, I am pleased that tradition has been maintained. On the very serious point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about allowances, in my view we should be aiming for all Members who are elected to take their seats in this House. That is what should happen and if some Members have a problem with what that entails, they ought to look at a remedy for that and should come and talk about it. That is the most important thing we could achieve.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Q8. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Vaynor first school in Redditch, where I am chairman of the governors, on having recently received a good Ofsted report despite the continual lack of fairer funding from the Labour party? Will he also welcome the extra funding that will be heading to Worcestershire schools, due to the pupil premium, totalling more than £3 million?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope that everyone in the House will be able to welcome the fact, first, that the amount of spending per pupil will continue, even though we have a very tough and difficult situation in our country. Over and above that, there will be a pupil premium payment—something that the Labour party did not do in 13 years of being in power. This money will go to those from deprived backgrounds in schools all over our country, and not just in inner-city areas; as she says, her constituency will benefit. I think the whole House should celebrate that.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The former investigating officer is now on the payroll of News International and three senior editors have been identified in relation to phone hacking—is it not time that another police force took over the inquiry? You have the status to make it happen, Prime Minister. What are you afraid of?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear: phone hacking is wrong and illegal, and it is quite right that the Director of Public Prosecutions is reviewing all the evidence, which should be followed wherever it leads. I do not think it is necessarily fair to say that the police have not been active—after all, there have been prosecutions, convictions, and indeed imprisonments—but the law is quite clear and the prosecuting authorities should follow it wherever it leads.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Q9. Tomorrow is Holocaust memorial day—the anniversary of the day on which Auschwitz was liberated. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Holocaust Education Trust and its work to ensure that the lessons of the holocaust are not forgotten?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House when he raises the brilliant work that the Holocaust Education Trust does. I think this is a good time to pay tribute to the, sadly very few, holocaust survivors left. I had the huge privilege of meeting one, Trude Levi, yesterday in No. 10 Downing street. To hear the story of what those people went through, what they escaped, and in many cases what they had to go through even after they escaped, is truly humbling. We must never forget—not just because of what happened in Europe in the holocaust, but because too often there is genocide in our world today; we need to be permanently reminded of that fact.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q10. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the majority of the Cabinet grew up in secure worlds of economic wealth and privilege. Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s young people face economic uncertainty and high youth unemployment? Is youth unemployment a price worth paying?

[The Prime Minister]

It never is—but youth unemployment has been a structural problem in our country for years. Under the previous Government, when the economy grew for many years, youth unemployment was worse at the end of that growth than it was at the beginning. Then, of course, it rocketed during the recession. We need a serious examination of how we can reduce the number of people who are not in education, not in employment and not in training. Rather than trading slogans across the House, it would be better to work out why the number has gone up in good times and in bad.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Q11. Unlike the NHS or my local council, a Sue Ryder hospice in my constituency, Manorlands, is not able to reclaim the VAT that it has paid. May I ask the Prime Minister to examine the issue and try to create a level playing field for health care charities?

[The Prime Minister]

I know this is an issue that many hon. Members care about deeply. We should all pay tribute to the hospice movement and what it does, working with our health service. It is important that we do everything we can to cut red tape and allow charities to thrive. Charities can and do reclaim some of their VAT, but in considering a bigger exemption such as my hon. Friend speaks about, we have to look at the consequences both for the state sector and the private sector, and their relationship with the voluntary sector, before we can take such a step.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the visit of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to the United Kingdom and to Parliament? Apparently, a few years ago, when she came to Prime Minister’s questions, she was so impressed that she decided to institute it in Bangladesh. I am not sure whether she has changed her mind since. Can he give the House an assurance that he will continue to build on the strong bilateral links between Britain and Bangladesh?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. The Prime Minister is very welcome to Britain and also welcome to be watching our deliberations today. As the right hon. Gentleman says, whether she will go away feeling proud and excited by what the mother of Parliaments does on Wednesday at 12 o’clock is another question. She has already had a very good meeting with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Relations between Britain and Bangladesh are good, and we need to expand them still further.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Q12. My constituents, Ben Oldroyd and Matthew Carr, are autistic and have Asperger’s syndrome. They have asked for my help because they want to visit schools in the Selby district to speak to pupils and staff and give them their experience of living with autism and the challenges that they face with that condition. They have already received praise from the head of Brayton high school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an initiative could be extremely good news for schools and the teaching profession?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which raises an important point. We made good steps during the last Parliament, with the Autism Bill promoted by the now Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), but there is a huge amount that can be done by people themselves to get a greater understanding of autism and Asperger’s, not least because there is such a huge spectrum and such a big difference between the children suffering from those conditions. I am sure the work to which my hon. Friend refers is extremely worth while.

[Dr Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week the Prime Minister said something that I agree with: he said that we needed to do something about loan-sharking, so will he join me next week in supporting the motion to cut the cost of credit and support the poorest consumers in Britain with protection from those companies?

[The Prime Minister]

At the risk of building on what is clearly a blossoming friendship already, I will look carefully at what the hon. Lady says. On the issue of controlling loan sharks, one part should be encouraging credit unions. There is all-party support for that. Sometimes we have to be careful as we regulate that we do not drive out responsible operators and bring in loan sharks, so we must get the balance right. I will look carefully at what the hon. Lady is saying and perhaps get back to her.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Q13. Last week the Public Accounts Committee found that the previous Labour Government had pushed through private finance initiative deals without offering any alternative, and often regardless of expense or value for money. The result has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds too much. Does the Prime Minister share my view that there should now be a full investigation of why and how that happened?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Public Accounts Committee can do a lot of that work by unveiling some of the appalling decisions that were made, which were just about off-balance-sheet accounting, rather than good value for money. I see the shadow Chancellor nodding, but he was in the Treasury when all that happened. As in so many cases, what we will find is that the mistakes that we now have to pay for are the responsibility of Gordon Brown’s two henchmen sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q14. The Prime Minister used to talk rather a lot about fairness, but he has not done so well on performance, so here is a test for him. The banks have walked away from the talks on bankers’ bonuses. What will he do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

The talks are ongoing, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I want. I want the banks to pay more in tax, and they will pay more in tax, up from £18 billion last year to £20 billion next year. He says they have walked away; they have not. These talks are ongoing, and I want to see the taxes go up, the bonuses come down, but vitally, the lending increase. I am confident that we will achieve all those three goals.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I know that the Prime Minister regards Blackpool as a special place, as indeed he should. Does he agree that it is about time that Blackpool’s unique status as the first working-class seaside resort should be recognised with UNESCO world heritage status?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for his constituency. I have a warm feeling whenever I think of Blackpool, because of the many conferences that I have attended there and the time that I have spent there. I understand, as I know he does, the pressures that it faces because of changing patterns of tourism and development, and the Government are committed to helping Blackpool to map out a strong future. It is also wonderful to see Blackpool in the premier league where they belong.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Q15. With the economy shrinking by 5% and inflation rising, having followed Ireland on the path of cutting too fast and too deep, are we not now in danger of following Ireland further down that slippery slope?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that the 5% reduction was under her Government, not this Government. If the former shadow Chancellor’s primer has gone missing, perhaps she could get hold of a copy. When we came to office in May, the idea that there was some acceptable plan to reduce the deficit is a complete fiction. Let me just give her this one figure. If we went ahead with the plan of halving the deficit in four years, in four years’ time our deficit would be bigger than Portugal’s is now. Does anybody think that that is a credible path back to growth and confidence? It is not.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

One of the most important strands in the Government’s growth strategy has been the creation of 75,000 additional apprenticeships. Does the Prime Minister agree that the forthcoming national apprenticeship week and the Gloucestershire apprenticeship fair represent a great opportunity to get young constituents to earn while they learn, especially in the manufacturing sectors, which are growing faster now than at any time under the previous Government?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the spending review, we had to take difficult decisions, particularly on welfare and pay, but as a result we are able to expand the number of apprenticeships to a record level, an extra 75,000. Yes, the growth figures are disappointing, but manufacturing and exports are up, and we are starting to rebalance the economy away from the unsustainable booms that we had under the Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) asks his urgent question, I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that those who are interested in the next business can attend properly to it. A quiet and speedy exit is required.

BBC World Service

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

12:33

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on BBC World Service cuts.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The House will agree that the BBC World Service performs an invaluable role, reflecting British democratic values overseas and supporting British influence in the world, and that the services it provides are a beacon to many in some of the poorest and most insecure countries in the world. We announced in October that from 2014 responsibility for the BBC World Service will be transferred to the BBC itself and funded from the licence fee, a move that has been welcomed by the World Service and the BBC Trust as providing new opportunities for the World Service to develop in the future. In the meantime, the World Service, like any other taxpayer-funded body, must ensure that it is working on the right priorities and as efficiently as possible. I announced in October that its expenditure limits would be reduced by 16% in real terms over the next three years.

As I set out in a written statement earlier today, we are providing £13 million per annum to help with the deficit in BBC pension funds and £10 million per annum for new services in markets that we and the World Service have identified as priorities. Those include TV programming in Urdu, in sub-Saharan Africa and in Hindi to be provided to local partners. We have also guaranteed the capital for the move of the World Service to its new offices in W1. That is proper provision for the future of the World Service and will make up for inherited deficits.

The other services provided by the World Service cannot stand still, and those that have become less well used because of the rise of local broadcasters or falling shortwave audiences sometimes have to close. It is the World Service’s responsibility to be as efficient as possible while maintaining as many services as possible, something the previous Government recognised when in 2006 they closed 10 separate language services of the World Service. The World Service initially suggested to the Foreign Office the closure of up to 13 language services, but I refused to give permission for that. I have agreed to the closure of five language services, accounting for 3.5 million listeners out of the total audience of 180 million. Withdrawal from shortwave and other services will have a bigger effect, but they will rightly allow for concentration on online and mobile services for the future.

The BBC World Service has a viable and promising future, but it is not immune from public spending constraints or the reassessment of its priorities. While any closures might be regretted, they would not be necessary at all were it not for the inherited BBC pension deficit and the vast public deficit inherited from the previous Government.

[Mr MacShane]

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is Her Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not a pensions actuary at KPMG? In every year of the previous Labour Government, the grant in aid to the foreign service went up, but under him it has gone down. He is doing in part what no dictator has ever achieved: silencing the voice of the BBC, the voice of Britain, the voice of democracy, and the voice of balanced journalism at a time when it is needed more than ever.

I have an interest to declare. It was the World Service that broadcast my arrest and imprisonment 30 years ago in communist Poland, thus helping to secure my fairly swift release. This week there is turmoil in the Balkans, where people were killed and injured in Tirana last Friday and where Serbia and Macedonia remain without a European future. There is turmoil in Russia, where no one trusts the Putin-controlled media. There is turmoil in Africa, from Egypt and Tunisia down to Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe. What are the Government doing? They are axing the voice of the BBC—the voice of Britain and our values—in Albanian, Serbian and Macedonian. They are cutting services to Angola, Mozambique, Russia and China. They are taking the BBC off the air as other non or semi-democracies replace BBC truth with their propaganda.

The Foreign Secretary secured a flat cash settlement for his own Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomats, but he has made the World Service the main victim of his cuts with a 20% real-terms reduction. That will cost the jobs of hundreds of journalists who come from every corner of the world to offer their linguistic and political expertise to our nation.

Finally, does the Foreign Secretary accept that just 0.5% of the UK’s total spend on international work goes to the World Service? I urge him to look across the range of UK overseas spending, including some sacred cows, and reverse the World Service cuts before irreparable damage is done to our country. If he cannot do that, he should let us have a Foreign Secretary who will allow Britain to maintain its voice in the world.

[Mr Hague]

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about Poland, one would never imagine that the World Service’s Polish service was closed by the Government of whom he was a member. When he talks about the Balkans, one would never imagine that the Bulgarian, Croatian and Slovene services were also closed by the Government of whom he was a member. It was apparently fine under the previous Government sometimes to have to change priorities, but it is not fine now.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Russian services. In Russia, online audiences have increased by 120% in the past 12 months, while radio audiences have declined by 85% since 2001. That is why it is absolutely right for the World Service to move more of its services to online and mobile services; that is the way the world is going, even though he might not have noticed it.

Of course the World Service has to move with the future, and of course occasionally some services have to close. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that when he was a Minister. It is a pity he does not recognise it now.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The World Service together with the British Council are hugely valued services and probably the most effective way of advancing Britain’s perceptions of the world. What we have here is an inevitable consequence of restoring stability to the economy. As my right hon. Friend says, funding for the World Service will transfer to the BBC from 2014. Will he confirm that, with the savings that the transfer will make and the move to Broadcasting house that is going on at the moment, it is open to the BBC to increase funding after 2014?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, there is some degree of excitement in the BBC Trust about that—about the potential in being able to bring together more easily the resources of the BBC and the experience of the BBC World Service. For instance, it might be able to develop BBC World television more successfully, so there is a positive side to look forward to, and that is what the House should concentrate on.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I should be interested if the Foreign Secretary could, for the sake of the House, adduce the evidence whereby the BBC Trust is excited at the prospect of the cuts that have been announced today. The director-general of the BBC has made it clear that the cuts are a direct consequence of last autumn’s spending review. Of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should not be exempt from the need to reduce the deficit, but in making cuts in the FCO, especially to a relatively small budget that has a global impact, there is surely a need for particular care and concern.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what proportion of the cuts to the FCO under the spending review settlement will be absorbed by the core FCO budget as distinct from the World Service and, indeed, the British Council? Will he set out his explanation of why the BBC World Service will absorb 16% to 20% real-terms cuts as against 10% real-terms cuts for the FCO? Will he explain how his often-stated ambition to strengthen bilateral relations with the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—is advanced by the end of radio programming in Mandarin Chinese? The reach and respect of the BBC World Service is a huge asset for Britain, and the Government should not put that at risk.

[Mr Hague]

May I first of all welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box? I look forward to working with him and to many exchanges with him, although we will always remember that he was Minister for Europe when £7 billion of our rebate was given away, which would of course have paid for the World Service 30 times over. We may have to remind him of that on future occasions as well.

I did not say that the BBC was excited about the reductions in the budget, but, considering the meeting that I had with the corporation about the issue in October, I can say that it is certainly excited about the potential in bringing together the work of the BBC and the World Service, so my evidence is the meeting that I had with Sir Michael Lyons and his colleagues.

It is true that in this spending round the real-terms cut in the Foreign Office budget is 10% and in the World Service budget 16%, but it is true also that in the previous three years the cut in the core Foreign Office budget was much greater. On the effect of all that, by 2013-14 the proportion of the Foreign Office budget accounted for by the World Service will be pretty much exactly the same as it was when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Foreign Office, five years ago. We ask the World Service only to bear its fair share of the public expenditure reductions, which are obviously necessary in this country. That is the right and fair thing to do, and now we have to work with the World Service and support it in making the best possible job of that.

The Chinese service reaches a very small number of people compared with the size of the Chinese population, and it needs refocusing. The new, enriched online service will aim to reach not only people in China, but 67 million Chinese people who live outside China, and it is designed to be more appealing to younger audiences. Again, there is a rationale for many of the changes that the World Service proposes, albeit within financial constraints.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Given the huge influence of Islamist television channels such as Hezbollah and al-Jazeera, will my right hon. Friend confirm that resources will continue to be spent on BBC World Service TV and radio services in the middle east, and on the Arabic service?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. That is, of course, a major area of the World Service’s broadcasting. None of the language service closures that are envisaged or agreed to will affect the middle east. Those closures are of services in Albanian, Macedonian, Serbian, Portuguese for Africa and English for the Caribbean. The work of the BBC World Service in the middle east will continue at its current strength.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

These cuts are a direct result of the Foreign Secretary’s decision to allow the funding of the World Service to pass from his Department to the licence fee payer. Many of us warned that that would happen at the time. The countries where language services have been closed that he listed in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) were all European democracies within the European Union; that is not the case with the language services the Foreign Secretary is closing. Why should the BBC spend any more money on language services that the licence fee payer has no interest in and, in many cases, cannot listen to?

[Mr Hague]

In case there is any confusion, there is no connection between these reductions and the transfer of the BBC World Service to licence fee funding, which will take place in four years’ time. For the next three years, the BBC World Service will continue to be funded directly out of public expenditure. Just to make it clear for the right hon. Gentleman, the reductions are therefore not the direct consequence of that decision. The services that closed under the previous Government were not just European democracies in the European Union; they also closed the Kazakh and Thai services. The closures were much more widespread. As I said, the previous Government recognised that closures sometimes had to take place. Labour Members must recognise that unless they oppose all reductions in Government expenditure, sometimes these things have to happen.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

Cuts in the jewel in the crown of this country are clearly disappointing. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the World Service makes a huge contribution to our international development agenda? Is he willing at least to discuss with the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department, which currently makes no contribution, could make a small contribution? For example, £3 million a year would save the Russian and Mandarin Chinese services.

[Mr Hague]

I point out to my right hon. Friend that there are merits in the changes to the Russian and Chinese services, for the reasons that I have given about changing patterns of usage. It is not clear that if the BBC World Service had a few million pounds extra, keeping those services exactly as they are would be the best use of that money. However, that would be for the World Service to decide. I am looking at whether additional funding can be provided in this financial year to help with the restructuring costs. It is not impossible that we will find some additional money for the World Service. A good part of the public money that is spent on the World Service is ODA-able—official development assistance—expenditure, so it falls within that category. I think that my colleagues in the Department for International Development and all other Departments would agree with my assessment that public spending discipline has to apply to all parts of the public sector, including the BBC World Service.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Is it not a fact that the BBC World Service is the most trusted voice in the world—more trusted than any Government, and more trusted than any other broadcaster in English or any other language? Therefore, to undermine the BBC World Service is to undermine truth. Is it not essential for the right hon. Gentleman to accept that it is about time that this Government dedicated themselves to truth and trust, and not to spin?

[Mr Hague]

These are the straightforward facts of the matter. The fact that the previous Government closed 10 services in 2006 is nothing to do with spin; it is the sheer truth of the matter. One point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that one of the advantages—although not a decisive advantage on its own—of transferring the BBC World Service into the BBC is that it will no longer be possible to make the argument, which is sometimes made around the world, that the BBC World Service is an arm of the British Government and is funded directly from the Foreign Office, and that therefore some suspicion should be cast on it. By showing the world that the BBC World Service, which is known for its impartiality and independence, will be part of the BBC, rather than funded by the Foreign Office, we are underlining, rather than undermining, its independence.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Given the inevitable reordering of the finances of the World Service, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is none the less essential, in a world in which the media move at an extraordinarily fast pace and the world itself is changing so rapidly, that it has the capacity to change if it needs to do so, and that its capabilities should not be set in stone?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was why I emphasised the changing nature of the demand for World Service broadcasting and the rapidly increasing online demand, particularly for its Russian services. Such things do not stand still, which of course means that the skills and personnel required sometimes change. There should be wider recognition of that.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary has referred several times to what happened under the previous Government. Will he confirm that the World Service established television in Arabic and Persian and new online services, and that the previous Government did not preside over a cut of 650 staff or make it face 16% cuts, which it now faces when the Foreign Office is suffering only 10% cuts? Is that not a direct consequence of his agreement to the budget cuts and his choices?

[Mr Hague]

The previous Government doubled the national debt in four years and ran up a budget deficit of 11% of our gross domestic product. That is why we are now in a period of public spending restraint, whether in the World Service or any other area.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that World Service funding was ODA-able in some cases. Does he envisage having discussions with DFID, given the increased commitment to operating in fragile and post-conflict states and the consequences of withdrawing the Portuguese for Africa, Nepali, Swahili and great lakes services? There could be scope for an agreement between the two Departments to reinstate or maintain those services.

[Mr Hague]

As I said, a good deal of the expenditure is already ODA-able. I do not know what scope that leaves for additional ODA-able funding, but DFID is already in the process of setting its own priorities, which do not normally include supporting the operations of the BBC World Service. Overall, these changes are necessary. I said that I am considering whether additional money can be provided to help the World Service through the restructuring—I am talking about only up to a few million pounds, but it may be of assistance. I cannot promise a large part of the DFID budget for this cause.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

I used to be accused of having a typical foreigner’s emotional attachment to the World Service, and I plead guilty to that. The Foreign Secretary has a sense of history and knows that the World Service’s reputation is based on not just its independence but its exceptional quality. The latest round of more than 600 redundancies will cut into its core and undermine it, because it will not have enough journalists. As a historian, he cannot be proud to be the Foreign Secretary who will oversee the final death of the World Service.

[Mr Hague]

None of us who are conscious of history can preside over a Government heading towards the bankruptcy of this country, and that is why we have to have spending restraint across the public sector. I stress that, as I said in my initial answer to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), there is a viable and strong future for the BBC World Service. The right place for it is with the BBC itself, which has taken it on with enthusiasm. It is wrong to pretend that there should never be any changes or reductions, and of course we have to ensure that we live within our means in this country. These changes are part of doing that.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the BBC World Service, along with the British Council, has a huge world reputation in exchanging views and knowledge from the western world? Does he accept also that it is not just the number of people who receive a service that counts? It is precisely the minorities in difficult parts of the world who need truth and independent advice.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was one reason why I was anxious to avoid a larger scale of language service closures than those to which I have agreed. We have limited them to five language services, along with other changes to the BBC World Service, partly because of the reason he gives.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to all the staff of the BBC World Service working both in this country and abroad? Is he giving any consideration to helping the BBC with the redundancies that will occur as a result of his decision, many of them affecting people in specialist positions?

[Mr Hague]

I have paid tribute on many occasions to the staff involved and to the BBC for the service that it provides around the world, and I do so again. I said that we might be able to find some additional help with the restructuring costs, and I mentioned in my initial answer the money that we have included in the settlement to underwrite the World Service’s move to new headquarters and to ensure that some new services can be developed. There is a strong commitment to the future of the World Service.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

In his correspondence with Sir Michael Lyons, which has been placed in the Library today, the Foreign Secretary states that he will

“seek to find ways to make some additional funding available this year, providing those funds can be used to generate savings in future years.”

What conversations has he had with the BBC Trust about that, and can he confirm whether he has met Sir Michael Lyons in person during his negotiations?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I have met Sir Michael in person a couple of times. On the subject of what discussions are taking place, I am awaiting further details from the World Service of how it would use any additional money this year to help make the savings and rationalisations that we have discussed.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The BBC World Service provides a vital link to the outside world for oppressed countries and isolated countries such as Burma. The Foreign Secretary will remember the important role that the Burmese service played during the demonstrations back in 2007. Will he assure the House that those considerations will be taken into account in the future, to ensure that we do not pull such important services away from those countries?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I certainly would not agree to the closure of services for Burma, even if it were proposed. The considerations that she underlines, such as the help that the World Service provides to people in oppressed countries, must always be important in the decisions that we make about its services.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

There is very deep concern in the House about this decision, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will reconsider it with Cabinet colleagues. In particular, I hope that he will take a look at the overseas aid budget, which is increasing by 37% in real terms at a time when he intends to implement 16% cuts to the World Service. I hope that he will hear the message from the House that if there is a choice between the two, we want to put the World Service first.

[Mr Hague]

I stress to my hon. Friend that a good deal of the World Service’s budget already counts as ODA-able expenditure, so he should not think that turning to DFID for the money is an easy answer. I reiterate my view that all parts of the public sector must join in in becoming more efficient, and the BBC World Service will be part of the public sector for the next three years.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Given the scale of the Foreign Secretary’s announcement, what guarantee can he give that the BBC’s non-partisanship and impartiality in reporting, which has always been a hallmark of its broadcasting capabilities, will be maintained in future?

[Mr Hague]

I do not anticipate that anything that we are announcing today will have any impact on that important part of the character of the BBC. As other hon. Members have underlined, that is part of the reason for the respect for the World Service, and it is committed to continuing that character.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The BBC Monitoring service is recognised globally as being of the highest quality, and it is essential to a number of our allies. Given the inevitable cost savings that have to be found, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he is not looking to cut back the monitoring service?

[Mr Hague]

The monitoring service is not part of today’s announcement, but it will of course have to make savings, because it, too, is funded from Government expenditure. Further details of that will follow.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary will know that there used to be a consensus throughout the House for supporting the BBC World Service—we saw off the Thatcher Government together when they attacked it. Should he not hang his head in shame today? These are cuts of a scale beyond anything that went on under previous Governments, to a service that is cherished by the British people, who will punish him. They are part of his overall plan to please Rupert Murdoch and denigrate the BBC.

[Mr Hague]

There is a sort of ridiculous air to that question, if I may say so. Clearly, my announcement was nothing to do with the last matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is necessary to make savings in Government expenditure because of the performance of the Government whom he supported.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

What analysis has the Foreign Secretary made of the benefits to Britain’s foreign, development and even domestic policy objectives of spending on the World Service versus spending on Trident?

[Mr Hague]

Both are absolutely essential for the future security of this country.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

This is a black day for more than 650 people who will lose their jobs. Among those will be foreign journalists who came to this country on work visas at great risk to themselves. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that those people are not sent back to danger in their original countries?

[Mr Hague]

There should be no question of that happening. We have well established procedures, over which the Home Secretary presides, to ensure that people do not go back to danger in their home countries. That is a separate issue, but if it comes up at all, and if there is any danger of those things happening, Ministers will want to make sure that they do not.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

To follow up on that point, the BBC is very concerned about the plight of the foreign-born journalists who work in this country who will now be made unemployed. Can the Foreign Secretary promise to work with the BBC and look sympathetically on those journalists who might have to return to countries on which they have reported critically?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. To reiterate the answer I just gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy), we will look very sympathetically on that situation.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

At the moment, the audience for the BBC World Service is more than 240 million people around the world. After these cuts, will the BBC still be the pre-eminent world broadcaster, putting forward our democratic values in a way that other international broadcasters fail to do?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. Not only will the BBC be that, but it will have great potential for the future in working with other BBC services and in developing some of the new services that I have outlined today.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has often spoken of the importance of soft power in diplomacy, particularly with reference to the BBC World Service. Although I regret the loss of services in the western Balkans, can he explain how we can better deploy our soft power resources in that very vulnerable region to try to secure its peace in future?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend’s question raises a wider discussion about the western Balkans. We give a great deal of diplomatic and ministerial attention to that region. We have been highly active in ensuring that dialogue rather than confrontation has taken place between Serbia and Kosovo over recent months, and we are now doing a great deal of work on the future of Bosnia. That is done by British diplomats, supported by the work of British non-governmental organisations, and British Ministers, working cohesively.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am absolutely certain that the World Service cannot be preserved in aspic, and that if Labour had been in power, there would have been cuts in its budget. However, every single foreign politician whom I have met in my time in this House told me that one of Britain’s greatest assets is the BBC World Service. For many of them, it was the symbol of freedom. My big anxiety is that cuts in the World Service are so much heavier than cuts in other parts of the Foreign Office that they will leave a very depleted organisation, and that uniting the World Service with the rest of the BBC will hit rather than improve its impartiality. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore reconsider?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is a good deal more realistic than some that I have been asked in the past half an hour, because he recognises that whatever Government were in power, there would have to be reductions in the World Service. He can gather from what I outlined earlier that we have sought to limit the impact on the number of countries involved. That is why only five separate language services are being closed. We have taken all the factors he outlined into consideration, limited those closures and provided for the future development of the World Service, so that it continues to be the respected service of which he rightly speaks.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary seems not to understand that his decisions will topple the BBC from its position as the No. 1 in the world, or that the loss of critical mass is significant. Surely he will accept that we cannot simply restart a service in a particular country or part of the world when problems emerge, yet the World Service is so important in such countries, and to their diaspora in this country, at such times, as I have seen in respect of Somalis in the UK. Will he reconsider the damage that he is doing with those decisions?

[Mr Hague]

I pointed out how the growth of some services is taking place—I mentioned earlier how the use of the online service in Russia has grown by 121% in the last 12 months. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was saying a moment ago, the services of the BBC World Service cannot be preserved in aspic—they must change—and Opposition Members must understand that.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Given that two of the greatest strengths of the World Service were to speak truth to the powerful and to broadcast hope to the poor and downtrodden, does the Foreign Secretary not see even the slightest irony in the fact that in the week when he introduces swingeing cuts to the World Service, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who is sitting next to him, has given a second chance to Rupert Murdoch?

[Mr Hague]

They are two entirely unrelated issues. Does the hon. Gentleman not see the slightest irony in the fact that having left this country on the brink of bankruptcy, Opposition Members now complain that we are doing something about it?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Everyone in the House recognises very clearly the uniqueness and importance of the BBC World Service. The Foreign Secretary mentioned in his presentation today that one reason for the cuts is that the numbers of those who listen to radio are down, but what consideration has he given to countries where the only media method is radio? Has consideration been given to what the uniquely British World Service gives to the democratic process in countries such as China, and will he ensure that people in such countries have an opportunity to continue to listen?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course the Government considered that, as did the BBC World Service in drawing up the list of what it thinks it is necessary to do. The predominant availability of the service only on radio is one of the factors that the BBC has borne in mind. Burma, which was mentioned earlier, is a case in point. That has been one of the factors in drawing up the list. Of course, in those areas where the service is to close, countries are generally provided with a vast range of different media outlets, including a much more thriving local media than was the case only a decade ago.

Counter-terrorism Review

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

13:07

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the review of counter-terrorism and security powers.

The review has taken place in the context of a threat from terrorism that is as serious as we have faced at any time. In dealing with that threat, it has been the consistent aim of this Government to protect not only the security of our citizens, but the freedoms of us all.

We reviewed counter-terrorism legislation because too much of it was excessive and unnecessary. At times, it gave the impression of criminalising entire communities. Some measures, such as the extraordinary attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 90 days, were rightly defeated in Parliament. Others, such as the most draconian aspects of control orders, were defeated in the courts. Those measures undermined public confidence, so I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he will support me in preventing the excessive use of state power.

I make no apology for the time that this review has taken. It has rightly been deliberate and thorough to ensure that we safeguard both our security and our freedoms. The review has taken account of all sides of the argument. It has received evidence from academic experts and civil society groups, from communities across the country, and from the law enforcement and security agencies. I have, of course, consulted regularly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and my noble Friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has provided independent oversight of the process. He has had access to all relevant papers and has played an invaluable role in ensuring that all the evidence was given proper consideration. I thank him for his contribution in ensuring that the recommendations of this review are not only fair but seen to be fair. I am laying the review, a summary of the public consultation, and Lord Macdonald’s report, in the House.

On pre-charge detention, the Government announced to the House last week that we would not renew the current legislation on extended pre-charge detention. This means that the sunset clause inserted by the last Government has now brought the maximum period of pre-charge detention down to 14 days. The review sets out the detailed considerations leading to this conclusion.

The police, prosecutors and the Government are clear that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days. However, we recognise that, in exceptional circumstances only, that might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. We will therefore draw up draft primary legislation to be introduced for parliamentary consideration only in such circumstances. We will publish a draft Bill and propose that it be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I should make it clear to the House that until it is repealed by the freedom Bill, section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 will remain on the statute book allowing the Government to increase the maximum period to 28 days in an emergency, subject to Parliament’s agreement. There has therefore been no gap in our ability to seek Parliament’s consent to increase the period of pre-charge detention should the need arise.

On the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers, I have concluded that the current provisions, which were found unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights, represented an unacceptable intrusion on an individual’s human rights and must be repealed. However the evidence, particularly in Northern Ireland, has demonstrated that where there is a credible threat of an imminent terrorist attack, the absence of such powers might create a gap in the ability of the police to protect the public. We therefore propose to repeal section 44 and to replace it with a tightly defined power that would allow a senior police officer to make an authorisation of much more limited scope and duration for no-suspicion stop-and-search powers to prevent a terrorist attack where there is a specific threat. This targeted measure will also prevent the misuse of these powers against photographers, which I know was a significant concern with the previous regime.

On the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, we will implement our commitment to prevent the use of these powers by local authorities unless for the purpose of preventing serious crime and unless authorised by a magistrate. In this context, surveillance—the most controversial power—will be authorised for offences that carry a custodial sentence of at least six months.

On the wider question of communications data—that is the who, when and where of a communication, but not the content—the Government intend to ensure that as far as possible, they are accessed only through the revised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. We will bring forward specific legislation to this effect in a future communications data Bill.

The Government are committed to tackling the promotion of division, hatred and violence in our society. We must expose and confront the bigoted ideology of the extremists and prosecute and punish those who step outside the law. The review considered whether counter-terrorism legislation should be amended to tackle groups who are not currently caught by the law, but who still aim to spread their divisive and abhorrent messages. After careful consideration, we have concluded that it would be disproportionate to widen counter-terrorism legislation to deal with these groups, however distasteful we find their views. To do so would have serious consequences for the basic principles of freedom of expression. We therefore propose to use existing legislation, as well as tackling such groups through our wider work to counter extremism and promote integration and participation in society.

On the deportation of foreign nationals suspected or known to have been involved in terrorist activity, the review found no evidence that this policy was inconsistent with the UK’s human rights obligations and found that it was legitimate and necessary to seek to extend the arrangements to more countries which would include independent verification. As Lord Macdonald says, the Government’s engagement with other countries on these issues is likely to have a positive effect on their human rights records.

Finally, on control orders the Government have concluded that, for the foreseeable future, there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully prosecuted or deported. I want to be clear that prosecution, conviction and imprisonment will always be our priority—the right place for a terrorist is a prison cell—but where successful prosecution or deportation is not immediately possible, no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.

We are also clear that the current control order regime is imperfect and has not been as effective as it should be. We therefore propose to repeal control orders. Instead, we will introduce a new package of measures that is better focused and has more targeted restrictions, supported by significantly increased resources for surveillance and other investigative tools. Restrictions that have an impact on an individual’s ability to lead a normal life should be the minimum necessary, should be proportionate and should be clearly justified. The legislation that we will bring forward will make clearer what restrictions can and cannot be imposed. These will be similar to some of the existing powers used in the civil justice system, for example to prevent sexual offences and domestic violence.

These “terrorism prevention and investigation measures” will have a two-year maximum time limit, which will clearly demonstrate that these are targeted, temporary measures and not to be used simply as a means of parking difficult cases indefinitely. The measures will have to meet the evidential test of “reasonable belief” that a person is or has been engaged in terrorism. This is higher than the test of “reasonable suspicion” under the current regime.

Curfews will be replaced by an overnight residence requirement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Whatever Members think, on either side of the argument, the statement by the Home Secretary on this matter must be heard with courtesy and in silence.

[Mrs May]

Forcible relocation will be ended and replaced with the power to order more tightly defined exclusions from particular areas, such as particular buildings or streets, but not entire boroughs. Individuals will have greater access to communications, including to a mobile phone and to a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate. They will be free to work and study, subject again to restrictions necessary to protect the public. We will add the crucial power to prevent foreign travel. These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to ensure that the person’s conduct is kept under continual review with a view to bringing a prosecution and they will be required to inform the Home Secretary about the ongoing prospects for prosecution.

I have asked the incoming independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to pay particular attention to these issues in his first report on the new regime and to make recommendations that he considers appropriate to ensure the new regime is working as intended.

I am also today laying a written ministerial statement outlining the next steps in the work to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept as evidence in court. We will repeal the current provisions which permit control orders with restrictions so severe that they would require the United Kingdom to derogate from the European convention on human rights. I cannot imagine circumstances in which the Government would seek to introduce such draconian measures.

So the review I am announcing today will create a more focused and flexible regime. However, in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat that we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary. We want to prepare for this possibility while ensuring that such powers are used only when absolutely necessary. So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement. These measures will require an even higher standard of proof to be met and would be introduced if in exceptional circumstances they were required to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms. These powers would be enacted only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament.

All of these measures will be accompanied by a significant increase in resources for the police and security and intelligence agencies to improve their surveillance and investigative capabilities. This will underpin the effectiveness of the regime and support the gathering of evidence admissible in court which could lead to a successful prosecution.

We will bring forward legislation to introduce the new regime in the coming weeks. We want to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise our proposals properly. I am sure the whole House would agree that in the past, too many laws in this area were rushed through without the opportunity for adequate debate and consideration. So while Parliament considers that legislation, we will renew the current regime to the end of the year. Many of the other measures I have outlined will be brought forward in the forthcoming protection of freedom Bill.

I wish to finish by thanking the police and the security services for the tremendous work they do to keep our country safe. The measures I have outlined today will help them continue to ensure our safety and security at the same time as we restore our civil liberties. They are in keeping with British values and our commitment to freedom, fairness and the rule of law. They will restore public confidence in counter-terrorism legislation and it is my hope that they will form the basis of an enduring political consensus. I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of the review. The horrific attack at Moscow airport brings home to us all the terrible damage, loss of life, carnage and fear that terrorist attacks can cause. The threats that we face from organised groups with international connections and lone individuals radicalised at home mean that our police and our security services face an incredible task in protecting this country. They match that threat with incredible effort. We pay tribute to the work that they do today.

The challenge for democratic Governments in the face of terrorist threats must be to protect both our national security and our historic freedoms. It is right to update powers and policies in response to ever-changing threats, so we welcome the fact that the review is being held. However, it would have been better to do this alongside a full assessment of the risks and challenges, through the updating of the Government’s wider counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, which was due in January, but which I understand has now been delayed until the summer.

It is our responsibility as the Opposition to scrutinise the Government’s proposals in detail and, wherever we can, to support the Government on national security matters on the basis of the evidence. We will support some of the measures that the Government have announced today. We support their approach to deportations with assurances to countries with which we can reach agreement, which continues the work that we did in government. We note that the Government have decided to continue with the existing regime for proscribing groups that are engaged in terrorism. That seems to be a sensible approach. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether that means that the Prime Minister has abandoned his commitment in the Conservative manifesto to

“ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir”?

We also agree that the use by local authorities of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 should be restricted. Some of the uses that we have seen in practice go far beyond the intention of the original legislation. However, we will of course scrutinise the detail, as we agree that councils still need to be able to take action on issues such as the sale of alcohol or tobacco to those who are under-age. We also support sensible changes to stop-and-search powers to prevent their being misused, but it would be helpful if the Home Secretary could confirm that the legislative changes that she is proposing largely reflect the practical changes that the police have already introduced. I am still concerned about the implications for Northern Ireland, where, as she will know, stop-and-search powers have played an important role in preventing terrorist attacks. Is she confident, and is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confident, that the police will have all the powers that they need in Northern Ireland under the new arrangements?

Let me turn to pre-charge detention. In the last three years, no case has invoked pre-charge detention for more than 14 days, as the review makes clear. We have made it clear that if the best police and security evidence shows that we can reduce the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days with sufficient safeguards, then we should do so. However, the Home Secretary’s review concludes that there could be future circumstances in which detention for longer than 14 days will be required, saying that

“there may be rare cases where a longer period of detention may be required and those cases may have significant repercussions for national security.”

The review recommends an emergency option to return to 28 days if necessary. However, the emergency legislation to do that is still not available in the Library. Indeed, it is still not ready, despite the commitment made by the Immigration Minister last Thursday. On Monday, the Home Secretary told the House that she could extend detention through an order under section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006, yet her own review concludes that

“it would be very difficult to extend 28 days”

in that way

“in response to or during a specific investigation,”

owing to the length of time that it would take to go through the House.

The Home Secretary is putting the House in a very difficult position. The old powers lapsed on Monday; her review says that she may need to restore them swiftly to deal with a difficult case; according to her review, the order-making power will take too long; and the emergency legislation is not ready. Why did she not make the emergency legislation available sooner, and why did she not wait until the emergency legislation was ready before she let the old powers lapse? As we have seen from the events in Moscow, we can never predict what is round the corner. What are the police and the Crown Prosecution Service supposed to do if a difficult and dangerous case emerges right now? And what on earth is the Home Office doing telling the House on Thursday that the legislation would be ready, on Monday that section 25 of the 2006 Act would be sufficient, and, in its review today, that neither of those things is right?

We know already that the Home Secretary’s policies in this area have been a complete shambles, but they are also irresponsible. She has identified that emergency provisions are needed, but she has left the police and the public in a difficult position by failing to put those provisions in place. Indeed, we also have concerns about another aspect of the Home Secretary’s approach. She is relying on being able to rush emergency legislation through in a hurry to deal with an individual and difficult case. Is that really a sensible way to proceed, with the possibility of Parliament being recalled in a recess in order to discuss the risks in an individual case, yet without prejudicing that case? I would urge her to think carefully about that approach, and about whether it would be better to develop more restricted bail conditions to apply beyond 14 days, so that emergency legislation is less likely to be needed.

Let me turn to control orders. We all know that this is a difficult area. I think that everybody recognises that no one wants to use control orders, but we accept the conclusion of the review, which is that there is a continuing need to control the activities of terrorists who can be neither successfully prosecuted nor deported. We have said that we are ready to look at alternatives to control orders if the evidence supports that. However, the proposals that the Home Secretary has set out today are not an alternative approach to control orders; they are simply amendments to control orders. Many of the same elements remain: restrictions on movement and communications; and a review by the court at the instigation of the Home Secretary, with special arrangements in place. I would ask her to explain to the House the difference between an eight-hour curfew and an overnight residence requirement. Is not the truth of it that what the Government are doing is a political fudge? The Deputy Prime Minister told the BBC that he had abolished control orders. Is not the truth that he has simply abolished the name?

We need to ask some detailed questions about the proposed amendments. We would like to be able to support sensible changes to control orders, but we need answers to some important questions. First, the Government are introducing a two-year limit, with a requirement for new evidence before a control order can be renewed. Lord Carlile’s last annual review of control orders said:

“There is significant and credible intelligence that”

three of the controlees

“continue to present actual or potential, and significant danger to national security and public safety. I agree with the assessment that the control order on each has substantially reduced the present danger that exceptionally they still present despite their having been subject to a control order for a significant period of time.”

Those three individuals have been on control orders for more than two years, so will they now have their orders revoked, and what measures will be put in place to keep the public safe from the threat that Lord Carlile and the police clearly believe they pose?

Secondly, can the Home Secretary tell us whether the changes will mean a reduction in the restriction that the Government are currently imposing on the remainder of the eight people who are currently on control orders? Thirdly, the Home Secretary has made it clear that she intends to rely more heavily on surveillance and less on the measures under control orders. We would support the greater use of surveillance, especially if it were to increase the chance of prosecution, but I am concerned about whether there will be sufficient resources for an increase in surveillance. The Home Secretary has talked about increases in surveillance, but we have not had clear figures about what exactly that will mean. The Daily Telegraph appears to have been told that there would be a £20 million increase for the police and security services, but we have not been told exactly what that means. Can she confirm that the £20 million for surveillance operations, or whatever the figure is, will not be ring-fenced, and that it follows a £150 million cut in the counter-terrorism budget and billions of pounds of cuts for the police? Can she assure the House that she is confident that the police and the security forces will have the resources that they need to keep Britain safe from terror?

This has been a chaotic review, delayed, confused, riven by leaks and political horse-trading, and culminating in a political fudge. It is a review with serious gaps, which raise serious questions about security and resources, and the public and the people who work to keep us safe deserve better. The rhetoric of opposition has now come up against the reality of government. The review has been muddled in its formation and chaotic in its announcement; the Home Secretary must ensure that it is neither of those when she implements it in practice.

[Mrs May]

May I start by welcoming the more measured approach that the shadow Home Secretary took in the early stages of her response to my statement, and her stated commitment to ensuring that we work together in the interests of national security? I sincerely hope that we shall have cross-party dialogue and agreement on matters that are indeed of national interest in ensuring our national security. Sadly, however, in the time that I have been Home Secretary, such a response has not been noticeable from the Opposition Benches up to now, but I live in hope that that prospect will change.

The right hon. Lady also supported our proposals on deportation with assurances, and our continuing work on that with other countries is important. On proscription, I can assure her that we are actively looking at the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we do not resile from our commitment to ensure that action can be taken on the sort of groups that we have described. She supported what we are doing on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and on local authorities in that regard. I am pleased to hear that, although it might have been nice to hear an apology from her for the use of RIPA by local authorities under her Government. I believe that that is one of the things that has damaged people’s confidence in counter-terrorism legislation.

The right hon. Lady also referred to section 44, and asked about the changes, which she said were introduced by the police last summer. Those changes were not introduced by the police; I changed the guidance to the police following the European Court of Human Rights judgment. It was entirely right that we did that, when a judgment had been made against us. The police have been operating under the new guidelines. Having looked at the judgment, we believe that it will be possible to introduce legislation, whose use will be very tightly circumscribed, to cover any potential gap in the powers available to the police as a result of the ECHR judgment.

The right hon. Lady referred to Northern Ireland. I specifically made reference to Northern Ireland in my statement, and I have been discussing these matters with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has been in touch with the Chief Constable and with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to ensure that the measures that we introduce will indeed provide the capabilities that the PSNI needs for the difficult work that it does. I should like to pay particular tribute to the PSNI, because we have seen a significant increase in the number of potential attacks, as well as in the number of terrorist-related arrests and charges, in Northern Ireland over the past year. The PSNI is doing valuable work in keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe.

The right hon. Lady talked about pre-charge detention, and that was when her more measured, conciliatory and consensual approach started to disappear. She made an awful lot of the issue about whether draft legislation had been laid before the House. The Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) did not promise that it would be laid before the House last Thursday. He said that we would be laying draft legislation before the House. It is my intention to discuss this draft legislation with the Opposition. As I said in my statement, we intend it to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, so that, if and when it is necessary to introduce the emergency legislation, the House will already have had an opportunity to scrutinise it.

The right hon. Lady also tried to make quite a lot of the gap in the emergency provision that would be available, and about the length of time that it would take to get emergency legislation through the House. It is perfectly possible to get emergency legislation through Parliament in a day; it has been done by previous Governments. I might also remind her that this is exactly the same procedure that was adopted by her Government in relation to their proposals for 42 days’ pre-charge detention.

On control orders, the measures that we are going to introduce will be significantly different from the control order regime that the right hon. Lady’s Government introduced. She talked about a curfew, but under the current regime, a curfew of 16 hours is possible, with little or no flexibility. Our proposals for the requirement for an overnight residency or stay represent a significant reduction on that, and offer increased flexibility for the individuals involved. We are changing the regime so that there will be a two-year limit on the operation of a control order on any one individual. The right hon. Lady asked about people who are currently on control orders. As I made clear in my statement, the current control order regime will be extended until the end of the year.

The right hon. Lady said that she supported the greater use of surveillance, which is part of the package that I have announced. I welcome her support. I am sure that we are all of one mind in wanting to ensure that we can prosecute people and bring them to justice. Obviously, we will make every effort to ensure that people on the new measures are constantly looked at in regard to bringing prosecutions. She also asked about resources. There will be new money available to the Security Service and the police over the comprehensive spending review period, but it is a well-known practice that we do not identify individual sums of money allocated for Security Service purposes.

Finally, the right hon. Lady made quite a lot of the fact that she thought there was a problem with the process that had been undertaken. I have to say to her that she was a member of a Government who tried to introduce first 90 days’ pre-charge detention, then 60 days, then 42 days before finally settling on 28 days, so I will take no lessons from her on process.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely important matter and a great many right hon. and hon. Members understandably wish to question the Home Secretary about it. However, there is also important business to follow, and therefore considerable pressure on time. Brevity in questions and answers alike is therefore imperative, a fine example of which can now be provided by Sir Menzies Campbell.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I remind the Home Secretary that it was a Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, who put through emergency legislation in relation to terrorism in Northern Ireland in the course of one parliamentary day, demonstrating that, if there is consensus, a way can be found to legislate? May I also say to her that, in this finely balanced package—particularly in relation to control orders—she provides a welcome alternative to, and relief from, what often seemed to be the unbridled authoritarianism of the previous Government? Does she further understand that she strikes a particularly welcome note in continuing to pursue the possibility of intercept evidence, and in her emphasis on surveillance, investigation and prosecution?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his contribution. I am particularly grateful to him for pointing out, from his experience, that it is perfectly possible to pass legislation in one parliamentary day, as did a Labour Home Secretary. Of course, the crucial factor then was consensus across the House, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve that again, should it be necessary to bring forward the emergency legislation to which I referred in my statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend also reminds us that is has been important for the coalition Government to ensure that we rebalance the needs of our national security with our civil liberties. I was disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary made no attempt to apologise for the way in which the previous Labour Government infringed people’s civil liberties.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

May I sympathise with the Home Secretary in having to balance the protection of the British people with the political embarrassment of the Deputy Prime Minister? As she has already said, we all agree that prosecution and conviction would be preferred in cases where conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, or the preparation of such acts, are the issue. Will she therefore consider one more attempt to approach the senior judiciary and the legal profession to get agreement to change the rules on disclosure and admissibility of evidence, so that we can use due process through the courts in difficult circumstances such as those of the man known as AM who is being held on a control order? He has declared that he wishes to take his own life, and thereby the life of the British people. The consequence of that would be that we could not prosecute or convict him, because he would be dead.

[Mrs May]

I note the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the issue of the admissibility of evidence in court, the Government will produce a Green Paper later this year—some time in the summer—that will deal with the whole question of the use of closed evidence in legal proceedings. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look forward to that with great interest. On his first point, I merely say that both parties in the coalition Government went into the election absolutely committed to the need to rebalance our national security and our civil liberties. The package I have announced today does just that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I welcome unreservedly the Home Secretary’s comments on the reduction of detention without charge, the curbing of the misuse of section 44 stop-and-search powers and, indeed, the reduction in local authority surveillance. On the contentious issue of control orders, she knows as well as I do that these have acted as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. Indeed, as Lord Macdonald said in his report:

“The evidence obtained by the Review has plainly demonstrated that the… control order regime acts as an impediment to prosecution.”

Can she therefore tell the House why she did not accept the proposal put to her of using police bail, which would have given her all the control she currently has—but within the judicial system rather than in denial of it?

[Mrs May]

I think that my right hon. Friend is aware that there are certain aspects of this on which he and I take a different view. I welcome his support for a number of the measures we have introduced today. On the issue of the impact of control orders, the aspects of the counter-terrorism legislation that led to most concern among communities were the 28 days’ pre-charge detention and the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers. In fact, it was the stop-and-search powers that many people in communities up and down country were most concerned about; and they were also concerned about the use of counter-terrorism legislation by local authorities in respect of matters that clearly had nothing to do with counter-terrorism, such as dog fouling and whether or not children had the right to go to a particular school in a particular catchment area. The package produced today and the measures introduced to replace control orders will, I believe, provide the necessary structure and powers to ensure that we are able to prevent and disrupt terrorist activity while at the same time ensuring that we put every effort into prosecuting individuals. As I said, prosecution must be the preferred option.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Will the £20 million of new money, to which the Home Secretary refers, come from within her existing comprehensive spending review allocation or from the reserve?

[Mrs May]

I have named no figure on the funding to be made available. I was very clear in my response to the shadow Secretary of State that I was not going to name a figure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Home Secretary, will understand why we are not doing so in respect of the work of the security services. I can say that the Security Service and the police will both receive new money.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

I certainly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement about the increase in surveillance, but she will be as aware as the rest of the House that in the last few weeks we have seen a heightened threat level from Irish dissident activity on the mainland as well as a series of scares about a very serious armed incident inside this country. If surveillance of known terrorists increases, how will she balance that against the increased threat from unknown terrorists?

[Mrs May]

We are, of course, very conscious of the severity of the threat that this country faces. That is why the threat level is currently set at severe, which means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. We are constantly undertaking with the security services, the intelligence agencies and the police painstaking day-by-day work, which is necessary to ensure that we not only prevent activity by those already known as terrorists, but that we identify others who might be in the process of trying to undertake terrorist activity. I pay tribute to the police and the security services, particularly to West Midlands police, for the operation undertaken before Christmas, which led to the arrest of 12 individuals and the charging of nine of them for terrorist-related offences.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I welcome the reduction in the detention period and the changes to control orders, although we will need more detail on exactly what they mean. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s attempt to try to develop consensus across the House. I certainly think it right that she should meet the shadow Home Secretary—following the robust relationship that seems to be developing, I, for one, would like to buy a ticket to that meeting. I ask the right hon. Lady not to forget Parliament or the need to engage with the Select Committee on these issues. Will she give us an assurance that her Prevent strategy will remain robust, that she will protect the counter-terrorism budget and that she will ensure that reviews of this kind—I know that she has more of them planned—will in future be more orderly than the one we have just had?

[Mrs May]

We could never forget the work of the Select Committee under the right hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship—on these and other home affairs matters. It is this Government’s intention to do all that is necessary to maintain our national security and to protect the public. That involves looking at the budgets that we make available for counter-terrorism work and the powers available for that work, as I have set out today. I dispute the right hon. Gentleman’s comment about the way in which this review has been conducted. We are conducting a number of other reviews, but what I think is important for all of them, given the severity of the threat we face and the importance of the decisions we take, is that we look at all opportunities, discuss the issues and reach decisions that are right for the people of this country.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and I welcome the long overdue rebalancing between security and civil liberties that it signalled. Looking ahead, can she explain how the Government’s work on communications data will impact on the agencies’ ability to access it and to intercept communications where necessary?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. This is just one part of our ongoing work to ensure that the Government provide for the security and intelligence agencies and the police the necessary powers and tools that they need to keep us safe. We made it absolutely clear in the strategic defence and security review that we will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communications data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework. That work is ongoing; we are ensuring that that capability is retained.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I welcome the reduction of the period of detention from 28 to 14 days—although I wish it were without the reserve powers announced last week and again today—but is the Home Secretary aware that her statement on control orders will be very disappointing to many of us? It would be far better if the due process of law—ordinary law—were used in the fight against terrorism. No one in this House underestimates for one moment the terrorist danger, but we should be very careful about making intrusions into civil liberties—hence the disappointment on control orders.

[Mrs May]

It has been clear from the responses to my statement that there are differing views across the House. We all want to see terrorists investigated, prosecuted and brought to judgment. As I said, the best place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. We want to make every effort to ensure that the processes of investigation and prosecution can be successful, but in a small number of cases prosecution has not been possible and deportation is not possible, so the Government need to act in order to protect the public.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

There is no freedom without security, so would the Home Secretary consider changing the proposed Bill’s title from the protection of freedom Bill to the security and freedom Bill? The Lord Chief Justice and many others have highlighted the problem that the principles of habeas corpus, due process and fair trial have been significantly hijacked by human rights legislation and judicial interpretation, which have taken us significantly in the wrong direction.

[Mrs May]

I must confess to my hon. Friend that I wondered where his question was leading, but I should add that he did not disappoint me at the end. I will consider his suggestion, but I think that we have a very good title in the protection of freedom Bill.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

While, in cosy comfort and at times with chuckles, we in the House deal with the theory of terrorism, Belfast this morning unfortunately experienced the practice of terrorism when a massive explosive device was found. As a result, the whole of north Belfast was sealed off from commerce, schooling and everything else, which is the equivalent of sealing off the whole of the east end of London.

With that in mind, will the Home Secretary—whose statement I welcome—tell us whether the repeal of section 44 and its replacement with a more tightly defined power for police officers will be flexible enough to allow the police to deal with specific threats that have an impact on a border with a 200-mile radius? We do not want them to be confined to dealing with such tightly specific threats that they are prevented from policing Northern Ireland properly, and protecting it from a more generalised dissident republican threat.

With regard to the new money—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I very much want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I think that one question is enough. On days such as this, a great many Members wish to contribute.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the latest attempted terrorist attack in Northern Ireland. As he says, it involved a significant explosive device, and the action that had to be taken disrupted a significant number of people in Belfast. I am sure that all of us, on both sides of the House, are absolutely determined that people who perpetrate such acts should not be allowed to succeed.

Once again, I pay tribute to the work of the PSNI. We have been engaged in close discussions with the Northern Ireland Office—which, as I have said, has itself been engaged in discussions with the PSNI and the Justice Minister—about the operation of the section 44 replacement, if I may so describe the new power that will be available. I am confident that that new power will give the PSNI the capabilities that it requires, and I understand that later this week the Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI will discuss the protocols that will apply.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee who has been involved in the saga of scrutinising the proposals for 14 days, 28 days, 60 days and 90 days as periods of pre-trial detention, I commend the approach taken by my right hon. Friend. May I urge her to be vigorous in her engagement with foreign Governments in order to facilitate the deportation of terrorist suspects in appropriate cases, thus reducing both the burden on the security services and the threat to citizens of this country?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely valid point. The Government will indeed be rigorous in their efforts to increase the number of countries with which we have agreements about the deportation of terrorists, so that we are able to deport them rather than their remaining in the United Kingdom.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

As the Minister responsible, with the then Home Secretary, for taking the control orders legislation through the House, may I say that I deeply resent the implication by some Government Members that we welcomed the opportunity to incarcerate people without trial? Control orders were always an imperfect solution to an unprecedented terror threat.

Recently, in the High Court, Mr Justice Wilkie said of the subject of a control order that he had renewed:

“He was and remains prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives. He remains highly trained, security conscious and committed.”

Does the Home Secretary feel personally confident that the measures that she is introducing will protect the British people from people like that?

[Mrs May]

I have announced these measures precisely because we recognise the need to take action against a small number of people of the sort described by the right hon. Lady whom it has not been possible to prosecute or deport. I am confident that our measures will do the job that is necessary, preventing and disrupting terrorist activity and ensuring that we can keep people safe.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

There is much to welcome in the statement, which goes a long way towards reversing the worst infringements of civil liberties by the last Government, but when it comes to control orders, the details do matter. I am pleased to note the increased focus on prosecution, the justice system and the police, but can the Home Secretary confirm that when the legislation is published, we shall see a continued move away from a murky, spooky world and towards a legal and just world?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is obviously particularly concerned about the civil liberties aspects of the proposals. I believe that the package that I have announced contains a series of measures that will enable us to protect the public and maintain our national security, while at the same time reducing our civil liberties—[Interruption.]. I mean that the measures will enable us to increase our civil liberties and reduce infringement of them. I am sorry: I was thinking about my hon. Friend’s reference to a “murky, spooky world”.

Let me simply say to my hon. Friend that it is necessary for our security services to be able to operate. The security services and the intelligence agencies do a valuable job for us in this country, and, by definition, what a security service does must remain secret.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

In the context of civil liberties, which does the Home Secretary consider to be more draconian, a control order or 24-hour round-the-clock surveillance?

[Mrs May]

There is a significant difference between telling people that they cannot do something and watching people while they are doing certain things, while enabling them to lead as normal a life as possible commensurate with the protection of the public. That, I believe, is the balance that we have achieved in these new measures.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. No longer will local authorities be able to spy on law-abiding residents who may commit heinous crimes such as putting out their dustbins or taking their children to school.

[Mrs May]

That is an extremely valid point. I believe that local authorities’ misuse of RIPA powers has done much to reduce the public’s confidence in counter-terrorism legislation, and that today’s move is important for that reason.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary entirely comfortable with the notion that individuals are held in British prisons without due process before being deported to countries that have not signed international conventions such as the United Nations convention against torture, where they may face an abuse of their human rights? Will she guarantee that in future no one will be deported to a country that has not signed the convention against torture?

[Mrs May]

The whole point of the discussions that we have with countries in order to be able to deport people is to ensure that those people will not suffer from abuses of their human rights when they are returned to those countries. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my noble Friend Lord Macdonald said in his report on the review. As I said in my statement, he said that the Government’s engagement with other countries on these issues was likely to have a positive effect on their human rights records.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I can inform the House—at the risk of provoking my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—that I led the delegation from the European Parliament that first briefed the United States Congress on British and European involvement in extraordinary rendition, at a time when Labour Members were maintaining in the House the fiction that our Government were not involved. Against that background, my right hon. Friend’s statement is very important in rebalancing civil rights in this country. Will she comment on the suggestions that we should consider introducing much more post-charge questioning and the use of intercept evidence?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he did in the European Parliament. I know that he has taken an interest in human rights matters there, and that he continues to take an interest in them in the House.

Today I laid before the House a written statement indicating that further work would be undertaken to investigate the possibility of the use of intercept evidence. I am pleased to say that we have been able to continue the valuable work of the Privy Council group of which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—together with a number of Members of the House of Lords—is a distinguished member.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary accept that those of us who signed section 44 orders and control orders did so for the purpose of preventing terrorism? Does she envisage any alterations in the regime governing the—I believe—eight individuals who are currently subject to control orders pending the changes that she is to introduce, and how does she expect to deal with the proposed extension of the pre-charge detention period from 14 to 28 days when Parliament is not sitting?

[Mrs May]

First, I recognise that individual Ministers have to take difficult decisions on the use of these powers. I am sure that all Ministers take those decisions with the right intentions, including that of maintaining the safety of the public. The current regime will continue until the end of the year, as I have made clear, and the measures necessary to continue that regime will be brought before both Houses of Parliament before 10 March, the date on which the legislation on that falls. The package that we have put together not only does exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do and what I want to do, which is to protect the public, but very importantly it ensures that we are maintaining our civil liberties and rolling back some of the infringements of them.

[Mr Hanson]

What if the House is in recess? [Interruption.]

[Mrs May]

I think that the Whip, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), has told the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do with the recess. If Parliament is in recess, it is perfectly possible that it can be recalled to bring in emergency measures. The right hon. Gentleman knew the answer to that question before he asked it.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Home Secretary’s statement will be welcomed by all those who value fundamental British rights and the defence of our national security. Can she confirm that emergency powers will not be used as a back-door ruse to reinstate some of Labour’s human rights-busting counter-terrorism legislation? This Government believe in the judicial process and will seek to prosecute alleged terrorists, not to detain them indefinitely and arbitrarily.

[Mrs May]

On the indefinite detention of people, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will be introducing a two-year limit in the new measures. It will then be possible to put a new measure in place if it has been clear that somebody has been undertaking further terrorist activity, but that two-year limit is an important power that we will be ensuring is on the statute book.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), may I press the Home Secretary further on section 44? Whatever the problems in Great Britain, there is no question in my mind but that section 44 has saved lives in Northern Ireland. The power has been used proportionately by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in tandem with the powers under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, to uncover and disrupt activity by terrorists. I will want to look, as others will, at the detailed proposals that she introduces, but she has described them as very tightly circumscribed. Is she not concerned that she may tie the hands of the PSNI?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman’s description of the PSNI’s use of section 44 is accurate, because the PSNI used it very carefully—more carefully than police forces on the mainland. He rightly says that, as a result, terrorist attacks were disrupted and prevented. We have been very careful in discussions, and it has been of particular concern to ensure that the power that we are proposing will be usable by the PSNI and will enable it to continue to do what it needs to prevent terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I commend the Home Secretary on the important steps that she has taken towards reversing the draconian drift under the previous Government. I am disappointed that the coalition has not scrapped control orders altogether, but even more important is the need to reverse the collapse in counter-terrorism convictions of 90% in the past four years. May I just ask about the written statement on intercept evidence? Are the Government now committed to lifting the ban? Has the question now changed from “if” to “when and how”?

[Mrs May]

The Government have always had a commitment, including in the coalition agreement, to examine the possibility of using intercept material as evidence. It is on that basis that we have asked that further work be done to examine a number of issues associated with practicality, affordability and how an intercept-as-evidence regime could operate. It is a mistake for anybody in this House to think that using intercept as evidence is somehow the silver bullet that will take away all our other issues and requirements. Work has been done to examine existing cases and ask whether a prosecution would have been made possible had intercept as evidence been available. I believe that I am right in saying that in all cases—although I hesitate in saying “all” because I cannot remember the exact numbers—such evidence would not have made that possible. That is certainly true of most cases.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the direction taken by the Home Secretary. It is an indictment of the previous Government that it has taken a Tory-led Government to restore at least some of our civil liberties, albeit in a very halting way. I want to take her back to her decision not to use this opportunity to bring back control orders within the normal judicial process as a form of police bail. Does the failure to do that not simply mean that we still have control orders, albeit by another name?

[Mrs May]

No, we do not. We are repealing control orders and introducing a new set of measures that have more tightly targeted restrictions on individuals and that, in some areas, significantly increase the flexibility for those individuals to work and study and give them some access to communications. May I correct the hon. Lady on one point? It is the coalition Government who have brought this package of proposals before the House today and both parties in the coalition were clear in the run-up to the election and following it that action needed to be taken to rebalance national security and civil liberties.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

There is much to welcome in my right hon. Friend’s statement, but thousands of people around the world are subject to arbitrary internment by Executive fiat and they should look to Britain as a beacon of freedom. What consideration has she made of the impact on this nation’s voice for liberty and justice arising from this lost opportunity to place control orders where they should be: fully within the criminal justice system?

[Mrs May]

I think that people will look at what the Government have done today and see a responsible Government who have recognised the need to ensure that the protection of the public and national security is our priority while retaining and strengthening those freedoms and civil liberties that we have valued over the centuries.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The debate at the heart of government on these issues has been based on the wrong premise that it is the laws put in place by the previous Government to protect the public against terrorism that pose a threat to our liberties. The threat to our liberties comes from those who want to kill innocent people. Today’s announcement waters down the control that we have over terrorist suspects, increases the risk that we would lose control over those suspects, and increases costs and pressures on our hard-pressed security services. Does the Home Secretary accept that, if one of the people currently subject to those restrictions is found to be engaged in a terrorist act, the public will rightly look back on this announcement as both dangerous and complacent?

[Mrs May]

I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s description of the situation and of the balance between national security and civil liberties. Of course it is the terrorists who pose a threat to our civil liberties and to life and limb, and it is right that the Government do everything they can to ensure that they protect the public against that terrorist threat, but if legislation infringes people’s civil liberties and by its very operation reduces the public’s confidence in counter-terrorism legislation, that also has an impact. It is right that this Government should examine the measures that the previous Government introduced—which before the election both coalition parties felt had gone too far in a number of areas and, on control orders, the courts had found were too draconian—and deal with them as we are today, which will continue to protect the public.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I remind the House that I had a former profession as a barrister for the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary has said that the curfew element of the control order will be replaced by—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Surely the hon. Gentleman does not need to read his question if he is a barrister.

[Guy Opperman]

Thank you; any time you want to get it going, you can.

The Home Secretary has said that this will be replaced by an overnight residence provision. Could she tell us more about that? Will there be significant differences between the past and present situations?

[Mrs May]

Yes, there are significant differences between the past and present situations. The curfews under the control order regime allow 16 hours of detention in the home. The overnight residence requirement will replace the curfews and there will be a requirement for people to stay normally in their nominated home overnight. Most people would consider a normal overnight residence to be eight to 10 hours, but we are not suggesting that we should put a figure in the legislation. That would be a matter for the courts to decide. There is a significant difference between the proposal we are making and the regime that the previous Government introduced.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Just like the “Grand Old Duchess of York”, the right hon. Lady marched the Liberal Democrats up a hill last May and has brought them back down again this week. On the specific issue of what she now calls the overnight residence requirement, does she not accept that if something acts like a curfew, looks like a curfew and sounds like a curfew, it is a curfew?

[Mrs May]

No, I have just explained the differences between the curfew and the overnight residence requirement.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Home Secretary on the decision to allow Lord Macdonald to oversee and approve the process for the review? The Labour party has complained about the process. Does my right hon. Friend recall the previous Government making provision for such a review to have independent oversight?

[Mrs May]

No, I do not recall the previous Government ever doing something like that—[Hon. Members: “Lord Carlile!”] Opposition Members mention Lord Carlile, but he did not undertake a review of this sort. He was the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation and he continued in that role. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that he has done for a number of years in that role? He will be replaced in it by David Anderson, QC next month. The previous Government did not produce such a review or enable Parliament to have a discussion or debate such as that we will have on the counter-terrorism legislation. I am pleased to say that my noble Friend Lord Macdonald has said that he found the process of the review to be “sound” and

“The evidence base for the Review’s conclusions”

to be “extensive”.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The truth is that the vast majority of British people will be very concerned that the control orders regime is being watered down as a result of party political considerations and not as a result of national security considerations. If any of the people involved are caught using the new freedoms that the Home Secretary is going to give them and using the mobile phones and computers that she is going to allow them to have to plot terrorist activities, to encourage other people to engage in terrorist activities, to radicalise people or to promote extremism, will she be prepared to resign?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not appreciate the purpose of what is being done and the Government’s intention. The answer to his question is that if there is evidence that an individual has been engaging in terrorist activity, they will be charged and prosecuted.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Home Secretary on establishing a wholly new and more balanced counter-terrorist regime that restores civil liberties lost under the previous Labour Government but that still gives police the power they need to keep us safe in this country?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend. I think that the vast majority of the public will see that the Government have done exactly what we said we would do when we came into power, which is to restore the balance between national security and civil liberties. That will be welcomed.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What will happen if, after two years of the Home Secretary’s new form of control order, an individual has not committed any terrorist actions and cannot be deported or prosecuted but we know that they still represent a threat? What will happen then?

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear, there is a two-year limit on the new measures. It will be possible, if further evidence of terrorist activity is found, to impose a further measure. The idea that, as the previous Government thought, the Government can under some measure have people parked indefinitely was a problem identified with the previous control order regime, and one of the issues that we have addressed.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Although I appreciate that the Home Secretary might be a little constrained in what she can say, will she nevertheless give an indication of the reactions she has had from the police and security services to the content of her statement today?

[Mrs May]

I am certainly happy to inform the House that I have had a positive reaction to the statement, in that the director general of the Security Service has told me that he considers that the changes provide an acceptable balance between the needs of security and of civil liberties and that the overall package mitigates risks. As we said in the review:

“an approach that scrapped control orders and introduced more precisely focused and targeted restrictions, supported by increased covert investigative resources, would mitigate risk while increasing civil liberties. Such a scheme could better balance the priorities of prosecution and public protection.”

All parties will see that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has said that she will publish two separate pieces of draft primary legislation. They will sit around and we will be able to chat about them, but she will not introduce them until there is suddenly some specific reason—such as a court case—for her to do so. We will then suddenly have to pass the legislation in one day. Surely it would make far more sense to go through the legislative process so that we can table amendments and consider the legislation properly without the burden of the emergency affecting the debate. Would that not avoid the danger that the courts might decide that there was no proper opportunity for a free and fair trial given that Parliament had already effectively decided that the people involved were guilty?

[Mrs May]

We have proposed that the emergency legislation on 28 days’ pre-charge detention should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny so that there is an opportunity for it to be considered, as I have made clear. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the process that we propose, why did he support it when his Government introduced it for the 42 days’ pre-charge detention?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It was all going so well. There we were, happily dismantling Labour’s anti-civil libertarian agenda, when along came this review. With respect to the right hon. Lady, she has simply done “a Labour” on control orders. Her proposals seem and feel just like the Labour control orders. At what point did she abandon her plans to get rid of control orders entirely and come up with control orders No. 2?

[Mrs May]

The commitment was always to review control orders. We were always absolutely clear that national security took priority, but we needed to rebalance civil liberties and national security. I believe that that is what this package does.

Point of Order

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

14:17

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Secretary did not answer the question about the level of resources that will be given to the security services and the police, although that information is in The Daily Telegraph today. We recognise that some information will need to be kept secret, but this information is directly relevant to the effectiveness of the new regime proposed by the Home Secretary. Will you use your offices to look further into why the House is not being given information that seems to be being given to the newspapers?

[Mr Speaker]

It is important that we should not continue the debate subsequent to the statement. I have let the statement run relatively long because it is an extremely important matter and the Front-Bench contributions were, understandably, a bit longer than normal. On this occasion, all that I want to say is that information about the policy of the Government should without exception be communicated first to the House. If for some reason that is not the case—the right hon. Lady has registered her concern that that might be so—that concern will have been heard. That was a point of order and it is open to the Home Secretary to respond to it if she wants, but she is under no obligation to do so as she has made a full statement.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The Home Secretary does not wish to do so. So be it.

Bill Presented

Education Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Sarah Teather, Mr Nick Gibb, Mr David Willetts and Mr John Hayes, presented a Bill to make provision about education, childcare, apprenticeships and training; to make provision about schools and the school workforce, institutions within the further education sector and Academies; to abolish the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency for England; to make provision about the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and the Chief Executive of Skills Funding; to make provision about student loans and fees; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 137) with explanatory notes (Bill 137-EN).

Carers and Employment

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

14:19

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for carers’ rights to flexible working; and for connected purposes.

Carers play a vital role in our society. Not only do they care for friends, family and others and provide support that would otherwise be provided by the state, but many—3 million—also work either full or part-time. A further 1.3 million carers of working age are not in paid employment—some out of choice. Many of those carers want to work but recognise that they would have to juggle work with their caring responsibilities. Financial concerns are by no means the only problem that carers face, but balancing care and work is clearly a significant challenge. A survey of 3,000 Parkinson’s carers showed that a quarter of them were worse off financially since taking on a caring role, with 14% having had to leave work and 8% having reduced their work since starting caring.

The Work and Families Act 2006 gave carers significant rights to request flexible working, but my Bill would simplify the definition and make legislation easier for carers and employers to apply. In bringing forward the Bill, I do not criticise that legislation, which was in many ways groundbreaking and was a significant step forward; rather, I hope to build on and improve it. The coalition agreement between my party and the Conservatives states that the Government will

“extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, consulting with business on how best to do so.”

I warmly welcome that commitment and I shall set out some of the areas it would be helpful for the Government to consider in relation to carers. Flexible working is a goal we should be achieving for all workers, but my Bill focuses on the particular circumstances of carers.

Currently, the definition of carers provides a long list of those eligible to request flexible working, including those caring for a spouse, for a partner with whom they live, for a civil partner or for a relative. Relatives include parents, parents-in-law, adult children, adopted adult children, siblings, including siblings-in-law, uncles, aunts, grandparents and step-relatives. Also eligible are those caring for and living at the same address as the adult in need of care. Despite that extensive definition, certain groups of carers are still excluded, such as those caring for people to whom they are not closely related or who do not live in the same accommodation, which could amount to as many as 75,000 carers nationwide. We often talk about numbers, but let me put that figure into context. Carers UK has told me about a man who cares for his ex-wife and is not covered by the definition and about a single man who has fallen out with his family and is cared for by a friend who does not live at the same property and, again, is not covered by the definition. Those are real people who have experienced difficulties in making requests and fulfilling their work and care responsibilities because of the definition, which, although broad and significant, excludes many people.

During the consultation on the regulations in 2006, some groups said that the burden would be too onerous and argued for a more prescriptive definition, but many employers said that the definition was overly complex and that they wanted something simpler, even if that meant a broader definition or, indeed, no definition at all. A 2006 survey of four major employers found that they operated lighter-touch policies than required under the regulations and that none of them asked for any information about the relationship of the carer to the person being cared for. The most important thing for any employer is the impact that the policy has on their work, whereas the definition of who is being provided with care is of little concern to them.

Answers to parliamentary questions in September 2008 on the acceptance of requests for flexible working did not include figures for carers, but they showed that employers are increasingly responsive to the needs of those who wish to work flexibly, with 78% of requests being accepted. Not all employers will be able to accommodate requests, but those who do often recognise the importance of supporting their employees. It is key that when a request is made, an employer should reject it only where there is a clear business reason to do so, that they must explain their reason to the employee and that there should be an appeals process. Many employers have found that rather than being a burden, flexible working can help them to extend working hours and spread out work.

In 2009, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published a report, “Working Better”, which recommended changes to the regulations on flexible working. Its research found that awareness of those rights was low and that they were still widely perceived as being the preserve of mothers with young children. For those who care, there are additional barriers to flexible working, as is borne out by the figures in the 2005 report “Ordinary lives: Disabled children and their families”, which found that only 16% of the mothers of disabled children are able to work compared with more than 60% of mothers generally.

I hope that the Bill will also address the issue that many carers face of their commitments changing, sometimes quite rapidly, in relation to the kind of care they deliver. I recently spoke to a man whose wife had been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. His experience with his employers was very positive: when she first became ill, he was able to fit his hours around hospital visits, but he then had to reduce his hours to a nine-hour week for three months before asking for a care break of 12 months which was later extended to 15 months as his wife’s condition deteriorated. Not long after, she died. His company told him that although they could not guarantee to hold his job open, he could return at the same grade and not lose out. It is worth quoting what he told me:

“This removed so much strain for me, as I knew I had a future to look forward to after my wife had died and I would not suddenly have to start job hunting the day after.”

He has now devoted himself to the work of the Motor Neurone Disease Association and chairs a local branch of MND. He reports that, regrettably, many people in similar positions are not so fortunate as he was. There is a real need to ensure that employers recognise the importance of this policy and that examples of good practice can be extended.

Much of the responsibility for carers’ issues in Wales is rightly devolved to the National Assembly Government, but the issue of flexible working remains with the Government in Westminster. In Wales, more than 150,000 people are in paid employment and have unpaid caring responsibilities. Some 60% of male carers and 32% of female carers in Wales combine caring with full-time employment, and 6% of male carers and 27% of female carers combine caring with part-time employment. There are examples of good practice, however: Carers Wales has highlighted the carers’ policies produced by Cardiff council and the Velindre NHS trust. Carers Wales has also worked with other local authorities and the Welsh Assembly Government on developing policies in support of caring.

The final point that my Bill would address is the fact that employees currently have to wait six months until they can request flexible working, although many employers provide these rights from day one. People with significant caring responsibilities need to work flexibly from when they start and the regulations might make it difficult for them to find a job that accommodates their caring responsibilities. The Employers for Carers leadership group has suggested that the Government should consider that as part of their consultation on flexible working. Many employers would welcome that being settled when an employee first starts working for them. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the issue of day-one rights. As was stated in the EHRC report, the current regulations do nothing

“to reach people who are unemployed, moving in and out of insecure employment, or returning to work after a career break.”

The Bill is about cutting the red tape associated with requests for flexible working and simplifying the process. It is about identifying the many examples of good practice in large and small workplaces across the UK and about ensuring that this good practice is supported and emulated by all employers. One million carers give up work to care, and there is a real need to encourage good practice on flexible working to ensure that carers can stay in work. My hope and aim in bringing forward this Bill, with the help of Carers UK and Carers Wales, is that the Government will consider these matters very carefully as part of their consultation and that they will introduce rules that will ensure comprehensive rights to flexible working for carers in the many different situations in which carers find themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Mark Williams, Dr Hywel Francis, Jonathan Edwards, Lorely Burt, Annette Brooke, Jessica Morden, Roger Williams, Tony Baldry, Laura Sandys, Malcolm Wicks and Albert Owen present the Bill.

Mark Williams accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed (Bill 36).

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that at lunchtime the Prime Minister indicated that the hon. Member for Belfast West (Mr Adams) had accepted an office of the Crown. However, it is our understanding from press reports coming out of Belfast that Sinn Fein is denying this. Clearly, this is a matter that will continue to trouble the House for some time. Has the Speaker’s Office received notification from the Government that Mr Adams has indeed accepted a paid office of the Crown?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I have no knowledge of the matter. If and when the Speaker receives notification from the Treasury, he will cause it to be included in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. That is as much as I can do to help the hon. Gentleman on his point of order.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that a Member must apply for an office of profit. If there is any departure from that procedure, may we have a statement to the House? Will the Speaker inform the House of any departure from the accepted conventions, traditions and procedures of the House so that we are clear about the circumstances in which such a bizarre resignation is happening?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in the matter and that other Members may well have the same interest, it is not a point of order for me or for Mr. Speaker. If notification is received, the Speaker would place it in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. That is as much as I can help the hon. Gentleman with the matter.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

European union document

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Cross-border enforcement

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7984/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 13 September 2010 and Unnumbered Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum dated 21 December 2010, submitted by the Department for Transport, relating to facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety; and notes that the Government is deciding whether or not to opt in to this Directive under the terms of Protocol 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the position of the United Kingdom in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice.—(Mike Penning.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Bill

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[4th Allocated Day]

[Relevant document: The Fifteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, The EU Bill: Restrictions on Treaties and Decisions relating to the EU, HC 682.]

Further considered in Committee

[Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 7

Decisions requiring approval by Act

14:33

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 24, page 6, line 7, at end insert—

‘(e) a decision under Article 218(8) of TFEU for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in accordance with Article 6(2) of TEU.’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 45, page 6, line 25, at end insert—

‘(da) a decision implemented through the solidarity clause under Article 222 that obliges the United Kingdom to provide assistance to another Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster.’.

Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 8, line 34, leave out subsection (2).

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

It is a pleasure to come back for a third day of excitement this week, talking about Europe. I thought that when I left the European Parliament, I might be able to ditch that part of my life and move on to something interesting. It seems to wear one down, like a terrible weight around one’s neck.

I want to see whether I can tidy up a few parts of the Bill which, I believe, could be helped. Currently the European Union is not party to the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the ECHR. The Lisbon treaty, however, introduced what is now article 6(2) of the treaty on the European Union, which provides that the EU will accede to the ECHR. This accession agreement—in effect a treaty between the EU and the states party to the ECHR—is being negotiated.

Article 218(8) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides that once negotiated, the accession agreement must be concluded, for the EU’s part, by unanimity in the Council. The same article states that after adoption by the Council, the EU decision concluding the agreement must also be

“approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”

before it can come into force.

Under current UK law, this approval may require an Act of Parliament. Clause 10, however, where this matter currently resides, requires only a resolution of approval in each House. Indeed, the definition of parliamentary approval in clause 10(3) does not seem well suited to the approval of a decision adopted by the Council under article 218(8), because the resolution of approval specified concerns approval of a draft decision.

Until the article 218(8) TFEU conclusion has come into force, the EU cannot accede to the ECHR. This is a complicated treaty between the EU and the ECHR and warrants a great deal of scrutiny. It will have a number of indirect effects on the United Kingdom.

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

I, too, wish we could be free of the European Union, but that is a debate for another day. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given where we are on prisoners’ voting rights, as well as the growth of rights under the ECHR and the controversy surrounding that, we need to ensure maximum parliamentary scrutiny of decisions such as the one that he is describing?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Indeed. I know that there is to be a Backbench Business Committee debate on the matter in the not-too-distant future, in which I hope that Members across the House can voice their concerns about that ruling.

I return to the proposal to move one part of the Bill from clause 10 to clause 7. I was speaking about the indirect effects on the United Kingdom that the accession of the EU to the EHCR might have. When the accession takes place, the EU will be able to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which will undoubtedly lead to more cases, more cost and impact and, most importantly, more jurisprudence on EU law.

I am seeking not to upgrade the requirement for scrutiny, but to maintain the present level. Furthermore, I am concerned that in clauses 6 and 7, a few article 48(7) ratchet decisions are not caught by the Bill. Such decisions would be those applying to the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure where the EU treaties currently require a special legislative procedure, and the existing special legislative procedure does not require unanimity in the Council. In other words, while a switch in EU legislative procedure would be taking place, it would not involve abolition of a veto because a veto did not exist in the first place. However, the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure entails the European Parliament having co-decision rights with the Council. It can table amendments to a proposed law and veto the Council’s desired law. In general, a switch to the ordinary legislative procedure would take EU decision making further out of the hands of national Governments and give greater power to a supranational institution.

The article 48(7) ratchet clauses not covered by the Bill would confer new co-decision rights on the European Parliament in a few areas of EU law that I shall list now, and many more. Article 23 provides that every EU citizen has the right to diplomatic protection. We had a debate on what that might mean to the individual. I am speaking now about our power to scrutinise such decisions. Article 182(4) allows the Council to adopt, through qualified majority voting, but only after consultation of the European Parliament, specific EU research and development programmes. These must accord with the multi-year EU framework programme for research and development that is decided through the ordinary legislative procedure, but the decision on specific programmes sets their duration, the precise financial contribution by the EU—essentially by us—and the detailed rules for implementation. Furthermore, article 349 provides that the Council can adopt legislative measures on how EU treaties apply to areas known in wonderful EU parlance as the outermost regions. The way in which such specific decisions are dealt with in the Bill would be a retrograde step for democratic control, hence my amendment.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) in the arguments that he has adduced. Since the Maastricht treaty, I have been gravely concerned about the operation of co-decision, and that is the best part of 20 years ago. The bottom line is that the situation has become increasingly difficult and unacceptable. The European Parliament, which is not a real Parliament at all—I see the Minister sighing. He cannot understand that the difference in the manner in which the European Parliament is elected, the difference in its procedures, the extent to which it holds Ministers to account, the intrusion of the process of proportional representation and the manner in which that operates, and many other aspects of the institutional difficulties and the democratic deficit that exists in the EU, are all part and parcel of the necessity to retain control in the hands of the national Parliaments. Unfortunately, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend, for these specific matters there is an extension of this strange creature which used to be called co-decision, but which now, in typical Eurospeak, has become the ordinary legislative procedure. It is not ordinary at all, it is quite extraordinary, and it is not a legislative procedure in the sense in which we are legislating in this House.

[The Temporary Chairman (Martin Caton)]

Order. May I ask which amendment the hon. Gentleman is speaking to?

[Mr Cash]

I am speaking about the general principle relating to the question of co-decision in the context of the amendments—

[The Temporary Chairman]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that when we are dealing with amendments, we deal with the amendments, not with general principles. If he could come on to the amendments in the group, I would be grateful.

[Mr Cash]

I am dealing specifically with amendment 24, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, and supporting his arguments. My amendments are, in general terms, supportable in accordance with the arguments I have set out, and I have no further comments to make on them at the moment.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

On the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) about needing an Act of Parliament as opposed to a resolution of both Houses, is not one of the advantages of such a course that it gives more time for scrutiny, and that an Act is amendable in a much greater way than a mere resolution? Given the importance of the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlined, it is vital that measures to do not get passed into law here in the UK indirectly or by accident, or by unintended consequences, as so often happens.

[Mr Cash]

That is exactly the point. The combined effect of the amendments that we are discussing is directly related to what the hon. Gentleman says and to what my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said. It is about time that the Committee understood that the importance of these debates is not being reflected by the votes or by the Government’s attitude. So far, they are not accepting any of the amendments. The European Scrutiny Committee has produced a report, and most of the amendments arise from it, including the ones we are discussing. My hon. Friend is a member of that Committee, and other members of the Committee are here as well. The net result is that we are not discussing the amendments properly.

[The Temporary Chairman]

Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about clause 9, but we are talking about two specific amendments to clause 7.

[Mr Cash]

I am happy to endorse the view that has been expressed. I wanted to make a general point, and that is really all I need to say at this stage.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I would like to address my remarks to clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10, rather than to the amendments.

[The Temporary Chairman]

The hon. Gentleman will be able to talk about clause 7 when we come on to clause stand part.

14:45

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Amendments 24 and 25 would require that before the EU can accede to the European convention on human rights, Parliament would need to approve the EU’s accession by Act of Parliament. At present, the EU and its institutions cannot be held to account for the fulfilment of its existing international legal obligations by the ECHR in the same way as the EU member states all can. Accession by the EU to the convention would close this gap.

EU accession to the ECHR is, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) acknowledged, already expressly provided for in the EU treaties, as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. Article 6(2) of the treaty on the EU provides that

“the Union shall accede to the ECHR”.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I am sure that in his usual persuasive way my right hon. Friend will give us a very good account of the legal case for the EU acceding to the ECHR. I hope that as he does so he will dispel the suspicion that is forming in many people’s minds that the real reason, never mind the complicated legal rationale that he has given, is to put the EU on the same footing as the other signatories to the convention, which are all member states, and to give the EU the character of a member state. It is only member states that have acceded to the ECHR, and all the members of the EU have done so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give us a very thorough explanation, which will also serve to dispel that suspicion that is forming in many people’s minds.

[Mr Lidington]

Certainly I agree that it is important to keep in our minds the distinction between the member states and the EU as an entity. It is therefore important that the treaties set out plainly that accession to the convention would not affect the EU’s competences in any way, and that any extension or enlargement of EU competence would therefore have to be obtained by the normal process of treaty amendment, which is subject to the various checks that we are laying out in this legislation. Under protocol 8 to the treaties, it is also made clear that the Union’s accession to the ECHR will in no way affect the situation of the individual member states as parties to that convention. So the accession by the EU to the convention cannot give further powers or competences to the EU; nor will it affect member states’ own standing with respect to the ECHR.

In dealing with Council of Europe matters, the Government are always on the alert to avoid creating either the impression or the reality that EU member states, which are all individually parties to the ECHR, are acting as a bloc. The situation is unusual, because the Council of Europe is an institution in which EU member states have a majority over other state parties. Therefore, it is important that that distinction of principle to which my hon. Friend alluded is maintained.

[Mr Clappison]

May I say—I hope the Minister will appreciate this—that he has been extremely assiduous in attending to Council of Europe matters and exemplary in discharging his ministerial responsibility in respect of them? He made an extremely important point about the Council of Europe, which is that it includes many other nations that are not EU member states. It is a good thing for countries that are members of the Council of Europe to be dealt with individually, including those that also happen to be EU member states, so as not to create in any sense the impression that there is an EU bloc, because that has a bad impact on human rights in Europe, extending more widely than just the EU.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree. Quite apart from any constitutional or legal significance, it would be politically and diplomatically counter-productive to go down the route that my hon. Friend has rightly warned against. Whether the UK as state party should continue to have the relationship with the European convention on human rights that we currently have is a matter of intense in the debate in the House, and Members on both sides of the Committee have their views on that.

The point for the purposes of this afternoon’s considerations is that the accession of the EU to the ECHR would make no practical difference to the UK’s position. The Government see some advantages in EU accession, because the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg could act as a direct check on how EU institutions exercise their powers, in exactly the same way it acts as a check on the actions of all other signatories to the convention. I know that some of my hon. Friends will say that they believe that the European Court of Human Rights should not have that type of authority over this country, but I say to them that it is my belief that the EU and its institutions should be held to the same standards on human rights as we expect of member states.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his patient responses to so many questions. I wonder whether it is necessary for the EU to sign up to the ECHR, because we have already debated the question of how EU law comes into effect in this country, which is by Act of Parliament. Therefore, any decision made by the EU can come into effect here only under our own laws, which are of course already justiciable under the European Court of Human Rights. This is not so much an added safeguard as a symbolic step towards creating the European Union as a state.

[Mr Lidington]

We certainly need to guard against that. The Government have accepted, as did the Conservative party before the general election, that the ratification of the Lisbon treaty is a political and legal reality and that we will work within that context. The treaty states that the EU shall accede to the ECHR, and it also provides that the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights should be considered, once accession has taken place, as general principles of EU law. In those circumstances, one would expect that those in the Commission who are responsible for drafting European directives and other legislative initiatives would have regard to the judgments of the Court and would frame draft European legislation in order to meet the standards of that jurisprudence.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the Minister clarify Her Majesty’s Government’s view of the Lisbon treaty, because it seems to me that they are in quite a strong position to say that things that have not already been done, which are subject to unanimity before they can be implemented, need not be implemented by the Government?

[Mr Lidington]

There is a clear statement on the face of the treaty that the EU shall accede to the European convention on human rights, and the Government’s position is that we accepted that statement and that commitment as part of the Lisbon treaty. As I hope to explain shortly, the law and our procedures in this House provide a number of safeguards that, I believe, will enable the House of Commons and the other place to scrutinise in detail any proposal for accession when it comes forward.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way, but a large group of amendments is listed on the Order Paper for consideration later today, and those amendments stand in the names of many hon. and right hon. Members. I want to try to limit my comments on the early group so that we have time for a thorough debate on those amendments on justice and home affairs, which I think the Committee would expect.

[Mr Cash]

I have already been helpful to the Minister in limiting my earlier remarks. Having said that, I would point out to him that this afternoon the European Scrutiny Committee has considered the document, “EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights”, and set out in full, for the purposes of ensuring that the House is properly informed about what all the arguments amount to, both the questions and answers that he has given to that Committee. In particular, we include his letter of 30 June, our letter of 8 September and his letter of 21 September, and the detailed matters that arose on that, which take up two pages. We include our letter of 27 October and the explanatory memorandum of 15 November. The idea that the Minister can slide past this—

[The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)]

The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention, not a speech.

[Mr Cash]

There is an obligation to answer this point.

[Mr Lidington]

I look forward with relish to studying the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusions.

There are already a number of ways for the Government and Parliament to exercise control over the precise terms of the EU’s accession agreement. Article 218(8) of the TFEU makes it clear that accession would be subject to unanimous agreement by the Council and that the Council’s decisions to conclude the agreement cannot enter into force until it has been approved by all member states individually and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, which are entirely a matter for each member state.

In addition, all EU member states are also parties to the European convention on human rights in their own right and will also be parties to the accession instrument. As with any other treaty to which the UK is party, the final accession agreement will be subject to the procedures under part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—the codification of the Ponsonby procedures. That requires the agreement to be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days, during which time either House may resolve that it should not be ratified. On top of those two levels of control, clause 10 of the Bill will add an additional layer of accountability by requiring a positive vote in favour of the agreement in each House before the UK could approve the EU’s decision to conclude such an agreement.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I do not want at all to talk about the detail of the European convention on human rights, but I make the point that we will probably need an Act of Parliament, or a resolution as it stands. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I wanted to ensure that the Minister completely understood my reasons for tabling and for wanting appropriate scrutiny of the points that it raises.

[Mr Lidington]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s motives, and if I may say so without bringing him into complete disrepute with a number of other hon. Members on the Back Benches, he has played an extremely active and constructive part in our debates in Committee and has adeptly and correctly spotted some loopholes in the Bill that have led the Government to bring forward amendments to respond to the them.

Given that a number of control mechanisms already exist, that the accession agreement does no more than spell out the detail of something already provided for in the treaties and, most importantly, that there is no practical effect of EU accession to the ECHR on the position of member states, there is no necessity for the additional requirement of an Act of Parliament. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

15:00

[The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)]

That brings us to the debate on clause 7 stand part. If I am reading the feeling of the Committee correctly, I shall allow this to be a fairly wide debate, obviating the need for further stand part debates on the later clauses. If we all understand that, I shall show considerable laxity.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Cash]

I shall discuss my earlier point about EU accession to the ECHR in the context of the broad view that you, Mr Caton, have taken about the necessity to get some of these issues out in the open. I shall also refer to the document that I cited in my intervention on the Minister, because we discussed it in the European Scrutiny Committee today. The document is a Council decision, the object of which is to authorise the European Commission to start negotiations with the Council of Europe on the EU’s accession to the European convention on human rights. Our Committee reached the stage of a first report.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I very much apologise for not being at the European Scrutiny Committee meeting, but I was getting ready for this session. Government Members are giving the Bill the appropriate amount of scrutiny, but, looking at the Opposition Benches, I wonder whether anybody on that side cares.

[Mr Cash]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is right, and I am glad that the Minister also nods in agreement, because the accession is hugely important. I understand entirely that the Minister has a view about it. He has also heard the very good arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has made on the specific questions that arise. The Minister knows that it is a contentious issue, not least because we are also dealing with the interaction of the European convention on human rights, which came up in the statement on terrorism only an hour or so ago in this very House, and the crucial balance between security and freedom. We do not need to discuss control orders and counter-terrorism now, but I simply make the point that an enormous body of law could be affected by this.

The shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), is attentive, was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and is taking an interest in the debate. Of course, he has to be here, but I think that he would be here anyway. I find it strange that the Chamber is almost completely empty when we are considering these incredibly important issues, and it would be interesting to know whether there is any reason why. I am glad to welcome my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who also has great knowledge of these matters. I hope that he will contribute to the debate, because we have just discussed this point in the European Scrutiny Committee, so it is an opportune moment for us to look at the principles involved.

The Government support accession by the EU to the ECHR, as the Minister indicates. I am sorry that we got a little tetchy, but he gave me the impression that he wanted to move on from the subject fairly quickly, and I understand the necessity to move on to later amendments. Our entire proceedings, despite some considerable reservations on the one hand and downright hostility on the other, have been conducted in a civilised manner and in accordance with what I hope debates in this House should consist of, but we need to take a good look at what the provision implies, and this clause stand part debate gives us the opportunity to do so.

According to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, accession will close the gap in human rights protection as applicants will for the first time be able to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights directly against the European Union and its institutions for alleged violations of ECHR rights. It will enable the European Union to defend itself directly before the European Court of Human Rights in matters where EU law or actions of the EU have been impugned.

The Secretary of State also says that accession will reduce the risk of divergence and ensure consistency between human rights case law between the European Court of Human Rights and the EU’s Court of Justice in Luxembourg. That is very important. Furthermore, he says that the EU will be bound by European Court of Human Rights judgments in cases in which it is a respondent, and like other contracting parties to the ECHR the EU will need to have regard to the Strasbourg jurisprudence.

I have heard the Secretary of State for Justice express views, albeit in other circumstances, in which he has raised concerns about the extent to which the judiciary is impinging on the sovereignty of this House, and I take him at his word. If he believes that, he might also consider that the EU will have to have regard to Strasbourg jurisdiction. Sovereignty, which we have debated at some length in relation to clause 18, is directly involved in that issue.

I do not need to repeat any arguments that I set out in relation to clause 18, and I have no intention of doing so, but the principle is about the use of jurisprudence from Strasbourg or the European Union Court, the European Court of Justice, and its effect on the legislative process in this House. There is also a constitutional question for the United Kingdom about the manner in which our judiciary is using Strasbourg precedents and importing them to their judgments in our courts. The Lord Chief Justice recently criticised that, because he is worried about the impact of accession on the manner in which we make our decisions and the invasion of common law precedent.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I hesitate to intervene on such an erudite speech by my hon. Friend, but one problem that the Minister might want to consider in the context of the clause is that accession by the EU to the convention will create essentially co-ordinated jurisdiction over some areas between the European Court of Justice on the one hand and the Strasbourg Court on the other. Indirectly, therefore, it might affect the rights of this place, because more law and jurisprudence will come from both Courts, and that might interfere with the way in which we conduct business and are expected both to represent our constituents and to make our own laws consistent with accepted doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. I have intervened now because I think my hon. Friend will agree with that point.

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely, and it could not have been better put. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who is Queen’s Counsel after all, as well as a distinguished member of the European Scrutiny Committee. He has been following the matter with great interest and makes the point very well.

There is a further point to make about the statement by the Secretary of State for Justice. He says that, additionally, European accession will mean that individuals who argue unsuccessfully in the European Court of Justice that the European Union has breached their fundamental rights—I stress “fundamental”—can, subject to the usual admissibility requirements, complain to the European Court of Human Rights that the EU has violated one or more of convention rights. The risk of confusion in that melee—that dual jurisdiction—is a serious potential problem. The Secretary of State for Justice went on to say that European Court of Human Rights judgments will be binding on the European Union as a respondent to the proceedings.

The Government, apparently, do not expect the European Union’s accession to the ECHR to have any direct impact on UK law. As article 6(3) of the treaty on European Union confirms, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the ECHR already

“constitute general principles of the Union’s law.”

However, importantly, the Secretary of State for Justice concedes that an adverse judgment against the EU by the European Court of Human Rights may require the EU to amend its legislation to protect individuals’ fundamental rights in a way that will have consequential implications for UK law. That is why I not only have sympathy for what my hon. and learned Friend said, but refer back to the Minister’s assertion that it will not have implications for EU law.

As I said, we have had a number of exchanges with the Secretary of State for Justice. It is best if I pick out one or two of his points from the correspondence, all of which will be set out for the benefit of Members. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has come to swell the ranks of Labour Back Benchers, whose presence would otherwise be non-existent. Unfortunately for the Minister, it is just possible that she will agree with what we are saying, but we will wait and see.

In the letter of 30 June, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, the Secretary of State for Justice wrote to the European Scrutiny Committee, advising that the EU had adopted this mandate. He went on to explain that the Government support EU accession and made the remarks that I summarised earlier. We replied to him on 8 September stating that the EU’s accession struck the Committee as potentially a significant development in its internal legal order—despite treaty provisions to the contrary—and that it would amount to submitting the acts of EU institutions to independent external control by the ECHR. We also said it was a potentially significant development in the way in which EU citizens’ human rights are protected. We used the word “potentially” deliberately because it was difficult on the information before us to know how much the EU’s accession to the ECHR would be a symbolic gesture and how much it would lead to practical changes for United Kingdom citizens.

At this point, it is worth saying that these changes are not just generalisations, but that serious fundamental changes are being brought about by the manner in which the accession proposal is being put through. It is Government policy and it has significant implications for the daily lives of people. It is difficult in a debate such as this to give specific illustrations because the nature of the debate more or less precludes one from doing so. We are supposed to be talking about the generality of the constitutional change. However, I simply want to put on record that it will have a significant impact on the practical lives of the people whom we represent. That is the key reason for raising these issues.

We went on to note that the Cabinet Office guidance recommended that Departments should provide the scrutiny Committees with

“details of negotiating mandates as soon as they have been approved”.

We were grateful for the explanation of the Secretary of State for Justice on how the Government view these matters. We asked him to explain further how the current gap in human rights protection will be closed by accession, and what he meant by the word “directly” when he said:

“applicants will, for the first time, be able to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights”—

that is the Strasbourg Court—

“directly against the EU and its institutions for alleged violations of Convention rights”.

15:15

After an exchange, what it boiled down to was that there is concern in academic circles that the charter of fundamental rights, which was brought in through a protocol in the Lisbon treaty, specifically allows for EU human rights law to provide “more extensive protection” than the ECHR, and that raises a problem. In light of that, it is difficult to see why the Secretary of State for Justice concluded that a key benefit of accession to the ECHR will be consistency between the two legal domains. On the contrary, there is concern in academic circles that the charter will lead to legal uncertainty on how human rights are applied in Europe by introducing the additional standard of “fundamental” right. Although in appearance that is an esoteric legal argument, it will have an impact on people’s rights. That is the problem.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

This may be one of the rare occasions when those on my Front Bench do not object to my intervention. I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is going on about. I have tried to read clause 7 again. Let us go back. The fundamental charter of rights was introduced because of the judgment against the European Union as an institution over Gibraltar. Rather than signing up to the ECHR, which would have been the logical and consistent thing to do once we had given it legal personality, we now have two systems. In the UK, we are signed up to the ECHR. I would have preferred it if the EU had signed up to the ECHR. The charter of fundamental rights gives additional rights. I singularly fail to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making because the situation is no different.

[Mr Cash]

I am expressing the view of academics who have studied this matter, perhaps more than the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I am not making any personal assertions. I am just saying that the evidence that we have is that the charter will lead to legal uncertainty over how human rights are applied in Europe by introducing the additional standard of fundamental rights. I am not criticising the hon. Lady, but simply replying to her question by expressing the view that is taken in academic circles.

[Stephen Phillips]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem that is being expressed is that there will be two competing and overlapping systems, adjudicated upon by two different Courts, which is potentially a recipe for disaster? I think that is the point that he is seeking to make.

[Mr Cash]

I have made that point and am entirely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for repeating it. The issue is that there is a significant potential for uncertainty when there are two Courts.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I accept that there is a potential conflict, but given that we are already a signatory to the ECHR and that the EU is already a signatory to the charter, none of this adds to the complexity—the complexity already exists.

[Mr Cash]

I accept that. That complexity does exist, and part of the difficulty with the whole issue of human rights, whether in relation to accession, the charter or the jurisdiction of the Courts, is shown in the comments of the Lord Chief Justice in his Judicial Studies Board lecture. He said to the entire judiciary, “Brothers and sisters”, referring to the other judges—[Interruption.] Well, that is their language. He said, “Brother and sister judges, will you please take note that our first obligation is to have regard to the manner in which we come to our decisions in the light of common law precedent?” He warned them against adopting Strasbourg’s precedents as a means of arriving at decisions in our own courts. He actually used the words, “We must beware”. I therefore entirely agree with the hon. Lady and with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and with the views expressed in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report that has come out only this afternoon.

[Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

There is indeed a conflict of courts, which has been a matter of considerable concern for a number of years. It is the oldest question of all—who is the master? Where there is a conflict between a constitutional court—the European Court—and a human rights court, who prevails? That is the lack of clarity that exists and the worrying aspect for many people. It has been much talked about in the European Parliament in recent years.

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, and I add that my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has been manfully seeking to contain the tsunami of opinions expressed in that Committee about the continuing onward movement towards accession of the type that we are discussing here and about the human rights culture and all that goes with it.

[Mr Shepherd]

I am not a lawyer, as is evident, but the great difficulty is that we have a common-law tradition, and the European tradition is civil law. Those are totally different ways of looking the world. It is the case law that I am worried about.

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, and that is because the abstract principles contained in the charter, the ECHR convention and so on have developed a completely different type of law from ours. In a way, this debate illustrates the difficulty that exists. I say to the Minister that as ever, the Government are acquiescing in greater movement towards the human rights culture.

I may say that if anyone knows of my record in relation to matters such as this, they will know that nobody is more likely to want to defend the rights of individuals. All Members are devoted to trying to ensure that there is proper protection. The trouble is how to get to that point. I believe, for example in relation to terrorism, that if we legislate in Westminster according to the principles of habeas corpus, due process and fair trial, and according to our established procedures, we can be sure that no suspect will be ill-treated in our prison cells, however much potential circumstantial evidence there is against them.

Habeas corpus is the first duty of the judge. Ask any senior judge and he will say, “My first obligation is to apply habeas corpus.” He would go straight down from his chambers to the prison to make absolutely certain that a person was not being ill-treated. If a writ of habeas corpus is issued, that is that. It is one of our most fundamental protections of liberty for the citizen. A great deal of human rights legislation, and all that goes with it, is moving us away from that. There are also political judges in other countries. There are different systems of law, yet we are acquiescing in a process of change away from our established system.

It is difficult to grasp the broad sense of what is happening, but it has a direct impact. However, the Government are acquiescing in it on a significant scale. That was why, when I was shadow Attorney-General, I proposed the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. That was our policy up to the time of the coalition agreement, and the Prime Minister himself repeatedly said that he thoroughly endorsed it. It was Conservative party policy, but under the coalition it has been abandoned, which seems a big jump. In addition, during the debates on the Bill we have seen further acquiescence in the process of moving towards the abstract principle, instead of the concept of the common-law precedent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) mentioned.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

My issue with my hon. Friend’s eloquent speech is that I do not understand the word “process” that he has been using. We are already under the convention regime. Whether we are in or out of that is a boundary question. He might want to get out, but that is a different debate. Nothing he can do to amend the Bill will fundamentally alter the fact that we are already signed up to the “process”.

[Mr Cash]

With great respect to my hon. Friend, he came into the Chamber somewhat after my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) explained why he wanted to amend the Bill to ensure that we retain greater sovereignty in relation to certain matters arising under the European convention. I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for coming in a bit late, but we have already discussed that matter—we are now on clause stand part and the general question of the principles on which the convention operates. Does my hon. Friend want to intervene again?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will have my say—don’t worry.

[Mr Cash]

Certainly. My hon. Friend says, “We are where we are.” In this debate and in the debate on the individual amendments, the Committee is dealing with some very important principles, including the principal question of the shift of accession. Therefore, it is important for us to explain and illustrate, by reference to documents, which I am not going through in detail, and by general principles, that with regard to the charter, the European Court of Justice, the European convention on human rights and the Strasbourg Court, there are important questions that will affect the constituents whom we serve.

For example, the Minister has told us that the only way that individuals can argue in the Strasbourg Court that the EU has breached their human rights is to bring proceedings against one or more member states. His answer to the question, “What do you mean by ‘directly’?” was that once the EU has acceded to the convention, it will be possible for the EU itself to be the respondent and to defend claims in its own name. When we asked how accession will reduce the risk of divergence and ensure consistency between human rights case law, Strasbourg and Luxembourg when article 52(3) of the charter specifically allows human rights law to provide “more extensive protection” than the ECHR—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred to that—we were told that the EU must have regard to Strasbourg jurisprudence.

Our problem over and over again is that the answers that we get are a further extension of the principles that move us away from common law and precedent, and that instead absorb us into a system of law, judgments and courts that operate on abstract principles. It is as simple as that. That is the key question. When there is a divergence between the two Courts, those problems will become more conflated and confused.

Another question was how the EU autonomous legal order will be preserved in light of European Court of Justice opinions in certain cases, which I will not go into in detail. In a nutshell, we are grateful for the Minister’s replies, which are included in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report so that anybody who wants to read them can do so. I quite understand that those who have come into the Chamber very recently did not hear the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and the specific issues that he raised.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) were so fundamental, why did he not press his amendments to a Division?

[Mr Cash]

The short answer is that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry did not do so because he had dealt with the questions that needed to be dealt with in relation to those amendments. I am concerned with the broader issue of the relationship between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That is the principal question in a clause stand part debate, which is why I am dealing with it now. That ought to be of great concern to the House, which is why the ESC has produced a special report and why I have gone into the detail in this debate rather than in a debate on specific amendments.

15:30

The draft report notes that—and I refer this section particularly to the Minister, because he may not have seen it yet—

“the guidance for Parliamentary scrutiny of EU documents states that ‘Departments should ensure that the Committees are kept informed as much as possible about the scope and development of negotiations prior to conclusion of an agreement.’ We look forward to being kept so informed. Meanwhile, the document remains under scrutiny.”

This is a very important matter. It is complex and requires some appreciation of the direction of navigation, which is towards an abstract system of law based on abstract principles rather than common law and precedent. It involves an interaction of the ECJ and the ECHR. We fear the possibility of inconsistency and uncertainty as a result, and this is the opportunity to explain those fears.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry for raising the question specifically and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) for his amendments. I thought it would be sensible if I took the opportunity to set out the position of the Committee in relation to the exchange of correspondence with the Minister. As a rider, I would just add that we appear to be acquiescing in the move to a system of abstract law, which is not in the interests of the people of this country. The issue is not that we are where we are: it is the impact that where we are is having on our constituents. That move towards acquiescence is causing me ever more concern, because we are being absorbed into a system that is changing the face of our politics, our judiciary and even our parliamentary sovereignty. For all those reasons, it should be taken very seriously. However, judging from the fact that yet again no Labour Back Benchers are in their places, we can form some judgment about the extent to which they care about their constituents in relation to matters that will have an enormous impact on their daily lives.

[Mr David]

I thank the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for providing an indication of what his Committee’s recent report says. We have heard over the last few days how important his reports have been in the consideration of this Bill. I also thank him for providing a useful context to the developing relationship between British law and European law.

During the last couple of days, we have heard a great deal from the Government about so-called direct democracy—enabling the people to make decisions themselves. However, it is worth remembering that the Conservative party has never been the party of devolution in Britain and it has always had a very limited definition of the European concept of subsidiarity. During the last few days, we have also discussed the exemption clause and the significance test—ways in which the Govt are substantially qualifying their apparent commitment to referendums. This afternoon, we go on to discuss the Government’s proposals for those issues that they deem, to quote the Minister for Europe, are “not of sufficient significance” to require a referendum.

Clause 7 sets out where primary legislation is required in such areas. It is interesting that the Government see Parliament playing a key role, but only on what it considers to be second tier issues—issues that do not require, to quote the Minister again, a “full-blown referendum”. Leaving aside the difference between a full-blown and a half-blown referendum, this differentiation between what is deemed appropriate for direct democratic decision making and for parliamentary decision-making well illustrates the incoherence and contradictions at the heart of this Bill.

For example, yesterday we heard from the Minister how under schedule 1 to the Bill any change to the appointment procedure of the advocates-general of the ECJ would attract a referendum. However, according to the letter that the Minister sent to his Back Benchers in November, a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting for decisions concerning the number of advocates-general would not attract a referendum, but would be covered by clause 7. Perhaps he will be kind enough to explain to the Committee why there are to be different procedures on those two related issues. It would be difficult in the extreme for any Government to explain why a referendum would be held on the one issue, but not the other.

It should be stressed that clause 7 is not about stopping changes at either the Council of Ministers or the European Council, because any member state can block a change to an internal passerelle clause. Clause 7 is only about providing parliamentary approval if the Government have already agreed to use one of the decisions set out in the clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out yesterday, it would be extremely difficult for a Council decision to abolish unanimity in respect of the adoption of any future acts. Indeed, Sir John Grant, the former United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Union put the matter extremely well in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee when he said that

“everybody’s got to agree that some of them are going to be outvoted.”

It is extremely unlikely that such a scenario would arise, so in reality the impact of clause 7 will be very small indeed.

After clause 7 we have clause 8, which would give Parliament a greater role over the so-called flexibility clause in the Lisbon treaty, and after that there is clause 9, which deals with justice and home affairs issues. Yesterday we discussed how some justice and home affairs issues would be covered by a referendum; today we discuss some justice and home affairs issues that will not. In particular, I want to refer to opt-ins to measures

“under the area of freedom, security and justice”.

Interestingly, the Bill does not really deal with one extremely important area. Britain has a temporary opt-out in the Lisbon treaty with regard to certain justice and home affairs measures. Under that protocol there are transitional provisions that provide for the United Kingdom to participate—or not—in certain European Union justice and home affairs measures. For example, the Government decided not to opt in to the draft EU directive on human trafficking. They decided not to opt in to that directive at the start of the legislative process, making the same decision during that process and at its conclusion, although I understand that they are to review the position when it comes to the adoption of the directive.

We believe that this is an important issue—an issue that clearly has to be addressed on an international and a European basis. I understand that the Government have decided to opt in to the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography directive—and quite right too—but what about the issue of international human trafficking? Our view is clear: it is an important issue that Britain should be tackling in co-operation with our European partners. However, the issue before us today is whether it is sensible, according to the Government’s own logic, to agree to their proposal that such opt-in provisions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but not a referendum. We fully believe that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we agreed to an enhanced role for national Parliaments in the Lisbon treaty. However, given that the Government have been arguing for referendums on important issues, why are they not proposing a referendum on such an important issue?

According to the protocol to the Lisbon treaty, the United Kingdom has an opt-in provision that will last for four and a half years. After that, Britain will be fully part of the justice and home affairs decision-making process. Last night we heard that the Government had absolutely no intention whatever of allowing referendums to take place before 2015 at the earliest. The question that I ask is: why? According to the Government’s own logic, if there are to be referendums on important changes that affect the United Kingdom, there should surely be a referendum on this justice and home affairs opt-in during the course of this Parliament. Nothing better shows the inconsistency and incoherence of the Bill than this. It is a muddled clause in a very muddled Bill.

So much for clause 9. Next is clause 10. If what we have been discussing does not make things complicated enough, clause 10 sets out a further six decisions that require parliamentary approval. It is as though the Government have gone out of their way to create a piece of legislation that is deliberately confusing, obsessively complex and designed to confound every constitutional expert in the land.

Let me be clear: we strongly support greater parliamentary involvement and greater parliamentary scrutiny. That is why Baroness Ashton, when she was Leader of the House of Lords under the previous Government, made a statement setting out commitments by the then Government for more parliamentary scrutiny on actions arising from the justice and home affairs protocols. Last week, this Government made a statement that reaffirmed those commitments, and I welcome that. However, we are genuinely concerned about the lack of clarity. This is an obtuse and even eccentric way of addressing serious constitutional issues. They are issues that affect the people of this country on a day-to-day basis, and the country and the House deserve better than the Bill before us today.

[Mr Lidington]

May I first respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)? He spoke with his characteristic dignity, courtesy and thoroughness about the issue of EU accession. I am sure that he will understand that I want to look carefully at the report from his Committee, rather than responding on the hoof this afternoon. As he would expect, a subject of this significance needs to be discussed by Ministers collectively in order for the Government to come up with the thorough and considered response that every member of his Committee deserves.

Clause 7 fulfils the pledge made in the coalition programme for government that

“the use of any passerelle”—

or ratchet clause—

“would require primary legislation.”

It sets out that the Government may not agree to the use of a number of passerelles, or ratchet clauses, in the EU treaties unless the approval from this House is specified in an Act of Parliament.

As the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear in the past, there is no straightforward legal or treaty definition of a ratchet clause. The European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 listed 10 such clauses and limited the definition to use of the simplified revision procedure and to nine articles that allow for the giving up of the British veto in specific areas. When we considered that commitment in the coalition programme, we decided that that definition was insufficient. So for a start, we have put a referendum lock on many of the passerelles listed in the 2008 Act. We debated those matters earlier in our Committee proceedings. Others we have subjected to a primary legislation lock under clause 7. So the use of article 48(7) to give up the UK veto in an area that we did not include in schedule 1 to the Bill would, none the less, still require full parliamentary approval in an Act of Parliament. The same principle applies to any proposal to move to qualified majority voting in an area of enhanced co-operation in which the UK is a participant.

15:45

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) referred to article 48(7), and asked me about those aspects of it that did not involve giving up the UK veto but that made possible a shift to the ordinary legislative procedure. It is true that there are eight largely technical cases where article 48(7) could be used to move from the special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure, but they do not involve a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting, as QMV already applies in each of those eight instances. We believe that all that such a decision would do would increase the role of the European Parliament from being consulted to being the joint decision-making authority with the Council. It would not change the UK’s position under QMV. In the light of my hon. Friend’s comments, I would be happy to take the issue away and reflect on it further. Perhaps I could write to him on that detailed point, ahead of Report, and see whether I can satisfy him on that account.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I apologise if I have missed something that the Minister has already said, but are the lists setting out what requires a referendum and what requires other procedures indicative or exhaustive?

[Mr Lidington]

What is clear in the Bill is that anything under article 48(7) relating to the giving up of a UK veto or a move to qualified majority voting would require primary legislation here. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry questioned me on those areas of policy, defined in various parts of the treaty, where article 48(7) could be applied to move from the special to the ordinary legislative procedure, but where QMV still applies now and would apply in the new circumstances. If it would help the hon. Lady, I will happily copy the letter I write to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry to her as well.

We took the opportunity in working on this Bill to take a fresh look at this issue. We concluded that a general principle could be applied—that articles already in the treaties that provided a “one-way” option should also be considered to be passerelle clauses. These one-way options add to or reduce what could be done within existing areas of EU competence, but without changes to either voting rules or legislative procedures. We felt that they should be subject to primary legislation.

We also looked hard at articles that modify the composition or rules of procedure of existing EU institutions and bodies. We will come on to most of those when we debate clause 10. However, we felt that the article allowing for the amendment of the number of Commissioners was a highly significant article as it could be used to negotiate a reduction in the current requirement that every member state should nominate one Commissioner. We therefore proposed, because of the importance of that matter, that any such decision should require approval by primary legislation.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Is it not ludicrous that there are so many Commissioners? There are far too many of them to give them all proper jobs. Half of them do not have a proper job now. We have ended up with a system under which each country gets one Commissioner, but they are not meant to be there as “the British Commissioner”. They should work together as a commission. When it comes to state aid, it is particularly important that they act independently, not as a national representative.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman, my predecessor in office, puts a strongly held view with characteristic cogency. Whatever the merits of his argument, it seems to me that departing from the principle that each country should be entitled to nominate a Commissioner would be a change of major significance to the way in which the European Union is organised and run. As such, it would seem appropriate, whatever the merits or demerits of the proposal, that this should be subject to primary legislation rather than any less demanding form of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Ms Stuart]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I am conscious of the pressure on time and I am going to try to make some progress.

Let me respond to the challenge from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) about the numbers of advocates-general. There are not 27 advocates-general, so we are not in the position of having one for every member state, but it is important that we retain the veto on this, and we have no intention of giving it up.

It is important for the United Kingdom to be able to approve the appointments of judges and advocates-general, and we felt that it was sufficiently important to be included in schedule 1.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

There will be other opportunities for us to debate the number of advocates-general, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough to identify them. He and his hon. Friends have managed to weave the issue into every speech they have made so far at every stage of the Bill’s progress.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that I am going to deny myself the pleasure of hearing a further explanation from the hon. Gentleman.

The other articles listed in clause 7—covering decisions on provisions for elections to the European Parliament, on the system of own resources of the EU, and on the adoption of provisions to replace the excessive deficit procedure—already require primary legislation before this country can agree to them, and clause 7 replicates those earlier requirements. Decisions under the articles listed in clause 7(2) would require approval in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state before the member state confirmed its approval of a decision. The four articles that I mentioned are also subject to enhanced parliamentary control in Germany following the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on the Lisbon treaty.

For the other decisions listed in subsection (4), primary legislation will be needed before this country votes in the Council of Ministers or the European Council. In other words, the Act will be needed before the United Kingdom can cast its vote. We intend that to happen before the final political decision to use the ratchet clause is made at European Union level but after official-level negotiations have been completed, so that it is clear to Parliament that that is the final text and it can make a decision on what is proposed without the risk of further changes.

Unlike the 2008 Act, the Bill does not contain a disapplication provision giving Ministers discretion to approve a decision that has been amended since being approved by Parliament. That is deliberate. We want Parliament to approve the final version, although it will of course be examining the proposals from an early stage under the existing arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation.

I should emphasise that these provisions will apply only when the Government intend to agree to a measure. If the Government of the day did not support the exercise of any of the ratchet clauses, they would simply block their adoption. However, the pledge in the coalition agreement and the commitment in the Bill provide that when the Government would be in favour of such a decision, Parliament must approve it first.

[Chris Bryant]

I did not intend to speak, but as the Minister refused to give way—it was the first time I had ever seen a Minister do that in Committee—I wanted to make one very brief point. [Interruption.] I see that the Whip is fulminating. He can go and fulminate on his own.

The problem with the Bill, and with clause 7 in particular, is that it will make it more difficult for us to negotiate with other countries to achieve the outcomes that we want for the British people. Let us suppose, for example, that France introduced a law similar to this and we tried to negotiate a proposal that is in the coalition agreement, namely that we should end the ludicrous caravanserai between Brussels and Strasbourg. It is laid down in the treaties that the European Parliament shall have two places in which to sit, which is ludicrous given the vast amount of money that is spent on the two buildings, the vast inconvenience caused to people, and the creation of a monopoly air service which is also ludicrously expensive. Moreover, I do not think that all that has resulted in a better policy and decision-making process. However, if the French Government had a law such as this, they would simply block every treaty change that might be in our interests.

[Stephen Phillips]

As always, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but has he not just made the case for why the Bill is so important? In the example that he has given, it would be possible for the French Government to say to other European Governments, “This is in the interests of my country, and I will therefore not be able to get it through.” Is that not the great merit of the Bill, and is it not the sort of Bill that we would never have seen from the Government of whom he was a member?

[Chris Bryant]

May I just clear something up? I am not right honourable, although many hon. Members have recently referred to me as such. Many would doubt whether I am even honourable.

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

Order. I am not calling a Division on this one!

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think you are able to call one, Mr Evans.

The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) seems to be arguing that we should adopt a French style of intransigence, permanently trying solely to defend the British interest. In the end, such an approach cuts off our nose to spite our face. I do not think that anybody here thinks that the double-sitting arrangement is sensible, and most French politicians would agree in private. If this country starts setting up barriers to try to make it more difficult to change anything in the European Union, other countries will do the same and we will end up keeping some of the anomalies and ludicrous elements of the European Union. That is why I oppose the clause. I would have dealt with all that in a short intervention on the Minister.

[Mr Shepherd]

I do not understand this. The hon. Gentleman says, “It is in the treaty” but this Bill has nothing to do with changing the treaty and is about circumstances that may arise in the future. So what point is he making? If the treaty provides for movement between the two centres on a rotating basis, it is mandatory, is it not? How does this relate to the Bill?

[Chris Bryant]

The Bill does make reference to treaty change, and understandably so. I thought that the whole argument that the hon. Gentleman and many others have made over the past three or four years during discussion of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessor was that because a treaty change was involved, there should be a referendum. All I am saying is that if that had been the proposition in France, we would never see an end to that element of treaty change. I would, however, be amazed if the Government make any progress on trying to change the Strasbourg provisions, although perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions that the dual site of the European Parliament is provided for in the treaties. Surely the key issue is that the coalition agreement says that we are going to deal with this situation. The opportunity to do so is coming up, because the eurozone needs our agreement to a new treaty. In return for our agreement, surely we could demand that the European Parliament move to a single site, thus fulfilling what is in the coalition agreement.

[Chris Bryant]

That little speech was the definition of “denial”, because there is no prospect of the French volunteering a treaty change on the Strasbourg sittings unless an enormous contribution is to be made from our side, which the Government would be able to deliver only if they were holding a referendum. By forcing referendums here, which means that the Government cannot give anything away, the Bill is making it impossible to win the argument on closing down Strasbourg—I mean the sittings there, not the city.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises in his example is clear. He suggests that the French would be reluctant to give away the right to have the two sites. That just illustrates the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made about the French sticking up for their interests, and it touches on the whole point of this Bill. It seems extraordinary for a Member of Parliament to say, “We don’t like the Bill because sticking up for our interests might in some way damage the whole European project.” That is not what we are trying to do.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am sure that that is my fault, because I cannot have expressed this at sufficient length or ably enough. The point I am trying to make is that our insistence that there will be no treaty change without a referendum makes it more difficult for us to achieve changes in the treaty that we want to pursue, because other countries will simply say, “We know that you are determined not to have any treaty change whatsoever, which is why you have created this referendum lock and all the rest of it.” That is why, I think, Government Members who are delighted that the coalition is committed to trying to change the situation in relation to the dual sittings and Strasbourg are profoundly deluded.

16:00

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his statements about our having a referendum, when lots of negotiations have gone on while many countries have had referendums?

[Chris Bryant]

Referendums in different countries operate in different ways. I think that I have heard the Minister say on a couple of occasions both here and elsewhere that there was never a referendum that supported the Lisbon treaty. That is completely untrue, as the Spaniards were the first to hold a referendum and it had an 83% or 84% yes vote, so he is wrong about that.

I think I have made my argument on Strasbourg.

[Mr David]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. He has used the example of Strasbourg, but he is making a wider point. The process of change in the European Union, as anybody who knows anything at all about it will be aware, is based on negotiations. The point of the Bill is that it makes it impossible for future Governments in this country to negotiate in Britain’s national interest.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. There are many different things in the European Union—many determined in treaty—that I want to change as a pro-European and as somebody who wants always to defend the British interest. I do not see those two things running counter to each other. My argument in essence is that the Government must have enough freedom to proceed in negotiations, so that they can gain concessions from the other side. If a country has already locked itself down, it is impossible to gain concessions from the other side.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, then to my hon. Friend, and then please release me.

[Mark Reckless]

I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not entirely seen my point. A referendum is only one lever that the UK can use to extract concessions. Our agreement is needed on the new treaty for the eurozone, which is desperately needed to try to put in place a permanent bail-out mechanism. My suggestion and, as I understand it, the commitment in the coalition agreement is that as a coalition we will ensure that the Parliaments move to one site and work to limit the application of the working time directive in the UK. Surely that new treaty gives us an opportunity to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

No, because one requires treaty change and the other does not. If we have already locked ourselves down by saying that any element of change would have to be submitted to a referendum, when we effectively know that most referendums on many of these issues would be lost in the UK—that is the whole tenor of the argument made by the hon. Gentleman and others on the Government Benches—it will be impossible for us to negotiate with a free hand. In the end, that will be bad for the British interest.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I want to make an offer to Members of running classes on how the EU works. Anybody who has ever worked in the EU would turn in their grave if we were to rerun the past 10 minutes—except those who are not there yet. The comments have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding of how the EU works and how treaty changes work. What is most amazing about the Bill is that I find myself for the first time in years agreeing with those on my Front Bench—that shows how wrong the Government are. Negotiations are different; none of this has anything to do with clause 7 and hon. Members are utterly wrong. I am happy to run a workshop on that afterwards.

[Chris Bryant]

It is a delight to agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that she and I have ever agreed on anything before. That is perhaps a slight exaggeration; I think we agreed that a Labour Government were better than a Conservative one.

Many thanks for calling me to speak, Mr Evans. I think I have made my one point eight times now, and that will probably suffice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Decisions under Article 352 of TFEU

[Mr Cash]

I beg to move amendment 53, page 6, line 41, leave out ‘(3) to (5)’ and insert ‘(3) and (4)’.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, page 7, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and add—

‘(5) This subsection is complied with if—

(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support a specified draft decision and is of the opinion that the decision relates only to one or more of the following purposes—

(i) to make provision equivalent to that made by a measure previously adopted under Article 352 of TFEU, where that previous measure was adopted following the commencement of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 and the draft decision relating to that measure was approved by Act of Parliament;

(ii) to repeal existing measures adopted under Article 352 of TFEU;

(iii) to consolidate existing measures adopted under Article 352 of TFEU without any change of substance, where those existing measures were adopted following the commencement of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 and the draft decisions relating to those measures were approved by Act of Parliament; and

(b) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.’.

Amendment 43, page 7, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

Clause stand part.

[Mr Cash]

The amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and myself, as well as several other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley), and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) of the Democratic Unionist party.

We are dealing with a very broad provision in the treaty known as article 352, which is generally described as a flexibility clause but which has an ancient and controversial history. Even back in the 1970s, before I came to the House, when I was practising law, I was discussing a very controversial provision known as article 308, and I shall tell hon. Members why. When, in our legal processes and legislative procedures we pass laws, we do so on the basis of what is stated in an Act of Parliament and we consider the words. Some of the remarks I made in the previous debate on clause 7 about abstract principles are related to this issue. Ordinary statutes, particularly in the field of administrative law, frequently make certain provisions after a whole series of propositions in different sections. Right at the end, there is often an expression such as, “And all such measures as may be regarded as reasonably necessary to carry out these functions,” but they are very carefully constrained by the administrative court, and the tests are quite significant. If there is a catch-all provision that has the effect of enlarging the existing treaty arrangements, it is incredibly important to make sure that what is included can be justified and has proper authority.

In the context of legislation that comes to the House and thereafter affects the daily lives of the electorate, we already know, for reasons that I do not need to enlarge on, that the manner in which legislation is implemented could, in a nutshell, be one or two lines or a paragraph in a treaty that are equivalent to an entire Act of Parliament. With that comes a whole process of interpretation that is different from our own, because it is not necessarily precise and because it looks at purposes—it has a purposive quality. Then there are provisions relating to subsidiarity that generally are not adhered to.

When we are dealing with a specific treaty and considering its wording and range, we should ask, when it becomes part of UK legislation through section 2 of the European Communities Act, as enforced by the courts and their system of interpretation, how far and to what extent it was anticipated that the legislation being spelt out, even in a treaty, would result in certain consequences in terms of the precise policies that will emerge from the process. It is incumbent on us to implement the law, under section 2, but at the same time there is a great degree of collateral within which the actual provisions in a treaty are brought into effect, and there is also their effect on the people to consider. In many instances, people could not reasonably have been expected to know exactly how that provision would turn out in policy.

I happen to be a bit of a traditionalist and I think that when we pass legislation it should be consistent with policy making, but sometimes I think that my hon. Friends—I say this with great respect to them—are not necessarily quite as conscious when considering such issues about the direct impact of it all on the electorate, or about the degree of discretion that we are giving both to the European Union and to Ministers in implementing these sorts of provisions.

What is the effect of article 352? I shall explain my concerns about the Bill in relation to that wide-ranging provision, and I shall quote from article 352. It is important to set that out, as it is the framework for my general concern. Article 352 states:

“If action by the Union should prove necessary”—

that is a big question; who says?—

“within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties”—

which have an enormously wide ambit, including what they involve, their purpose, nature and interpretation—

“to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously”—

that is important—

“on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.”

The article continues:

“Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”—

not Ministers, though they have the right to determine whether or not they will apply the unanimity rule.

There is then a provision stating that where subsidiarity arises,

“the Commission shall draw national Parliaments’ attention to proposals based on this Article.”

The article goes on to say that such measures shall not entail the harmonisation of member states’ laws or regulations where the treaties say that there should not be such harmonisation. Finally, it states—this is important—that the article cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives relating to foreign and security policy, and it imposes certain restrictions consistent with limits set out in article 40 of the Treaty on European Union.

That is what article 352 states. It is a very wide provision. It is certainly subject to unanimity by the Council. I therefore assume that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that the veto would be used, were the existing treaties—wide and deep as they are and effective as they are on our constituents—to be amplified by the use of that extremely wide power. I should mention that a few years ago the European Scrutiny Committee went over to see the Commission and its legal advisers. We had a full report on the provision in question, which at that time was described as article 308.

My amendments would knock out the provisions that would enlarge the Government’s capacity to bypass—I use this language carefully—the principles on which I assume Parliament would want to insist. Because of the ambit of the measure, we should ensure that it is used as tightly as possible.

16:14

At the moment, the article can be used only where the existing treaties have not provided the necessary powers. Clause 8(1) provides that any one of the conditions in subsections (3), (4) or (5) has to be satisfied in relation to an article 352 decision, but subsection (3) contains the general rule, which is the one that I would insist on, which is that the UK may not agree to a decision under this broad article unless the decision has been approved by Act of Parliament. That is fundamental. Where there is this enormous expansion of power, fundamentally it should be done only where the decision has been approved by Act of Parliament. I have no problem with that whatever.

Subsection (4) provides for parliamentary approval of urgent or emergency uses of the flexibility clause without the need for an Act of Parliament. The explanatory notes say that this

“has been used in the past for urgent or emergency uses, where rapid EU action has been agreed but where there was no explicit legal basis on which to base that action”,

and that certain sub-paragraphs stipulate

“that the UK may agree to the adoption of a measure based on Article 352 in urgent or emergency cases if”

approved by motion without amendment in each House of Parliament. I regard that as perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. So we have a process and an agreement. First, it has to be unanimous, then it comes to Parliament, and then it has to be approved by Parliament because it affects people and it is so broad that restrictive control needs to be kept over how the process operates in this House.

Subsection (5) provides

“that an Act of Parliament would not be required for any Article 352 proposal which satisfies any of the exemptions listed in subsection (6).”

According to the explanatory notes, the exemptions are to

“prevent…Acts of Parliament to approve measures which have been agreed in substance under previous measures using Article 352”.

In those circumstances, a Minister has to lay a statement before Parliament saying that the use of a flexibility clause is for an exempt purpose, in which case parliamentary approval is not required. This is where I have great difficulty. The ambit of article 352 is such that it seems that there are no exceptional circumstances in which the exemptions specified in subsection (6) should divest Parliament of the opportunity to approve. Basically, the fundamental point that I seek to make is that those provisions should be left out.

As the debate proceeds, I hope that this point will become more obvious, because other amendments will give specific instances of the manner in which the arrangements would operate. I simply wanted to indicate that I am not in favour of the exemption that the Government are giving. Under subsection (6), the exempt purposes include—some of the language is rather arcane—

“to extend a measure previously adopted under that Article to another member State or other country”.

I am extremely concerned, for many reasons that I have already touched on and hope to come back to later, where we say something will affect us as part of the EU only in certain circumstances.

My worry, which permeates much of my concern about the Bill, is about the cases in which someone might say, “Well, it affects only the eurozone, not us.” I strongly believe that in such circumstances we must be vigilant, because the eurozone does affect us and whatever we do will affect us. It seems to me that we should be vigilant and ensure that parliamentary approval is needed in circumstances where a measure has been adopted under the article and extended to another member state. I am issuing a general concern about the whole area.

Article 352 is very broad, as I think the Minister will accept. I understand that it is subject to unanimity and that in limited circumstances there would be a case for something short of an Act of Parliament, but I do not think that there are circumstances, in the cases that I have described and within the framework of those exemptions, where it is so broad that Parliament should effectively be bypassed. That is my main proposition, but there are other specific matters that colleagues will raise.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will be brief, Mr Evans. I had quite a decent speech written on these amendments, but I want to move on to the meat of the justice and home affairs matters that we will discuss shortly. With regard to clause 8, the Bill is a definite improvement on the current situation, and I am pleased that the presumption is that an Act is required. My concern is about the get-out clause, in clause 8, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just mentioned, according to which the Minister can table a statement that certain matters are exempt.

Amendment 26 is not a blanket amendment that would require everything to have an Act, as would my hon. Friend’s amendment, because I understand that some things might need a lesser level of scrutiny in this place, but I am concerned about proposals that would prolong the existing flexibility clause or extend it to another country. Those are the two areas that should be approved by an Act. I am happy to see other areas approved by resolution in each House. The example that my hon. Friend might have been searching for is that relating to balance of payments loaned to non-eurozone member states in 2002 that came through such a flexibility clause, similar to the article 122 measures that we have just seen. That is the explanation for my amendment, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for the courteous and logical way in which they have set out their views and spoken to the amendments.

Clause 8 provides for the prior parliamentary approval of a decision by the Government to support future uses of article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union through an Act of Parliament, subject to certain defined exceptions. Article 352 can be used to adopt measures in order to attain one of the EU’s objectives where the existing treaties have not provided the specific legal base on which to do so.

The measures concerned are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone acknowledged fairly, subject to the British veto, require unanimity among all member states and must remain within the confines of the EU’s objectives. Nevertheless, because of its enabling nature, the use of article 352 of TFEU has led in the past—quite understandably, I happily concede—to concerns that it can be used to facilitate competence creep. It is an article in whose use the scrutiny Committees in both Houses have taken a great interest, and I am sure that that interest will continue.

In responding to my hon. Friends, I will start by saying that the use of article 352 is now subject to much greater constraints than it was prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. In particular, it must be read in conjunction with declarations 41 and 42, annexed to that treaty. They set out four criteria that govern the application of the article. First, article 352

“cannot serve as a basis for widening the scope of Union powers beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the Treaties as a whole and, in particular, by those that define the tasks and activities of the Union”.

It is also important to make the point that a fair number of those policy areas that in the past involved the use of article 352 have now, in the Lisbon treaty, specific treaty bases of their own. That means that in future it will not be possible to bring forward measures on the basis of article 352, because an alternative, defined and specific legal base will exist.

Let me illustrate that point to the Committee. Sanctions have been the subject of article 352 measures in the past, but we now have article 215(2) of the Lisbon treaty, which deals with measures to apply sanctions against natural or legal persons and groups of non-state entities. Similarly, articles 212 and 213 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union make provision for measures of macro-economic assistance to third countries—again a policy area for which, before Lisbon, article 352 was used as the legal base.

Secondly, article 352 cannot be used as a basis for the adoption of provisions whose effect would in substance be to amend the treaties without following the procedure that they provide for that purpose. Thirdly, the article cannot be used to harmonise natural laws in cases where the treaties exclude such harmonisation. Fourthly, the article cannot be used to obtain objectives pertaining to the common foreign and security policy.

[Mr Cash]

I understand exactly what the Minister says, but I am sure he will concede that that is all without prejudice to the fact that the measure is an expansion of what is a very wide provision in itself. For example, on the point that he has just made, there is a self-amendment provision in the treaty. It is difficult in such debates to get right down to the nuts and bolts, but basically this is a problem of an expanding treaty provision that was widely construed and widely drafted in the first place.

[Mr Lidington]

Given the history of the article’s use, I do not blame my hon. Friend for being properly sceptical and inquiring about how it might be used in future, but the Lisbon treaty now sets out explicit and specific treaty bases to govern policy areas and legislative measures that were previously the subject of article 352 authority, so it rules out the article’s future use to authorise measures in those categories.

Despite the greater restrictions on the use of article 352, and although it is not a ratchet clause under the definition that the Government have tried to apply consistently, given its significance we have decided that its use should be subject to greater parliamentary control. At the moment, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, its use is subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny as any other proposal for EU legislation, and the Bill makes it clear that this Government do not believe that that is sufficient, hence the inclusion of clause 9. The provisions will apply to proposals for which article 352 forms one part of the legal base and to proposals based on article 352 exclusively.

The article has been used in the past to authorise a range of important measures: to set up EU agencies such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; to set up things such as a community civil protection mechanism; and to enable member states to work together to mitigate damage from natural or man-made disasters. They were important decisions, and they exemplify exactly the sort of legislation that will require an Act of Parliament under this Bill before the United Kingdom is able to sign up to it.

I turn, however, to the exemptions. Where legislation based on article 352 is equivalent to a previous measure, prolongs or renews an existing measure or extends a previous measure in terms of its geographical scope, we do not think it right to require an Act of Parliament in order to agree to it—if the substance of the measure is identical to a previously agreed measure. If it is not identical, the measure should none the less be subjected to parliamentary approval by Act of Parliament. Similarly, we do not judge that an Act of Parliament is an appropriate requirement if the legislation simply repeals existing measures or consolidates, without adding to, existing measures made under that article. Any proposal for legislation based on that article, even if the Government consider that it is covered by one of the exemptions, would of course remain subject to the normal arrangements for the scrutiny of EU legislation and the powers of the two scrutiny Committees.

16:30

It is worth noting that the use of article 352 for legislative proposals will now also be subject to the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. I encourage the scrutiny Committees to continue the work that they are doing on the use of yellow and orange cards, because they might wish to take advantage of such opportunities in relation to measures under article 352.

If a Minister intends to rely on any of the exemptions in the Bill, he is required by clause 8 to lay before Parliament a statement setting out his reasoning. Parliament and the public will be able to judge whether the proposal in question really does fall under an exemption, to challenge the decision of the Minister, and, in the case of Parliament, to override that decision.

The three proposed amendments to clause 8 would make substantive changes to the treatment of uses of article 352 that do not require primary legislation under the Bill. Amendment 26 would narrow the scope of the exempt purposes under which uses of the article can be agreed without primary legislation. It would remove the requirement for a Minister to make a statement to Parliament and replace it with a vote in both Houses. The consequence of the first change would be that only uses of the article that were equivalent to a previous use or that consolidated previous uses of the article, which themselves had been adopted in line with the provisions of the Bill, including through primary legislation, would be considered exempt from the primary legislation requirement. The consequence of the amendment, therefore, would be that Parliament would have to approve through primary legislation a number of uses of article 352 that it had already considered. It does not seem sensible to legislate on issues whose substance Parliament has already considered and approved.

The requirement for a positive vote in both Houses in place of a Minister’s statement would, again, place significant demands on Parliament’s time. Such proposals are already subject to the requirements of parliamentary scrutiny. If the scrutiny Committees thought it necessary, they could recommend that the question of whether such a proposal was exempt be subjected to debate. That debate would be on a motion that could be amended, so Parliament would be able to express its view of the Minister’s judgment.

Amendment 26 would also mean that both Houses would have to approve the repeal of an existing article 352 measure. Providing for a vote on the repeal of European Union legislation is not in-keeping with the overall objective of the Bill, which is to enhance public and parliamentary control over future decisions in the EU—not previous decisions that are being terminated. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry not to press the amendment.

Amendments 43 and 53 seek to remove the exempt purpose criteria from clause 8. The effect would be that primary legislation would be required for every single use of article 352. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not judge that requiring primary legislation for each and every use of the article, including the repeal, consolidation or extension of existing measures without further EU action, is proportionate or necessary. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Stone to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Cash]

I am happy to seek to withdraw the amendment in the circumstances, without prejudice to my concerns about the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 9

Approval required in connection with Title V of Part 3 of TFEU

[Mr Clappison]

I beg to move amendment 14, page 7, line 33, leave out from first ‘of’ to end of line 44 and insert

‘any existing or proposed measure under Title V of Part 3 of TFEU.’.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 27, page 7, line 33, leave out from ‘measure’ to end of line 44 and insert

‘presented to the Council pursuant to Title V of Part 3 of TFEU, apart from a notification in relation to a measure that, at the time of the notification, would if adopted extend the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations.’.

Amendment 99, page 7, leave out lines 34 to 36.

Amendment 98, page 7, leave out lines 37 to 44.

Amendment 47, page 7, line 44, at end insert—

‘(d) the provision of Article 83(2) of TFEU (harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions) that permits the establishment by directive of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area subject to harmonisation measures by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question.’.

Amendment 28, page 8, line 1, at end insert—

‘(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol that would cause the United Kingdom to participate in further provisions of the Schengen acquis, unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the draft decision.

(3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply to a decision that falls under section 6(4)(k).

(3C) In subsection (3A), “the Schengen Protocol” has the same meaning as that given in section 6(5).’.

Amendment 29, page 8, line 1, at end insert—

‘(3D) A Minister of the Crown may not permit the United Kingdom’s participation in the final adoption of a measure building upon the Schengen acquis unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention that the United Kingdom will participate in final adoption of the measure.’.

Amendment 30, page 8, line 3, leave out from ‘under’ to end of line 5 and insert

‘any of the following unless the draft decision has been approved by Act of Parliament—

(a) the provision of Article 77(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document;

(b) the provision of Article 81(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of measures concerning family law with cross-border implications through a special legislative procedure;

(c) the provision of Article 87(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of measures concerning operational co-operation between the authorities referred to in Article 87 of TFEU;

(d) the provision of Article 89 of TFEU on the operation of certain competent authorities of a member State in the territory of another member State.’.

Amendment 31, page 8, line 7, leave out from ‘measure’ to end of line 16 and insert

‘unless the notification in respect of the measure has been approved by Act of Parliament; but this provision shall not apply to a notification in relation to—

(a) a measure extending the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations;

(b) a measure adopted under Article 81(3) of TFEU (family law) that determines those aspects of family law with cross-border implications that may be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;

(c) a measure adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU (minimum rules on criminal procedure) that identifies a further specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;

(d) a measure adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU (particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension) that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.

Amendment 34, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of a measure, or to accept a measure, to which this subsection applies unless—

(a) the notification is approved by Act of Parliament; and

(b) the referendum condition is met.

(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a notification.

(9) Subsection (7) applies to a measure that includes, at the time of notification by a Minister of the Crown under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol, the extension of the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations.’.

Amendment 35, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to accept a measure to which this subsection applies unless—

(a) the notification is approved by Act of Parliament; and

(b) the referendum condition is met.

(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a notification.

(9) Subsection (7) applies to the following—

(a) a measure adopted under Article 81(3) of TFEU (family law) that determines those aspects of family law with cross-border implications that may be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;

(b) a measure adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU (minimum rules on criminal procedure) that identifies a futher specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate; and

(c) a measure adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU (particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension) that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.

Amendment 39, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(7) In addition to the approval required in accordance with subsection (1) or (4), as the case may be, a Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of a measure, or to accept a measure, to which this subsection applies unless—

(a) the previous decision by virtue of which that measure is proposed or was established has been approved by Act of Parliament; and

(b) the referendum condition in relation to that previous decision has been met.

(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a previous decision.

(9) Subsection (7) applies to a measure proposed or established under Article 82(2) or 83(1) of TFEU by virtue of either—

(a) a previous decision, in which the United Kingdom does not participate, adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU that identifies a further specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;

(b) a previous decision, in which the United Kingdom does not participate, adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.

New clause 5—Approval required in connection with Title V—

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification to which this subsection applies unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with subsection (3).

(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a notification under Article 3 of Protocol (No. 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to TEU and TFEU (the “AFSJ Protocol”) and Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of any measure proposed under Title V.

(3) Parliamentary approval is given if—

(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to give notification in respect of a specified measure, and

(b) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.

(4) Despite any Parliamentary approval given for the purposes of subsection (1), a Minister may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under a provision falling within Title V unless the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament.

(5) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to accept a measure unless the notification in respect of the measure has been approved by Act of Parliament.’.

[Mr Clappison]

We come to a new subject area, that of freedom, security and justice, which used to be known as the judicial and home affairs pillar of the EU. As the clause stands, it would require parliamentary approval for a UK decision to opt in to certain provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice. At the moment, as I am sure the Committee knows, the UK enjoys an opt-out in that area. Were a decision to be taken to opt in to one of the matters specified in clause 9, parliamentary approval would therefore be needed.

Three such matters are specified in clause 9(2). Generally, they seem to cover further developments in the field that are not specifically set out in the freedom, security and justice chapter, which is chapter 5 of the treaty of Lisbon. I should say that that is a lengthy chapter containing many matters. I think I can see the Government’s thinking, which is to cover further developments in European law and new ideas in the field of family law, criminal procedure and serious crime. I agree with that thinking, as far as it goes, because it means that opt-ins on those matters will require parliamentary approval.

It should be said straight away that that is an improvement on the current situation, in which there is no requirement for approval of any of the important matters specified in the clause. There will therefore be additional protection, if one wants to look at it that way, and there will certainly be an additional role for the House, which will be required to give its approval before the UK can opt in.

My amendment 14 would take matters further in a logical way, by making any chapter 5 opt-in subject to the same parliamentary approval that is required for the three matters specified in the Bill.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clappison]

I certainly give way to the hon. Lady, who I know has an interest in these matters.

[Ms Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for tabling the amendment. Does he share my sadness that since May 2010, the Government have opted in to eight such provisions, including on such matters as the European investigation order, a new IT agency and a new crime and immigration database that will cost €113 million to set up, without the House having had any say in the decision?

[Mr Clappison]

The hon. Lady has updated my information, which goes only as far as 30 November, by which point there had been six opt-ins. There have therefore been another two since, and they are coming along all the time. We heard evidence in the European Scrutiny Committee that 30 or 40 such opt-ins were due to take place. The EU has an ambitious programme in that regard—that is not an expression of opinion; it has admitted it. I shall deal with that later.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that some of the opt-ins are on important points, and I shall come to one or two of them that I experienced under the previous procedure. I should like to ask the Minister how many of the provisions that we have opted in to since the present Government came to power would have been covered by the procedures in clause 9. I fully accept that those procedures are an improvement on the current situation, but I should like to know how well they cover the ground.

As the hon. Lady said, some of the opt-ins have been significant. I wish to mention two in particular—they were debated a little yesterday, so I will not take the Committee over the same ground. They are the European investigation order, which received practically no scrutiny in the House and on which we had no opportunity for a vote, and the draft directive on the right to information, which was also very important. We had a little more scrutiny of it, but no real opportunity for a vote unless one was prepared to trigger a deferred Division.

Under successive Governments, the UK has been very careful and vigilant about permitting the EU to deal with the so-called area of freedom, security and justice, which is dealt with in clause 9. That goes back to pre-Maastricht days, when such matters were dealt with on the basis first of informal co-operation, and then of slightly more formal co-operation, between Home Affairs Ministers. They were not dealt with as part of the treaties or Community institutions—Home Affairs Ministers simply met to co-operate as such.

The Maastricht treaty put that on a more formal basis with what was described as the justice and home affairs pillar, which was the third pillar of the treaty. The first pillar was the old matters within the treaty—the single market, fisheries and agricultural policy, and all the rest of it—and the second was common foreign security policy.

One or two hon. Members who are in the Chamber now were in the House at the time of that treaty, and there was much debate on the justice and home affairs pillar. We were assured—I remember being given a solemn assurance by an authoritative figure in the Government of the time—that the treaty settled the problem as far as justice and home affairs were concerned, that we need not worry about home affairs coming within the purview of the Community method and Community institutions, and that they were being kept separate. The same applied to the common foreign security policy. The implication was that the pillars in the treaty would stand for ever, and that they were all the protection and assurance we needed. I am reluctant to say this but I have heard similar claims in respect of many other so-called safeguards since then, including in the course of this debate.

[Mr Cash]

Does the word “lie” crop up in that context?

[Mr Clappison]

I am afraid that I was credulous. We were perhaps willing to believe and wanted to believe what we were told. We knew that it was right for the UK not to come within such matters in the EU so that we did not gradually integrate into a superstate or a federal united states of Europe. Many are still worried about that and we wanted to avoid it, and we thought the pillars were the answer.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

One additional safeguard that was introduced in the Lisbon treaty is emergency brake clauses, which can be initiated within six months. They need not even be initiated by the Executive; a national Parliament can do so. What is to prevent the European Scrutiny Committee from doing what it says on the can, scrutinising those things, and initiating a debate and the process that might engage the emergency brake clauses? They are a fundamental check and balance.

[Mr Clappison]

My humble amendment 14 proposes only that the House should have a vote on such matters. The hon. Gentleman implied yesterday that he agreed with that. I will turn in more detail to my amendment in a moment, but to dispose of his point, I have been told so many times in the House when we have made a concession to the EU, or agreed to further integration, the granting of competence or additional powers, or changes in its institutional arrangements, “Don’t worry. We are putting safeguards in place.” At the time of Maastricht, that meant the pillar structure. We were then told about subsidiarity, and we now have orange and yellow cards and emergency brakes, but no one has come anywhere near using those devices. We have had subsidiarity for 18 years, and the only time that it was used that I have been told about is in respect of the zoo directive.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I remember being told in the early 1990s that enlargement would have a decentralising effect on the EU, and that the increase in the number of net payers to the EU budget would create downward pressure on it. The history of our relationship with the EU is littered with complacent and wishful ministerial assertions on what will happen as a result of Government actions and agreements in the EU. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

16:44

[Mr Clappison]

Notwithstanding all the assurances, such as the ones that we just heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), about the safeguards that are in place and despite all that we have been told over the years, under the treaty of Lisbon judicial and home affairs were planted fairly and squarely in the Community institutions and method, under what was the old first pillar, and subject to the ECJ and all the other EU institutions.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the European Scrutiny Committee, so may I say that the investigative order is still subject to scrutiny? He may be assured that we will follow every step, but we have no confidence in that part of the coalition that voted for all these arrangements under the Lisbon treaty—by that, I do not mean the Scrutiny Committee because I am talking about myself.

[Mr Clappison]

To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheltenham, he has an honourable and consistent approach to these matters which has a lot of appeal in the country. He is in favour of a more integrated Europe and of expanding the competences of the EU in co-operation with Europe. That is an honourable point of view to take. I take a slightly different view, but I respect him for his views. However, I would point out to him that of all the safeguards that have been mentioned, the one that seems to have been most satisfactory—it is possibly the only one—is the opt-out. When one surveys the history of this country’s participation in the EU, the areas in which people take most satisfaction are those from which we opted out, foremost among which is the single European currency. Some people say that that was one of the greatest achievements of our European policy. All the things that we have gone along with are the subject of great dissatisfaction.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I apologise for missing the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I agree with what he says about opt-outs. Would it not be to the advantage of the British people if we could also opt out of, for example, the common fisheries policy?

[Mr Clappison]

My constituency does not have a fishing port, but my understanding is that there are no demonstrations in favour of the CFP in fishing ports.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I confirm that people in Edgbaston also do not talk much about fishing policy.

The reason why the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is so important is that it goes to the heart of the contradiction. We are told that the EU is a political construct in which the Union has only those powers that member states have decided to give it, but when we raise questions we are told that there are safeguards, which actually shows that that is not quite how it works. Proportionality and subsidiarity have not worked—only the opt-out contains the powers, and that is why it is so important.

[Mr Clappison]

That is why the opt-out is so very important, and that point brings me to the subject of this amendment.

[Mr David]

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) made an indirect reference to the opt-in by the Government on the European investigation order. The Government provided the reason—some might that think that it was an excuse—but it could not be scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee here or in the other place because of the general election. If the political will had been there, would it not have been possible to have at least informal consultation with leading members of the outgoing Committee, so that the Government had an indication of informed Back-Bench opinion on the issue?

[Mr Clappison]

During the period that the hon. Gentleman’s party was in office, we tried informal consultations, formal consultations and many other forms of consultation, and we did not get very far. To be fair to Ministers, this clause is a step forward and improves on the position that they inherited. I am trying to go just a little further than that, because this is such an important issue. I seem to remember that we were told that the opt-out on justice, freedom and security was one of the differences between the defunct constitutional treaty and the treaty of Lisbon—that the UK had an opt-out. That was given as one reason why we did not require a referendum.

I also seem to recollect—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that justice and home affairs were described as one of the then Government’s “red lines” when they were negotiating the treaty of Lisbon. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that he was not prepared to cross those red lines. The opt-out was one of those red lines, so if the present Government opt in to those areas, we will have crossed those red lines. That illustrates how important the issue is. However, I give credit to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, because they are taking it very seriously indeed. They have made a lot of progress, but we are not talking about something over which, like it or not, the European Union has competence, because it does not. That is the important point.

We have opted out. We can sit back. We do not need to do anything as far as those matters are concerned. We are not in a position, which we would be in if we had not opted out—that is, if we had ordinary membership and were involved in ordinary participation—where we could be outvoted on qualified majority voting; nor, if something was subject to unanimity, would we face being in the possibly invidious position of being the only ones objecting to it, thereby holding up all the other members and preventing them from doing something that they wanted to do. Those considerations do not arise. We have opted out of those matters, and there is no pressure on us to opt in to them. Opting in would be a voluntary decision on our part, and would mean choosing to submit ourselves to the institutions of the European Union—the Community method and the jurisdiction of the European Court—and to abnegate self-government for this country on those matters.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make a bit of progress.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. He is extolling the virtue of opt-outs, as opposed to using emergency brake clauses, which are designed to provide a safeguard against the opt-in procedure. However, to put the boot on the other foot, has he or any of his hon. Friends ever attempted to initiate any of the brake clauses, which, as I have said, is in the hands of national Parliaments, not Governments? If not, what is his real complaint?

[Mr Clappison]

Why should we want to opt in to something and then apply the emergency brake? I do not understand the thinking on that. If we opted in, that would presumably be because we saw some virtue in doing so and would not want immediately to put our foot on the brake. However, the hon. Gentleman has an honourable position on this issue. I have a completely different view: I want our criminal and civil law to be made in this country, I want the people of this country to exercise self-government over themselves, and I want them to be able to change Governments by exercising their votes. They would not be able to do any of that if we had opted in, because then we would be submitting ourselves voluntarily to European government, as opposed to democratic self-government in this country. There is therefore a fundamental difference between us.

It is significant if we decide to opt in because once we have done so, we could become subject to amendments on the same matters. Although we would have an opt-in on those as well, we would none the less be under a great deal of pressure, facing the prospect of financial penalties, were we not to opt in to any proposals that came along. We took a lot of evidence in the European Scrutiny Committee on that issue from the former Foreign Secretary, particularly about the unsatisfactory arrangements that were made for new opt-ins, as well as the existing opt-ins to the former judicial and home affairs pillar, where we face financial penalties. One cannot be said to be exercising a free choice if one faces a financial penalty for not going along with something.

More importantly, we are also submitting ourselves to the European Court of Justice. In debates on previous groups of amendments we heard some good examples of what can happen with competence creep under the old article 308. However, competence creep can also come about, as it has done, through the European Court of Justice exercising its jurisdiction. We are voluntarily submitting ourselves to that jurisdiction, and that does not apply only to cross-border matters, which is the pretence. Rather, we are submitting to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in every element of criminal law and civil law, and in all our courts across the country, if we opt in to matters that govern those elements.

We sometimes complain about the lack of transparency in EU decision making, but to be fair to the European Union there is no lack of transparency about its ambitions. I believe that one of its ambitions is to build an area of freedom, security and justice; I disagree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham on that. In President Barroso’s state of the Union address last autumn—he has one as well as President Obama now—he said that it was the European Union’s third top priority to build such an area. That is also in the treaty of Lisbon. We can expect to see many proposals on European contract law and many other issues in the coming year or so, and we shall have to decide whether to opt in to them or not. The proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others have put in place would be of great assistance when those matters come before the House for consideration.

I commend the interest and commitment of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on this issue. They have recognised that it is a problem, and set out to deal with it in a much better way than it has ever been dealt with before. We now have clause 9. In addition, a written ministerial statement was made last week. It did not go quite as far as I would have wished, but I have a lot of wishes in that regard. It represented a significant improvement, however, and we have been promised a substantive vote when there is interest in these substantial matters in the House, to enable hon. Members to express their approval. There is still a question of who decides which matters are of great interest, but this is at least a step forward.

I hope that time will be found and that we will have those votes, because it is very much in the interest of the Government and the House that they take place. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to exercise the legislative override but to permit a full debate on these matters on a substantive motion, preferably on the Floor of the House, with a vote at the end of it. They have promised to discuss these matters with the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—I know that he stands ready to help in those discussions—and to facilitate debates and votes taking place in the House.

I am sure that constructive discussions will take place on how this can be arranged, and on how we can improve our scrutiny of these matters. I know that Ministers take their responsibilities very seriously, and I hope that they will take from this the message that, while we regard all scrutiny as important, it is particularly important in regard to the opt-ins that would bring us within the purview of European Union institutions for the first time. It is especially important that we should have debates and votes on them, and that Ministers should listen to the messages that they receive. They should consult members of the European Scrutiny Committee and listen to what they are told, and we should proceed on that basis.

I would prefer us not to opt in to any of these things. I would prefer us to exercise the opt-out, but we are where we are. If we are going to have the possibility of opt-ins, it is preferable that we have a proper debate and a proper vote on the Floor of the House of Commons, rather than some of the procedures that we have gone through in the past which, despite the diligence and hard work of the European Scrutiny Committee, did not really amount to what our constituents would regard as proper scrutiny, because of the restrictions involved.

I am relying on my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to make good their words, as I am sure that they will wish to do, about further improvements to the parliamentary scrutiny of these matters. I shall not press my amendment to a vote, but I look forward to discussions taking place so that we can build on the improved system that is being put in place to create a much better system of parliamentary scrutiny.

17:00

[Mr David]

I would like to say a few additional words about clause 9, which follows on directly from what has been said. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but I hope that the Minister will respond to the points I raised earlier about the clause. Unfortunately, he simply dismissed my earlier question about the advocates-general. We are in Committee and we have every right to expect proper and considered responses from the Minister.

As the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said, this is an important issue. It has in the past been a red line in the negotiations, and the opt-ins that are possible in the not-too-distant future should at the very least be subject to proper debate and parliamentary scrutiny. That is absolutely correct. What I am concerned about, to return to a point I made earlier, is the apparent illogicality of the Bill. If, by common agreement, this is an important area, surely there should be careful consideration of whether or not there should be a referendum on this subject.

I am not arguing the case for having referendums generally—as I said in the debate a couple of days ago, there are profound conceptual problems in having a multiplicity of referendums—but I believe this is an important issue. If the Government claim to be producing a piece of legislation that is logical, coherent and systematic, I would like to know their argument for not having a referendum on these opt-ins.

Stemming from that, the Minister has made it abundantly clear—he made it very clear last night—that the Government will not contemplate holding a referendum until 2015 at the earliest, but the issue of these JHA—justice and home affairs—opt-ins will come to the fore in the next few years. It is therefore important to have a proper response from the Government, so the Minister should at the very least attempt to justify his position.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

Order. I remind the Committee that there will be no separate clause 9 stand part debate. If anyone wishes to make any comments relevant to that, now is the time to do so.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I shall speak mainly to the amendments I have tabled, talk about the general opt-ins and ask a couple of questions about the written ministerial statement that was issued last Thursday, particularly on how aspects of it might work in the future. I always have questions about the who and when of decision taking.

My amendment 27 deals with something that is missing from the Bill—the body known as Eurojust. Eurojust is not the European public prosecutor, but it represents a massive step towards a European public prosecutor. Under article 85 of TFEU, its remit falls under ordinary legislative procedure, so a proposal comes from the Commission, qualified majority voting applies in the Council and co-decision applies within the European Parliament. It already has a huge amount of power—or it will have, when it is set up.

In April 2010, the European Commission published a document delivering

“an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens”,

which was an action plan implementing the Stockholm programme. The Stockholm programme is the five-year European Union plan for justice and home affairs measures, which was adopted by the European Council in December 2009. On page 18 of the document, the European Commission states that in 2012, it will make a proposal for an EU regulation

“giving Eurojust powers to directly initiate investigations.”

Even if the current Government do not opt into the proposal, there is nothing in the Bill to require them to seek Parliament’s or the people’s approval to opt in once the regulation is adopted, allowing Eurojust to initiate investigations in the UK, for example. This is a massive step towards the European public prosecutor. I hope the Minister will reassure me that he will address that point at some stage, if not today.

It may be useful if I provide some examples of significant justice and home affairs matters that the last Government opted into. I could have picked any issue in that category, but I chose the issue of asylum because I know that it always gets the blood flowing.

Among other things, directive 2004/83-EC

“on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted”

sets out the rights enjoyed by those who have been granted refugee status. Some of them go beyond the rights approved for the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees, such as those relating to access to the employment market and social security.

Directive 2003/9/EC,

“laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers”,

includes provisions on the rights of asylum seekers to access the jobs market in certain circumstances, and on the accommodation that must be offered to them. Directive 2005/85/EC

“on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for the granting and withdrawing of refugee status”

lays down various restrictions and requirements regarding the procedures that member states can follow in processing asylum claims and withdrawing refugee status. They include specific requirements for the possibility of legal challenge by asylum seekers to various decisions taken as part of the process.

Those pieces of legislation were part of the first wave of the construction of the common European asylum system that was first called for in the Tampere European Council of October 1999. The Commission has been pressing on with further legislation to build that common system since then, and over the past two years it has presented three proposals for directives to replace those that I have cited. The general thrust of the proposals is a desire to further “harmonise” asylum policy and processes across the EU and, as a consequence, to limit national discretion yet further. As it happens, the last Government decided not to opt into those later proposals; but what would happen if this Government, or a future Government, chose to opt into them? It is realistic to assume that, under the Bill, Parliament would have no legal control.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that the Bill constitutes a step forward in one respect, and I congratulate the Minister on advancing so far. The written ministerial statement on justice and home affairs scrutiny laid before the House last Thursday contains a great deal of common sense, but I think that there is a need for further discussion of the consequences that will flow from it with the European Scrutiny Committee and other interested parliamentarians. Let me quote the key passage. It states that

“in circumstances where there is particularly strong parliamentary interest in the Government's decision on whether or not to opt in to such a measure, the Government express their willingness to set aside Government time for a debate in both Houses on the basis of a motion on the Government's recommended approach on the opt-in. The precise details of these arrangements to allow such debates and the circumstances in which Government time would be set aside will be the subject of further consultation with the European Scrutiny Committees, business managers”

—otherwise known as the wonderful Whips who are so kind and gentle to us all in this place—

“and the Commons and Lords Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees. These discussions will also need to determine how arrangements would operate during periods of parliamentary recess and dissolution of Parliament.”

That is all pretty good.

“However, the Government believe that as a general rule, it would be appropriate to do so in circumstances where they propose to opt in to a measure which would have a substantial impact on the United Kingdom's criminal or civil law, our national security, civil liberties or immigration policy. The Government will also put in place analogous arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of decisions to opt-out of measures under the Schengen protocol.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]

The written ministerial statement raises a number of questions. I shall talk about a couple of them now, but I would like to think that discussions can be ongoing and we can flesh out the detail. What would constitute “particularly strong parliamentary interest”? How, therefore, is a debate in Government time triggered? Would it be triggered by a referral by the European Scrutiny Committee? That could be complemented by an additional right whereby a certain number of MPs could trigger such a debate. Does the commitment to a debate and vote cover the opt-in to a justice and home affairs law already adopted by the other member states? The written ministerial statement seemed to indicate otherwise. Similarly, does the commitment cover the opt-in to new aspects of the existing Schengen acquis, such as common visa rules, where this opt-in is not covered by clause 6 of the Bill? Would it cover the opt-in to a pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice law that has ceased to apply to the UK because it exercised the bloc opt-out before June 2014? If it does cover that, how would Parliament be made aware that such an opt-in was being considered by the Government, given that this could happen at any time?

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me if I say something that is incorrect, because I have not had sight of that written ministerial statement. We know that whenever we negotiate an opt-out in Brussels we spend political capital so, by definition, anything that we negotiate to opt out of is significant and an opt-in is a significant step. So any opt-in ought to be debated in Parliament and subject to a substantive vote because it must have been so important that we expended political capital securing it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I tend to agree with the hon. Lady. When she reads the written ministerial statement, she will see that it represents a huge step forward in our scrutiny of these things in this place and she may see what measures the Government might want to opt into. I wished to raise this question of the opt-in now, because I think that the Bill is a step forward, as is this clause.

[Martin Horwood]

I was interested by the intervention made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She has great knowledge of European matters, but she may be wrong about this. Not everything that we are talking about opting into based on these passerelles has been positively opted out of before. We are talking about new ways of working within the competences already set out in those passerelles.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is possibly the case. I do not wish to give a definite answer, because I am not the expert on this matter and I was just raising it for the Committee in general debate. I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman describes is the case, but I would hate to say that he is wrong because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, although we might have different views, the factual statements that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has made have invariably been correct.

[Mr Clappison]

The opt-in arrangements are found in the “Protocol on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice”. This is in the Lisbon treaty itself and as far as those matters are concerned we have to opt in.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am looking forward to the Minister clarifying that for us all. I was discussing the questions about the written ministerial statement where we need things fleshed out. This Government commitment does not require the Government to come before Parliament to get approval for each of their decisions to opt in, which is what the amendments would entail. Although the current Government might give this commitment, it may not apply in the future, whereas a requirement in statute, rather than something in a written ministerial statement, would be expected to withstand the passage of time much better. There are a number of omissions from the written ministerial statement. It does not deal with the timing of the process and whether new proposals are acted on in a different way, and the arrangements for opting into things that have already been adopted by our EU partners causes me concern, because I am not sure whether this process catches that.

Those are all matters of conjecture and question, and they are ways in which we can altogether improve the scrutiny of justice and home affairs opt-ins in the future. I see the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) nodding his head in agreement and I believe there is massive cross-party and cross-Parliament interest in getting this process right for the future. I do not see the issue as politically contentious.

I note the massive steps forward that have been made with this Bill and in the written ministerial statement, so I shall not press my amendments to a vote either. I thank the Minister for coming so far so fast and look forward to working with him on this matter in the future.

17:15

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Evans, for calling me to speak in this debate on clause 9, which is one of the Bill’s key provisions. The treatment of justice and home affairs merits close scrutiny in the Bill. The EU is increasingly seeking to broaden and deepen its authority in this important area. We need only to consider the inception of the Stockholm programme, to which the previous Government signed up, on policing, justice, asylum and borders. It is also illustrated—if further illustration were needed—by the 13% budget increase for this policy area in this year’s EU budget, which is higher than that for any other area. That is a sign of the ambition in Brussels to move bit by bit towards a pan-European legal system, at odds with our distinct history and tradition of justice reflected in the common law, our safeguards for personal freedom and our adversarial court system.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend has touched on a matter of great importance. I welcome the safeguards. It seems to me that justice in other countries is very different from justice in ours, principally on the basis of mutual recognition that many things are the same. It concerns me that we must keep as divorced as possible from the system in France, for example. Even a former French Justice Minister said, “The assumption here is that one is innocent until one is proven guilty, but in reality, with our magistrates courts, it is the other way around.” That will be difficult to reconcile and we must have very strong safeguards.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree entirely with him. We can already see an example of that in the European arrest warrant. We have jumped in and we are now reviewing its domestic implementation and the potential for the international instrument. The presumption of innocence is just one area, as my hon. Friend has suggested, where we have a fundamental difference of legal cultures. I do not think that either party should show that any disrespect.

Brussels certainly has ambitions in that area and with those ambitions in mind I want to point out that there are disappointingly few decisions on JHA policy in the Bill for which, although there is no referendum requirement, parliamentary approval is required before the Government take a decision to opt in. For example, as I understand it the decision to opt into the European investigation order would not have required Parliament’s approval under the Bill despite its ramifications for operational policing and the lack of safeguards for innocent British citizens. Immigration and asylum policy is also left out despite the fact that the EU is currently proposing far-reaching changes in that very important area.

I would be the first to accept that the British people cannot have a referendum on every item of JHA policy, but why cannot their elected representatives have a say on every opt-in to ensure proper democratic scrutiny? I am very encouraged by the Minister’s written statement, which I have looked at closely and which effectively endorsed the principle of a parliamentary vote on JHA opt-ins. That is an important step forward and, as other Members have made clear, it is extremely welcome. As the statement made clear, such a provision would depend first on the discretion of the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chair to call a debate and table a motion. That is fine with the current Committee and Chair, but—if we can possibly imagine this—if it were one day to have a less meticulous Chair or more integrationist members, that check might be diluted. Secondly, the provision would depend on the discretion of Ministers about whether to make Government time available.

It would strengthen the Bill considerably if the arrangements to which the Minister agrees in principle could be spelt out in practice in legislation. I know many Members would welcome such a step.

There is an even more important issue to consider than the individual opt-ins. Britain has to decide by June 2014 whether to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction over police and justice measures that predate the Lisbon treaty or, alternatively, to opt out altogether. After that date, the full body of pre-Lisbon legislation will come under the control of the Luxembourg Court, so this decision has enormous constitutional implications for our criminal justice system. It represents a unique opportunity for this country either to regain control of our justice agenda or, if we so decide—let us not rule out this option—fully to embrace a pan-European model. I am clear in my own mind that we should preserve our distinct justice system which is famous the world over. It guarantees our personal freedoms and defines the British sense of fair play.

Beyond the technical niceties of the Bill, something bigger is at stake—from habeas corpus to the presumption of innocence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned, or to free speech, which is poorly protected in France and seems to be disappearing in Hungary but is still cherished in Britain. These abstract legal concepts define our citizenship, our identity, our culture and ultimately our way of life. I respect the fact that others may disagree on this; some may wish to argue the merits of the Napoleonic legacy or the pros and cons of the continental civil law tradition, while others may claim that a pan-European amalgam might just get the best of both worlds. That is fair enough, and those are perfectly respectable positions, but what is not acceptable is for that kind of decision on a matter of that kind of magnitude to be quietly nodded through without the formal debate and approval of the House. I welcome the policy commitment in last week’s written ministerial statement, but we need a commitment that the decision to opt in en bloc will be subject to parliamentary approval and not just a debate, and it would be relatively easy to do that in the Bill.

To conclude, I support the aims of the Bill and much of its content. It has the potential, at least, to transform the country’s relationship with Europe and to restore some transparency and legitimacy to the much-shrouded decision making in Brussels.

[Mr Jenkin]

In the next group of amendments we will discuss this same topic in relation to a possible Act of Parliament or referendum. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it would be inconceivable that a Government could implement such a dramatic change to our legal system and our legal culture without a substantial Act, or several Acts, of Parliament? Is a resolution of the House enough to govern this Executive act—this stroke of the pen—by a Minister at a meeting of the Council of Ministers?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; his point is well made. Obviously, if we decided to opt in, legislation would be inevitable, but the question is whether or not we should opt in. That principle should be subject not only to legislative scrutiny but to a debate and a vote.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, I want to support very strongly what he has been saying. An important factor of the British legal system is the fact that it has been imitated throughout the Commonwealth. Many Commonwealth countries have legal systems based on ours, and if we abandoned our legal system in favour of a completely different system—a continental European system—that would break an important link with the Commonwealth that we should preserve.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I agree. Indeed, senior members of the judiciary have said the same thing. The Lord Chief Justice recently gave a very informative speech saying that Britain no longer seems to be the champion of the common law. The ever-increasing move towards European integration in this area undermines that. Any proposed opt-in to justice and home affairs legislation, which goes to the very heart of our laws, liberties and way of life, must first be subject to proper oversight by and the approval of the House.

[Mr Cash]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on their speeches.

After 26 years of scrutinising treaties of one kind or another, sometimes tabling as many as 120 or 140 amendments, debating them in detail and listening to the arguments put forward by Government spokesmen, who say, first, for example, that we have reached the high water mark, and then that the measure is not what some people fear, perhaps it is inevitable that I have developed a certain resistance to the assumption that what we hear from the Front Bench will necessarily occur—I hope that is a nice way of putting it—and that I have become if not cynical, which would be an unfair word, at least uncertain about the consequences that subsequent events may produce.

In other words, we do not get what it says on the tin, or necessarily what we are told we are likely to get. I am very sceptical, not just Eurosceptic. I question not the honesty of individuals, but the accuracy of their predictions. I therefore believe that this set of measures, as has been amply described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and others in this debate, is hugely important, although not more important than any of the other provisions that are part of a continual stream of acquiescence in European integration.

Where the provisions speak of not allowing measures to go through by way of opt-in, by imposing the requirement for some kind of parliamentary approval, I am well aware that we table amendments, we argue the case, we have a European scrutiny process, we go through it in detail, it has been universally applauded by Ministers and people throughout the land—

[Mr Jenkin]

Except the BBC.

[Mr Cash]

Except the BBC, as my hon. Friend says, because it has not given any attention to the legislation.

The process has received a great deal of enthusiastic support, except when it comes to the votes. For all the flattering remarks made periodically about the members of the Committee and dedication and determination that they have applied, nothing happens. We do not get any of our amendments through and the Chamber is virtually empty. There is one assiduous Member on the Opposition Back Benches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She has the seat which, I think, used to be Birmingham, Central in the 1880s. She was not around at the time, but she is carrying forward a fine tradition of ensuring proper scrutiny. Her predecessors in that seat were assiduous in ensuring that the interests of the people of Birmingham were well looked after. I pay tribute to her not only for the fact that she is here today on her own on the Opposition Back Benches, but that she is taking an active part.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I have no idea who held the seat in the 19th century, but I am encouraged, on matters European, that someone born near Munich now has Neville Chamberlain’s old seat.

[Mr Cash]

That is an interesting insight. However, I shall not follow the hon. Lady down that route as it would take me into area in which I have a great deal of interest. The hon. Lady tempts me, but she will not succeed on this occasion.

I return to my concerns. I do not mean this as personal criticism of the Whips. They have a job to do. They are told what to do. It is part of a policy, and the question is whether we want this set of provisions on family law, criminal procedure, serious crime with cross-border dimensions and so on to be implemented at all. The problem we have relates to a decision whether to opt in. We should not be contemplating it. That is the problem. With great respect to my hon. Friends, I am not criticising; I am simply making a point.

17:30

I am concerned that we might congratulate the Government a little too much on their restraint in giving approval by way of Act of Parliament or some motion, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, really amounts to no more than a resolution. After getting past what I call the pas de deux of the opt-in, we then move downstream into the question of whether the Whips would allow the vote to go the wrong way. We have already had the example of the opt-in for the investigative order. We know from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that there are 40 such opt-ins on the way. This is the Europeanisation of our criminal system—

[Mr Clappison]

And civil system.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, and civil. Let us not get carried away by a few bits of paper and a few words in a Bill. They say that there will be restraint by way of approvals given by the House, but we know the realities. In relation to the opt-in on the investigative order—I think it was on 15 June, shortly after the general election—it can fairly be said that the Minister believed that she had to make that decision because, I think I am right in saying, there was a three-month period within which the decision had to be made. Perhaps there was some justification for the fact that she had to make the decision, but why did she make the decision to opt in? Why did she not make the decision not to opt in? That is my concern.

I plead with hon. Members not to be taken in by the effusions of reservation that emerge in letters, statements and the Bill. Right at the heart of this is the real question of whether we will end up with more Europeanisation of these matters, and the answer, emphatically, is yes.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the findings of the German federal constitutional court, which protects these matters for that country. In one judgment it said:

“Securing legal peace by the administration of criminal law has always been a central duty of state authority…To what extent and in what areas a polity uses exactly the means of criminal law as an instrument of social control is a fundamental decision. By criminal law, a legal community gives itself a code of conduct that is anchored in its values, whose violation is, according to the shared convictions on law, regarded as so grievous and unacceptable for social existence in the community that it requires punishment.”

It is desperately trying to protects its laws as well.

[Mr Cash]

I am so glad to hear that. I was not precisely aware of that part of the judgment, but my hon. Friend has made an important and helpful comment. The argument is right, and it is by dint of the most awful experience in Germany that it has come to these conclusions over an extended period since 1945. It is vigilant about these matters because it does not want ever again to find itself in circumstances, by virtue of a lack of democracy, when Hitler ran Germany. I have an absolute belief in the democratic instincts and principles of the British people, which have been born out of fighting not only that very Germany, but previous wars, right the way back to at least the 17th century. We have built up a democratic system in which we decide what the legislation should be, and we give it careful consideration. We need some parliamentary reform. We are being given the impression that in relation to these matters we will be able to retain our criminal system, but unfortunately, because of the Whip system and the whole direction of Europeanisation, that will be removed by what will happen in practice. As helpful as all these procedures are in indicating the direction in which they might like to go in certain circumstances, I fear that we will have many opt-ins and that, in practice, the proposed procedures will be applied and the Whips will ensure that the measures go through.

I will give the European investigation order as an example. It is still subject to European scrutiny and there will be a debate on it—I cannot remember when—despite the fact that it was decided on 15 June last year. That is because the European Scrutiny Committee had not been set up by that time, but the rules still applied to that order. There will be a debate on that matter, but when it is debated, which in effect is the same kind of thing that the Minister refers to about parliamentary approval, up to a point, there will no doubt be a take-note motion—I cannot remember the precise motion— before the European Committee. The reality is that not once in the 26 years I have watched these matters has a decision of a European Committee not to take note, following a vote that went against a Minister, not been reversed on the Floor of the House by the use of the Whips. Why should I be confident that—

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend has made some powerful points that are entirely borne out by my much lesser experience of the European scrutiny system. In the case of the European right to information order, which is another opt-in, the most we can do is vote against it in the relevant European Committee so that it comes back for a vote on the Floor of the House, but that is merely a deferred Division on whether to take note of the document. We do not have the opportunity to say no to the opt-in. Is that his experience? We must have that option in the future if the Minister is to make good the promise, made in the statement of 20 January, that we will have the opportunity in a vote on the Floor of the House to say no to an opt-in.

[Mr Cash]

That is such a good example. In fact, I was in that debate with my hon. Friend—I was unable to vote in the Committee but took part in the proceedings. The reality is that that is how the system works in practice. This debate is about criminal law, but it is the same for everything else in the Bill. All the treaties, including all the laws, the entire encyclopaedia, all the work that is done in all the Departments and cross-departmental work—the whole country—are being run by a process of continuous European integration. The question is whether it is good for us or not. It is as simple as that, and that is a matter for us to judge.

However, because of the way policy is made, and with the help of the coalition, we are told that the Government think it is good for us. I do not agree, and I think that there are many other Members, and certainly many more people outside, who agree with what I have just said. Although the debates have been conducted with great courtesy and a great deal of substance on both sides of the argument, the real question is about what has happened. The short answer is that the Bill will go through and that we will put up a fight again in another motion under the arrangements proposed in clause 9, but in practice the process I have described will continue to happen.

[Ms Stuart]

At the risk of being accused of encouraging the hon. Gentleman, I must say that when Ministers are terribly courteous it is usually an indication that we are not getting anywhere. The first rule of politics is that until they are rude, we are not getting anywhere. The real problem is that the UK Permanent Representative to the EU is politically unaccountable. My ultimate plea is to have the UKRep stand here once a week, as the Deputy Prime Minister does, and be politically accountable for the negotiations and deals that are done at Brussels. Until we have that, all this is—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. The hon. Lady’s comments are going much wider than the amendments currently before us. I believe that there is sufficient meat in the amendments.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful for that, Mr Evans, because otherwise the hon. Lady might have tempted me yet again. She knows my soft point, and she knows very well that it would not take me long to get going on that issue, either. But, she is right.

I have tabled a number of amendments, but I do not intend to press them to a vote, because we have had a thoroughly good debate, and I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, think that further consultation between the Minister, his officials, the European Scrutiny Committee and our Clerks might help to ensure that we get the maximum out of the provisions, even if they do not really measure up.

In any case, we know what happens in our votes; we have watched them now for about a week. On one occasion, we reached 45 genuine—as I call them— abstentions. By the way, Mr Evans, your name appeared on one list, but I said, “No, he’s Chairman of Ways and Means; this is not somebody you can count in.” Anyway, on parliamentary sovereignty we had between 45 and 50 such abstentions, which is quite a lot, but it is not anything like as many as the number of Members who rather agree with us in the broadest sense. I shall not go down that route, but what happens in votes is not very edifying. We do not win votes, because people are being told to vote in a way that is inconsistent with what they think, and that is another democratic problem.

Amendments 99 and 98 are mischievous, simply because they were tabled only to demonstrate my concern, which I have just raised, that opt-ins should not be allowed under any circumstances. On amendment 47, however, regarding the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, for Hertsmere and for Daventry are right. I am reluctant to adopt a default position, but for the purposes of debate I want to get out into the open something that concerns me, because the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, on which I dare say books could be written, ought to be as restricted as possible.

Article 83(2) of TFEU, as I state in amendment 47,

“permits the establishment by directive of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area subject to harmonisation measures by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question.”

In a nutshell, I should like that to be one of those measures—from the written statement to which the Minister has referred—that ought to be discussed properly.

Let us think about what the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions affects and what its consequences are for the people whom we are elected to represent. If I cannot win the vote on my desire to throw out the whole measure, my minimum default position, however cynical and unhappy I am about opt-ins anyway, is to attempt to include it in the arrangements that the Government have provided.

Those are my thoughts on this group of amendments and on my amendments. If I sound a little concerned about them, I hope that Members will understand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, I see the provision under discussion as an enormous step. I am not sure that it is beneficial, because it assumes that there will be opt-ins. There are 30 or 40 of them, and there have already been eight in the past few months. The trend exists, and I do not see anything holding back the tsunami. Indeed, I see the tsunami being built up, and that is not in the interests of the democratic principles by which this House is elected.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is much concerned about Members from all parts of the House being under the control of the Whips. For my part, I would like to say how much I agree with—

[Nick de Bois]

With the Whips.

[Charlie Elphicke]

With the Prime Minister. In particular, I agree with his speech on 4 November 2009, in which he said:

“We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges. We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”

I would like to put on the record how much I agree with that position, and how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Why are we discussing further opt-ins in this Committee, when we should be considering how to recapture a sense of control and our national way of life in relation to the criminal justice system?

17:45

I am particularly concerned that in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister said that there is a strict time limit of three months for our opt-in, and that that is what the protocol states. The written statement says:

“As currently, the Government will not override the scrutiny process unless an earlier opt-in decision is essential.”

Presumably that relates to the three months. The statement goes on:

“Where the Government consider an early opt-in to be necessary, it will explain its reasons to Parliament through the statement set out above. In these circumstances, it would usually be appropriate for the statement to be made orally.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]

That suggests that the statement could be a written statement. I am concerned, as are my constituents, about further Europeanisation of border control under things like the Schengen agreement. Yes, that is subject to a referendum, but my constituents specifically do not want to see further integration through Schengen and in the criminal justice system. I feel passionate about this matter.

I press the Minister to say in his response whether the three-month position is correct. I have taken the time to read the protocol. It is true that article 3 of the protocol states:

“The United Kingdom or Ireland may notify the President of the Council in writing, within three months after a proposal or initiative has been presented to the Council pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application”.

However, I am troubled by one thing, which I hope the Minister will clarify. Article 4 states:

“The United Kingdom or Ireland may at any time after the adoption of a measure by the Council pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission that it wishes to accept that measure.”

I would like the Minister to clarify why there is such a crashing hurry on this matter, and whether there really has to be a crashing hurry. Is it because there has to be negotiation in Europe, or for some other reason?

I hope that the Government will give further consideration to tightening up the statement and to introducing measures on Report that would give further confidence that the House will have a say on these most sensitive of issues—the criminal justice system and the control of our borders. This is one of the most central concerns of my constituents. I hope that Ministers will ensure that we will have proper scrutiny of any such measures.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and in particular to my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) for their explanations of the contents of and the motives behind the amendments, and for their offer not to press them to the vote.

I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that I will hold back my innate wish to be aggressive to the point of rudeness towards her, and that I am happy to find an occasion to discuss with her and interested Opposition Members the content of last Thursday’s written ministerial statement and how we can take matters forward. It will be better for the reputation of the House, of governance in this country and of how we as a Government and a Parliament handle justice and home affairs coming from the EU if there is the maximum possible agreement across the political parties on a structure that we hope will then endure.

Before I move on to the amendments, I should like to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made that are more appropriate to a stand part debate. I turn first to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). I will not go on at him incessantly about this, but I found it strange that in a debate on so many amendments, covering such a wide range of justice and home affairs issues, he focused almost entirely on the contents of the next group of amendments that we are due to debate and on the parliamentary lock that would be imposed on the number of advocates-general. I shall try to satisfy him on that point.

We have included in schedule 1 any move to change the basis of decision making under article 19(2) of the treaty on European union from unanimity to qualified majority voting, so that it would be caught by the referendum lock. That article guarantees that there will be one judge from each member state in both the general court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is important that we ensure that we continue to have a veto, so that we can insist that there is a UK judge there.

That is important not just for the national interest but for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and others this evening. Four EU member states have common-law jurisdictions, although our Scottish colleagues in the House might argue that the UK is by no means entirely a common-law jurisdiction. Those states are ourselves, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta. For that reason, it is important to have a suitable arrangement for taking decisions about the number of judges, and a requirement for each member state to nominate a judge, so that we can effectively protect the representation of those four jurisdictions in the highest judicial councils of the EU.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly will also find in article 19(2) a requirement for both judges and advocates-general to be

“persons whose independence is beyond doubt”.

Again, that requirement deserves to be protected. I have no reason to believe that the other member states would vote to dilute it, but the importance of the article justifies the referendum lock.

In contrast, article 252 of the TFEU requires there to be eight advocates-general to advise the court. There is not the same idea that there should be one from each member state. The article states that unanimity is needed in order to increase the number of advocates-general beyond eight, and a change to that article would be required for a switch to qualified majority voting. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe the people whom we represent would find it slightly odd if we invited them to participate in a national referendum on whether to raise the number of advocates-general or on whether to change the method by which that decision is taken. That is the reason for the distinction that we draw in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry asked about moves towards a common EU asylum system. The British Government strongly believe in the importance of practical co-operation on asylum policy within the EU. Equally, we do not judge that a common EU asylum policy is right for Britain. We believe that on many issues, EU member states have much to gain by working together, but we have made it clear that the emphasis of the EU’s agenda on asylum should not always be on legislation, but on helping member states to improve the quality of their individual asylum systems. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the UK has not opted into the reception conditions directive, the qualifications directive or the asylum procedures directive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) asked about the European investigation order. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out very plainly on more than one occasion her reasons for recommending that the Government opt in to that measure.

[Charlie Elphicke]

May I just say how much I welcome the strong policy on asylum? Asylum has been a substantial problem in my constituency of Dover, with masses of would-be asylum seekers and economic migrants at Calais wanting to break into the country. Will the Minister tell the Committee more about how we will ensure our strength and independence on border security?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not want to be distracted from the subject matter of the debate—clause 9 and the amendments—so the best thing is for me to tell my hon. Friend that I will either write to him or ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to do so in response to the point that he raises.

May I summarise the Government’s case in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone? There have been many criticisms of the current criminal mutual legal assistance system; it is said that it is fragmented, confusing and subject to delays. In some cases, it takes many months to obtain vital evidence, and when the UK has been the requesting state, that has had a detrimental effect on UK investigations and trials. The EIO seeks to address those problems by simplifying the MLA system among EU member states and introducing strict deadlines for the execution of requests.

It is true that had we not opted into the EIO, we would still have been able to operate MLA with other EU countries, but we would have been in a tiny minority of EU countries not using the EIO. Owing to that, and because deadlines would not apply to UK MLA requests, it is likely that those requests would be given a lower priority than those of other states, and that our prosecutors would have experienced longer delays. Given that 75% of the UK’s MLA traffic is with other EU countries, the practical impact on UK cases would have been significant.

If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the matter further, I suggest that he first looks at the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on 3 August 2010, and which she has deposited in the Library. The letter details a number of specific cases in which the current arrangements were proven to be inadequate. In one case, evidence that was not returned prior to the conclusion of the trial may have led to the suspect being exonerated. Her judgment and the Government’s judgment is that had we not opted in, it is likely that there would be more such cases.

[Nick de Bois]

My right hon. Friend is well aware of my long-term interest in matters pertaining to the European arrest warrant and the EIO. By that explanation, he has demonstrated the importance of, and the need for, the EAW and the EIO. I hope he will reassure us that the Bill gives the House the chance to debate and pass judgment such things, and to facilitate decisions on opting in or out.

[Mr Lidington]

My answer to that is on two fronts. The EAW is, of course, a pre-Lisbon, pillar three arrangement. It was not subject to post-Lisbon scrutiny, let alone to the detailed scrutiny and discussions with Committees and other representatives of Parliament that the Government are proposing. On the European investigation order, I can give comfort to my hon. Friend. It is the Government’s view that the decision to opt in to the order is one of the matters that would not only have attracted significant parliamentary interest, but which would also have raised questions of political and legal importance that would fully justify a full debate in Government time. With that debate would obviously come the opportunity of a parliamentary vote.

18:00

[Mr David]

I have some sympathy in policy terms with the Government on the issue of the European investigation order, but would it not have been possible to have had informal consultation with, let us say, the outgoing Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, rather than having no consultation with Parliament at all?

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot recall without advice whether the Committee had just been appointed but had not met, or whether it had not yet been constituted, but the lesson that I draw from that episode—and the Government were far from happy with the fact that we had to take a decision at the end of the three-month period without a formal scrutiny process—is that we have, in the forthcoming discussions, to find a way to address the real difficulty that arises during a Dissolution of Parliament and the period after that before the scrutiny Committees are fully reconstituted. What the new Government found on coming into office was that the EU’s legislative timetable on justice and home affairs had not stopped and there was an accumulation of measures, each with a non-extendable three-month timetable, at the end of which we had to decide whether to make the initial opt-in. A large chunk of that time had already been devoured by the period of Dissolution, and there were no scrutiny Committees in place to do the job that we would want and expect Parliament to do.

[Mr Clappison]

Can I take it from what my right hon. Friend has just said about the European investigation order that although it may be an issue that he would consider as of particular interest and therefore deserving a debate under the scrutiny process, it would not have been caught by clause 9 as it stands? He is therefore conceding that this is an extra stage of scrutiny that has been brought about by the diligent and commendable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who has done a service to the House in ensuring additional scrutiny.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right. I signed off a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) earlier today responding to these points, which he put to me in writing, although I expect that he has not yet received it. We draw a distinction between the justice and home affairs matters on which it is already within the competence of the EU to act, but where the UK has an opt-in, and matters that are without the existing competence of the European Union. We have tried to maintain that distinction in each aspect of the Bill, and that is a point that has informed the Government’s collective view on this legislation.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend said “where the UK has an opt-in,” but if I may correct him, I think that he meant where we have the right to opt in. There is a substantial body of such matters and, of course, in each case they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, should we decide to opt in.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to make that correction. He is also right when he refers to the importance of the jurisdiction of the ECJ as a relevant new feature of any justice and home affairs measure that is brought forward subsequent to the Lisbon treaty. That is the thing that makes such a profound difference between third-pillar arrangements and the current treaty arrangements. That is why when Ministers—usually the Justice Secretary or Home Secretary—come to the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet with a proposed decision on a justice and home affairs measure, they are required, as a standard part of Government policy, to produce an analysis of the likely impact of ECJ jurisdiction on our law if the United Kingdom participated in the measure, and also to assess the risks that this would lead to competence creep. My hon. Friend is right that that is an important consideration that we need to take into account when judging the balance of national interests that determines whether we choose to opt in to, or stay out of, a particular decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), along with a number of other hon. Members, asked why we needed to opt in at all, because if we have not gone through the whole scrutiny process, we should just leave it and opt out. The treaty gives us a three-month period within which we have to decide whether we want to make an initial opt-in. We can, if we choose, opt out at that stage, let the negotiations take place on the final version of the measure, and then opt in to the final text, as agreed by the others taking part. The problem with what he suggested is that it is not a reliable method of ensuring that our national interests are properly represented, for a number of reasons.

First, if we wait until the final stage, we have to ask the Commission if we may participate. The Council is then able to specify conditions under which United Kingdom can do so. If we judge that the balance of advantage points towards our opting in, there is a further advantage in getting in first. Secondly, if we participate on the first occasion on which we can opt in, we will then be at the table with a vote, helping to shape the final status of the text. We will not be in anything like as influential a position if we make a decision first to stay out. Thirdly, if we are not taking part, we have no vote on the final text. There are sometimes occasions—perhaps on a counter-terrorism measure—where we might decide that, on balance, it will be in our national interest to opt in, but where we dislike one particular element of the draft text. Perhaps we also know that two or three other key member states have similar reservations. In those circumstances, it is possible that the Government’s decision would be to opt in by the end of the three-month period, with the aim of putting together an alliance with those other member states so as to secure through negotiation a final text that meets our interests and means that we are completely content with the outcome.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend is being most courteous in giving way. On the question of where the national interest lies, I understand and accept the reasons why the Government, as a coalition, are having to go through the complicated process that he has described. However, in the Conservative manifesto it was conceived as being in the national interest that we should not opt in to any such matters, because we were clear that there should be no further extension of the EU’s power over the UK and we promised to work to return key powers over legal rights, criminal justice, and social and employment legislation to the UK. However, we cannot have envisaged seeking to return those powers while at the same time handing over completely new powers to the European Union, by choosing to opt in. That was the national interest as we saw it, and it remains the national interest.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend puts his point trenchantly. I am not going to make any secret of the fact that the handling of European policy, and in particular on justice and home affairs, has been one of the most delicate issues for the coalition. There have had to be compromises on both sides to get the package of measures that we are including in the Bill and to shape the general policy that we are pursuing in respect of the European Union.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to answer one hon. Friend before I give way to another one.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere looks back to the debates on the Lisbon treaty, he will remember that he and I walked through the same Lobby, day after day, in opposition to that treaty. My recollection is that we had at least one day when we talked entirely about justice and home affairs matters. He knows the view that I took as a Front Bencher in a Conservative Opposition. I would much rather be either a member of or supporting a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition than spend another Parliament sitting fruitlessly in opposition, seeing measures being taken through the House to which I was vehemently opposed but which I was powerless to stop.

[Mr Cash]

My right hon. Friend is getting on to a very sensitive point, and I quite understand the sensitivities involved. When I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 May last year about the coalition agreement, I specifically stated that, if there were to be a coalition—I had made it clear that I would have preferred a minority Government—it was essential that the Liberal Democrats should at least be required to abstain on matters relating to the European Union, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) has just given. That is the problem, and we are now finding ourselves in an impossible dilemma. In fact, I would say that the situation is untenable.

[Mr Lidington]

I disagree with my hon. Friend’s statement either that we face an impossible dilemma or that the situation is untenable. We have a situation in which two political parties with differences of perspective and tradition on a number of issues are finding a way in which to work together in the interests of the nation as a whole. I think that the coalition is providing stable government. It is new in recent British political experience, but I find that it is hugely welcomed by many people of all political persuasions and no strong political persuasion.

[Mr David]

When the Minister says “people of all political persuasions”, he certainly should not include those on the Opposition Benches. I found his recent comment very interesting indeed. We understand how keen and enthusiastic he was to become a Minister, and this is the first time that he has revealed why he really, really wanted to be one. Also, this is the first time that he—or any other Minister—has acknowledged that the Bill is basically a compromise. It is the result of negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is important that that point is now firmly on record. This is the first time in this whole debate that it has been said. In the interests of transparency and openness, will he elaborate, so that we can find out the exact nature of the negotiating process that led to this rag-bag of a Bill?

[Mr Lidington]

It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to intervene in that fashion. He and I know that, in regard to policy on Europe or on any other matter, Governments of a single party in recent history—Conservative and Labour—have had to compromise a great deal, given the different points of view in the broad churches that those parties represent.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

They never compromised.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady says that the Labour Government never sought to compromise. That might explain their result at the last general election.

The answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly is that there is a collective discussion, and it is a matter of public record that every decision about European policy is routed through the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet. The membership of that Cabinet Committee is published: it comprises two thirds Conservative Ministers and one third Liberal Democrat Ministers. That is the balance of all the Cabinet Committees. There are discussions and exchanges of points of view, and there is an outcome to which everyone collectively is willing to sign up and support. That seems to be a sensible, constructive way in which to do the business of government.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the Minister for giving way once more. Would he be kind enough to clarify this point about the coalition? Can we take it that the Conservatives do not wish to opt in wherever an opt-in is available, so that whenever we do so, it is because we have been bullied into it by the Lib Dems?

[Mr Lidington]

No, I do not think that my hon. Friend should jump to that conclusion. In yesterday’s debate, I cited some counter-terrorist measures such as the European initiatives on passenger name records or on the tracking of terrorist finance, and it is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom for us to take part in them. The US Government, who have a strong interest in these areas of policy, very much want a transatlantic agreement on such counter-measures and look to us to try to persuade other European Union member states to support a vigorous counter-terrorist policy and effective measures that will satisfy Washington as well as London.

18:15

Let me move on to deal with the amendments, as I have been speaking for nearly half an hour and have not yet been able to get on to that territory. My hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere and for Daventry tabled many of the amendments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was responsible for much of the remainder. Let me respond to the different amendments briefly, which I hope will allow us to move on to the next group as well.

As we consider any potential future use of the JHA ratchet clauses, which in the context of clause 9 we have identified as articles 81(3), 82(2)(d) and 83(1) of TFEU, we are also clear that this legislation should ensure that any UK participation in such measures by virtue of our opt-in should be preceded by the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and that our agreement to the final measures proposed should be preceded by parliamentary approval through Act of Parliament. We think that this represents a significant step forward in enhancing the House’s controls on those JHA ratchet clauses, while maintaining the same proportionate and sustainable approach that we have tried to adopt in all other parts of the Bill.

A number of amendments to this clause have been tabled, which are mainly designed to increase the level of parliamentary and, in some cases, public control. Amendments 14 and 27 would require the Government to secure the approval of each House before the UK could participate in any measure pursuant to the UK’s opt-in under protocol 21 to title V of part 3 of TFEU. The two amendments have broadly the same scope, although I note that amendment 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, would not cover an opt-out decision relating to an extension of the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations, which he has addressed in a separate amendment that I shall deal with later.

One of the Bill’s key aims is to provide greater scrutiny and accountability over proposals to extend the competences of the EU or to broaden out the scope for EU action in accordance with existing EU competence, whether by future treaties or the use of ratchet clauses without the need for formal treaty change. However, measures proposed by the EU pursuant to its existing competences under title V, which do not relate to any proposed use of a ratchet clause, are not within the scope of the Bill’s enhanced parliamentary controls. As set out on Second Reading, measures pursued by the EU pursuant to title V concern the exercise of competences already conferred on the EU by the member states under the current treaties, although in the case of the UK, we retain the freedom to decide, measure by measure, whether or not we participate.

The Government believe that European co-operation in justice and home affairs can deliver key benefits, helping us to tackle more effectively issues of cross-border crime and making it easier for British citizens to do business across borders. As I have said on other occasions, however, the coalition Government committed themselves in the coalition agreement to considering opt-in decisions on a case-by-case basis. We have put the United Kingdom’s national interest at the heart of our decision-making and continue to do so, with a view to maximising United Kingdom security, protecting our civil liberties, preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system, and maintaining our ability to control immigration. Ministers take all those criteria into account when reaching a collective decision about a particular opt-in.

One way in which the Bill will increase public accountability is by providing that any proposed treaty change involving an end to the United Kingdom’s freedom not to participate in justice and home affairs by removing the country’s opt-in protocol would be subject to a referendum. All decisions under title V, the chapter in TFEU on justice and home affairs, are already subject to an enhanced level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Following reflections on the annual report to Parliament on the use of the justice and home affairs title V opt-in and Schengen opt-out decisions, I outlined in my written ministerial statement last Thursday the Government’s proposals for further enhancements of such scrutiny arrangements. In view of the time, and because I set out the proposals in detail both in the written statement and in yesterday’s debate—they can be found in columns 238 to 239 of Hansard—I do not propose to go into further detail today, although I repeat that I am more than willing to discuss the best way of proceeding with any Member on either side of the House. I do, however, wish to make a couple of points as a gloss on the policy that I announced in the statement.

First, let me repeat that the Government believe that, in future, measures such as the European investigation order should be dealt with by way of a parliamentary debate with the opportunity for a vote. Indeed, they would have been dealt with in that way had these arrangements applied earlier. We have made an explicit commitment to a parliamentary debate and vote on the decision on the mass opt-in or opt-out which must be determined by 2014, as set out in my written statement.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend not consider including that in the Bill?

[Mr Lidington]

We are due to debate the measures later.

The Government will have three options. They can decide to opt in to all the measures en bloc, or they can decide to opt out of them en bloc. The judgment that Ministers will have to make—I emphasise that no decision has yet been made, and that we are nowhere near making one or making a recommendation—is that these are measures in which the United Kingdom freely decided that it wanted to participate, because it served our national interest to do so, during the “third pillar” process that existed before the Lisbon treaty.

The Government of the time—Labour or Conservative—decided that each measure was right and that it was in the British national interest to participate; but, of course, that decision was made on the basis that those were intergovernmental matters which did not fall within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is a material difference. If we opt in to all these measures in 2014, we must accept that we are opting in to matters all of which will, from that point, be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.

[Mr David]

This is a very important point. One legal opinion says that if we reach that point in 2014 and the Government do not take a decision, Britain will have, in effect, opted in. Is that correct?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, the default position is that we stay opted in. We have to take a decision one way or the other, and the Government are not going to hide in the corner and hope that nobody notices a decision to opt in. We are going to make a public announcement at the due time and have the debate in Parliament.

The third option for the Government would be to opt out of the measures en bloc and then seek to opt back in where we continue to believe that the balance of advantage to our national interest lies in participation. A complicated analysis is involved and we are talking about 90 such measures coming up for determination in or before 2014. As this is, again, a matter within existing competence, it is best dealt with through the enhanced scrutiny arrangements that I am proposing and it should certainly require a vote in the House. The Government have explicitly committed themselves to that and it will, of course, happen before the end of this Parliament in 2015.

The two amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and others tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry propose to subject all opt-in decisions to a requirement for an approval motion in both Houses, not simply those on which there is a significant level of parliamentary interest. Because of the practicalities of such a move on all opt-in decisions, that requirement would risk preventing the Government from being able to secure Parliament’s approval in time to opt in to any new JHA proposal within the three-month time limit set down in article 3 of protocol 21 in order to enable us to participate in negotiations at EU level. That would have a knock-on effect on our ability to help shape the proposal effectively in negotiation, and sometimes that is of great importance. Our votes made it possible to clinch an agreement on the EU-US terrorist finance tracking measure that suited our national interest and ensured that the Americans were content too. That deal became available during a parliamentary recess, when it would not have been possible to go through the formal procedures that the amendments seek to apply to each and every opt-in. That is one reason why in the discussions about enhancing scrutiny we have to find a way to handle the real difficulties that can sometimes arise, both during recesses and in periods of and following parliamentary Dissolution.

May I say in passing to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that, although the detail will be the subject of discussions with the relevant Committees and business managers, the possibility of a parliamentary vote would apply to any opt-in decision under the proposals that I made in my written statement. Included in that would be measures following the adoption of a measure by other member states and decisions not to opt out of Schengen measures where there is strong parliamentary interest in the measure or where the measure is of the importance that I have indicated in my written statement. The process proposed in the amendments does not lend itself to timely decision making when a rapid decision needs to be taken. I have outlined the practical reasons why this approach would not be proportionate and I hope that my hon. Friends will therefore be prepared not to press their amendments to a Division.

Amendment 47 would require parliamentary approval before we could opt in to a measure brought forward under article 83(2) of TFEU, which allows for the establishment of minimum rules regarding the definition of criminal offences and sanctions if such approximation of member state criminal laws and regulations is judged to be essential to ensure effective implementation of policy areas in which the EU has already harmonised standards. For example, if the EU set rules about environmental protection and a criminal sanction proved essential to make those rules effective, the EU could consequently set a minimum standard for a criminal offence in that area.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, but I do not believe that article 83(2) is a ratchet clause in the way that articles 81(3), 82(2)(d) or 81(1) are so considered. Article 83(2) makes provision for Europe to be able to act under its existing competence without the need to be able to expand EU action in the same way, for example, as article 83(1) provides for the ability to expand the list of areas of serious cross-border crime in which the EU can act. I do not therefore think that it should be subject to the enhanced level of parliamentary control set out in the Bill to which the ratchet clauses are to be subject, given the relative differences in effect.

18:30

Amendments 28 and 29 would require the relevant Minister to make an oral statement to the House if he or she were to seek to join new elements of the Schengen acquis or not to opt out of a measure building on Schengen. As my written ministerial statement made clear, we intend that Schengen decisions, like JHA title V decisions, should be covered fully by the proposed enhanced scrutiny arrangements.

I hope that I have been able to respond to the concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the interests of moving on to the next group of amendments, I shall conclude my remarks.

[Mr Clappison]

As I said earlier, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I want to make progress and for that reason, and the other reasons I have mentioned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 33, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 10(5) of Protocol (No. 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU that the United Kingdom wishes to participate in an act that has ceased to apply to it pursuant to Article 10(4) of that Protocol, where the AFSJ Protocol would apply to the procedure for dealing with the notification, unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to give the notification.’.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 82, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(6A) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless—

(a) the decision is approved by Act of Parliament, and

(b) the referendum condition is met.

(6B) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2).’.

Amendment 83, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(6C) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless the decision is approved by Act of Parliament.’.

Amendment 84, page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(6D) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 10(5) of Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU that the United Kingdom wishes to participate in an Act that has ceased to apply to it pursuant to Article 10(4) of that Protocol, unless the notification in respect of the Act has been approved by Act of Parliament.’.

[Mr Jenkin]

Amendments 82, 83 and 84 concern what the Minister set out in a statement last week, in which he described the arrangements for the Government to give formal notification of whether they wished the UK to opt out of certain justice and home affairs matters by 31 July 2014. He made it clear in the statement—I think this is welcome—that the Government intend to allow the House of Commons and the other place to table a formal resolution to approve or disapprove of the action the Government take in these matters.

While we are listening to this debate, it is worth reminding ourselves of the magnitude of what we are talking about: a complete rearrangement of the civil and criminal legal system of our country that will move the whole civil and criminal system on to an entirely new basis. I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the number of advocates-general and about maintaining four judges in the European Court of Justice who represent common law jurisdictions, but that is a completely meaningless reassurance in the face of all the other judges and the history of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, which simply is not interested in the common law basis of the jurisdictions of its member states.

Having fought against the Lisbon treaty in principle and most particularly on the basis of its potential to interfere in the criminal and civil law of this country, it is astonishing that the Government, since the election, have, for example, approved the directive establishing the European investigation order. Let us be clear: that allows another member state to oblige the United Kingdom to carry out almost any investigative action in the UK, including searching a house, intercepting telephone calls and obtaining DNA for the purpose of criminal proceedings in the requesting member state. The UK has supported the directive on the right to interpretation and translation of criminal proceedings, ceding jurisdiction in that area to the European Court of Justice. This all happened before the European Scrutiny Committee was sitting, so it was all unscrutinised by this House. Any weasel words from the Government about strengthening the scrutiny of the House of Commons should carry a health warning.

The Government have decided to opt in to the Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation, which makes binding on the UK as a matter of European Community law an international agreement between the EU and Georgia and means that the UK cannot conclude its own readmission agreement with Georgia, should it wish to do so. I just point out that had any of those decisions been in an international treaty outside the European Union’s jurisdiction, they would have required an Act of Parliament, but these things are done by the stroke of a Minister’s pen under the powers in the European Communities Act 1972.

[Mr Cash]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall what the Minister said about the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet, and the fact that we have two thirds Conservatives and one third Liberal Democrats. For practical purposes, there cannot be a vote; otherwise, if we were to comply with our manifesto commitments, we would win the vote every time. It must be, therefore, that the Government are willing to agree with the Liberal Democrats’ proposals, which makes it even worse.

[Mr Jenkin]

I thought the exchanges between the two Front Benchers about the real nature of the coalition agreement were very revealing. We have all known about this from the minute that the coalition agreement was first mooted. That is why I was one of the newly elected Members who went to see the then Leader of the Opposition, just after the election, and said, “Do not do this; let us have another election in short order so that we can deliver our mandate and our promises to the British people.” We knew that we were being bound into an arrangement that would mean having to swap our obligations to our electors—let us face it, handing criminal jurisdiction over to the European Union is not exactly a popular thing to do—for a mess of pottage: a compromise with the Liberal Democrats. The Deputy Prime Minister took great interest in these matters, particularly justice and home affairs, when he worked for the European Commission and I understand that he is personally extremely committed to the creation of a federalist criminal justice legal order as part of the state building of the European Union. We are now actively participating in that.

[Martin Horwood]

In the spirit of coalition, which the hon. Gentleman so obviously and positively espouses, does he accept that the Liberal Democrats have moved quite a long way in accepting this Bill at all and that many of the strictures it puts on the progress of proper government at European level are things that do not come particularly naturally to Liberal Democrat Members?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am perfectly prepared to accept that some Liberal Democrats have compromised considerably on the Bill.

What does the Bill add up to? The problem is that it does not change anything. It does not change the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom one comma or dot. It is about the arrangements between the British Government and the British Parliament. We all know that it is designed to give the impression that this and future Governments will somehow be locked down by the referendum lock and will be obliged to have referendums as never before. It is certainly useful to create that expectation because the disappointment when no referendum occurs will then be much deeper, but what does the Bill actually mean?

Clauses 2 to 7 make a lot of legal arrangements to ensure that decisions taken by the Government are approved by referendum or Act of Parliament. There are certain exclusions that we have already argued about, such as whether the treaty on fiscal union will somehow be exempted from referendum even though it is probably one of the most significant European treaties we will see in our lifetimes. That is the state of the Bill, which has some remarkable tripwires—so many that the Opposition spokesman has been saying, “This is getting too particular and detailed; we will have to have Acts of Parliament and referendums on all kinds of things that are patently ridiculous.” That is why I think that future Governments will wriggle out of the obligations without much difficulty.

My amendments concern the opting-out proposals. In order to make the Lisbon treaty, which establishes the European Union’s authority over criminal and civil law, more palatable, there was an arrangement that the United Kingdom could opt out at a later date. One would have thought that a party and a Government who were elected on a platform to repatriate powers from the EU, and who fought against the Lisbon treaty on the principle that the European Union should not have jurisdiction over our criminal law, would be keen to ensure that any coalition agreement reflected that policy, particularly as they have talked about a sovereignty clause, a referendum lock and so on.

We know that there will probably never be a new treaty amendment that meets the test that triggers a referendum. Indeed, the Minister made it clear that he has no intention of letting a Bill through the House that would trigger such a referendum during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Lisbon treaty has made the EU self-amending. The Liberal Democrat MEP, Andrew Duff, who is chair of the Federal Trust, said on the BBC World Service: “The treaty of Lisbon is in force and it won’t be unpicked by the British. It can’t be. It is the statute which will probably govern the Union for some time.” As I said in the debate on Monday,

“The problem is that this is not the ‘thus far and no further’ Bill; it is the ‘locking the stable door after the horse has bolted’ Bill.—[Official Report, 24 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 116.]

We do not know whether the next five years will see any changes to the EU treaties—I suspect they will—but there is one area in which the Government will have to make a very significant decision: whether to give more powers to Brussels or to bring them back to Britain. I remind the Committee that were the measure outside the jurisdiction of the European Communities Act, there would be no question but that there would be hundreds of pages of Acts of Parliament to implement this stuff, instead of its automatic inclusion in our law and implementation. It is fundamentally undemocratic to reorganise our constitution by the stroke of a Minister’s pen in this way.

In crime and policing, EU measures which were passed under the pre-Lisbon third pillar arrangements are in this transitional period. Under the Lisbon treaty, there is a period in which we can opt out en bloc, as the Minister said. These measures include the European arrest warrant and the recognition of the trial of UK citizens in EU countries held in absentia. I have in my passport something about the protection of UK citizens, and here we are, handing over the possibility that UK citizens can be tried in other European jurisdictions without even being there. That is something that we do not do in our own jurisdiction.

The creation of the European public prosecutor will happen under the arrangement. The Government will have a straight choice between expanding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the British justice system, or opting out of the measure. It is a rare opportunity that we have in the treaty to repatriate power. One would have thought that we would want to do it, but the Bill as it stands does not include any control whatever over that decision. All we have is a personal assurance from the Minister that he will bring it to the House for a decision. That is welcome, but it not the kind of democratic control that is needed.

The Government have just announced the revision of control orders, which will require legislation. That is subject to democratic control. Imagine if the control orders decision was announced by the Government and required no legislation. That is what we are being offered in the Bill.

[Mr David]

The hon. Gentleman is making a logical, coherent argument. The Government’s position on the Bill, as I was led to believe, was that if there were a significant move towards powers being transferred from the UK to the European Union, there should be a referendum. We have referred to a number of cases when there would be small changes, on which there might be a referendum, but he is talking about a very significant change. Does he not think there should be a referendum on that?

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill is completely inconsistent. Relatively tiny matters covered by the Bill and caught by its provisions will have to come to Parliament and may even have to be the subject of a referendum. But this incredibly significant change to our legal system that is taking place now is exempted from the Bill. It is totally illogical. If there is anything that makes a complete nonsense of the Bill, it is this total exclusion of the 2014 decision.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some telling points. Does he agree that the EU is being honest about what it wants to do? It wants, en bloc, to create an area of freedom, security and justice, and to have EU authority over that whole bloc. It is not a question of our Government looking judiciously at the odd measure here or there and whether things will be made better or not. We are confronted with an attempt by the EU to carve out jurisdiction across the piece in the area of freedom, security and justice. That is its stated ambition.

18:45

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are going into this with our eyes wide open, except that this Bill has its eyes wide shut. The Bill pretends that there is no decision to be made between now and 2014 about this momentous change to our criminal justice system and the way the law is conducted in this country—to the protection that Parliament can currently afford to UK citizens but is now already being eroded.

So I have tabled a series of amendments. There are some choices for the Minister, and I would be interested to know which he prefers. Amendment 82 would mean that the Government have to gain the approval of a referendum before they decide that the UK should not opt out of these laws. Amendment 83 would require the approval of at least an Act of Parliament for the Government to do so. Amendment 84 is quite modest; it would require an Act of Parliament before the Government could opt back in to any of the laws that had ceased to apply following the 2014 opt-out decision.

This is a question of more or less power being transferred to the EU, which would fundamentally alter our criminal justice system, but it is being left entirely up to Ministers.

[Mr Cash]

In the light of my hon. Friend’s intelligent observations, does he also agree that the process of Europeanisation, not merely by default, but by activism, despite our manifesto and despite the common sense and the wishes of the people at large, who vote for us by the way, will mean that we increasingly hand ourselves over to an entity, a European Union, not Europe, which is manifestly failing on all fronts, with protest, riots, the whole place imploding—Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland? The whole situation is moving entirely in the wrong direction. That is the big landscape, and that is where the Bill fails.

[Mr Jenkin]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend, but I will try to avoid being drawn into that. The great skill in Committee debates is to avoid making the same speech over and over again. However, I will be guilty of repeating something that I have said before, which is that the EU is made up of democracies, but it is not itself a democracy. It is anything but a democracy; it is a bureaucracy. It has some institutions that purport to be democratic, but they have only the most tenuous link with the real aspirations of the peoples they seek to serve. The unaccountability of the most powerful institutions of the EU, namely the Commission and the European Court of Justice, is legendary. They spend money like water and they have yet to have their accounts formally approved by the Court of Auditors for the last 14 years. That is how unaccountable the institutions are to which we are handing over the jurisdiction of our criminal law.

That is why I am mystified by the Government’s complacency, except, as the Minister has now admitted, for that fact that we traded away our principles for power. Moreover, we did that not just in the national interest for a short period, but for five years. I am pretty certain that before five years have passed this country will be crying out for a general election. When a country finishes up with a Government who have no mandate, except an agreement that was invented between two political parties, we are in a dangerous situation. It was not for nothing that Benjamin Disraeli said that England does not love coalitions; if a party is an organised hypocrisy, I dread to think what the correct term for a coalition should be, except as an expedient in an emergency.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful speech and his amendments are sensible. If his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench do not accept any of them, will it be his view that that will have been entirely due to power brokering with the Lib Dems, or might it just be a frolic of their own?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am not sure how to answer that question. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will continue my remarks, because I intend to sit down shortly so that other Members can take part. All I will say is that those decisions should be reserved not only for Parliament, but for an Act of Parliament. They are of such significance that I would prefer the Government to accept amendment 82 so that a decision on those matters is made by referendum.

I remind the Minister that we originally stood on a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats, with whom we sit in coalition, wanted a referendum on the EU as well. Given that common ground, I cannot for the life of me understand why we should not have a referendum on at least this aspect of the Lisbon treaty. If the Liberal Democrats want to call it an “in or out” referendum, they may do so, but the question on the ballot paper should simply be: “Do you want the criminal justice system of this country to be controlled by the European Union?” I know what the answer would be. If the Government were to hold that referendum, I think that they would be very popular. In fact, it might even make the coalition popular. I recommend it to the Minister.

A few moments ago I checked to see whether there is a copy of the document that I am holding on the Table. There are all sorts of things on the Table, including “Vacher’s”, the Standing Orders, “Erskine May” and documents relating to the proceedings of the House. There is the guide to standards of conduct in public life and all sorts of things that direct the behaviour and conduct of Members and what we do in the House. However, this document is not there. It, of course, is “Consolidated Texts of the EU Treaties as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon”, as published by the Government. I have to say that the index is a little thin, which makes it difficult to find one’s way through it. This is the document that now governs this country. Unless we change our relationship with the EU, this will be the constitution of the United Kingdom, as we have no written constitution of our own. These are the laws by which we are governed, but it is not even on the Table. That underlines how this House, 20 years after we signed the Maastricht treaty, which began to establish European governance, is still sleepwalking into a European federation.

There are those who wishfully believe that the argument has somehow been won by the Eurosceptics. It is an argument that they do not want to have. They want to avoid it because in order to resolve the democratic government of this country, we will have to confront the EU. There will have to be a disagreement with our European partners, because there is so much pride invested in the document, and other member states have so much pride in having drawn the United Kingdom into those arrangements. They will have to be confronted with the humiliation that they were wrong. As the euro collapses around our ears and the peoples of Europe rise up in the streets of their capitals, there could be no better time to do that; and there could be no better time to do it than when the EU itself is asking for new powers and asking us to agree to things for which they need our consent. That is the time we should be asking for our powers and our governance back on a mutually agreed basis. It is lamentable that the Government have not even the willpower to ask for those things.

[Mr Lidington]

The decision on whether to exercise the bloc opt-out is important and sensitive for the United Kingdom. On that point at least, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Its implications for the whole range of complex, technical and often interrelated measures will need to be carefully considered, and they ought to be carefully considered by Government and Parliament. I agree completely that Parliament should give its view on a decision of such national importance. That is why the Government have committed publicly to having a vote in both Houses before making a formal decision on whether we wish to opt in or out.

As outlined in my written statement on 20 January, we will

“conduct further consultations on the arrangements for this vote, in particular with the European Scrutiny Committees, and the Commons and Lords Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 51WS.]

The 2014 decision, however, concerns measures that the UK agreed pre-Lisbon, and in most cases they have already been transposed into United Kingdom law and implemented.

I shall respond briefly to a couple of points that my hon. Friend has raised. Civil justice measures are already subject to European Court of Justice jurisdiction—and were so prior to the Lisbon treaty. The measures falling within the scope of the 2014 decision on criminal justice were not subject to section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 before the Lisbon treaty; the majority of those items of legislation, which are in force in this country, required their own separate Acts of Parliament in order to be implemented, including the Extradition Act 2003, which implemented the European arrest warrant, and about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have many concerns.

If the UK were to decide to remain in the pillar three measures, no new transfer of power or competence would therefore be associated with that decision: it would be neither a treaty change nor a ratchet clause. The decision for 2014 is therefore different in kind from the decisions that we propose, in the Bill, to subject to either a referendum or a primary legislative lock.

Until the Government have decided what to propose on the bloc opt-out, it is difficult to reach any decisions about what to do on subsequent opt-ins, but such decisions seem to have similarities with the decisions on post-adoption opt-ins to new pieces of JHA legislation, with the important difference that this country will already have participated in the measures in question.

The Government will pay all proper attention to the need for parliamentary scrutiny of any such opt-in decision, should that prove to be necessary and should the Government wish to opt back into selected measures; but, just as the arrangements for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of current JHA opt-ins are a matter to be agreed outside the confines of the Bill, so too are decisions on the parliamentary scrutiny of those other decisions.

In light of the Government’s commitments to more powerful and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, and because of the nature of the decisions that we will face by 2014, we do not think that the matters in question should be covered by the Bill. I therefore urge my hon. Friends not to press their amendments to the vote.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 82,  page 8, line 16, at end add—

‘(6A) A Minister of the Crown may not make a formal decision as to whether to exercise the right of the United Kingdom to make a notification to the Council under the terms of article 10(4) of the Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions annexed to TEU and TFEU, unless—

(a) the decision is approved by Act of Parliament, and

(b) the referendum condition is met.

(6B) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2).’.—(Mr Jenkin.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:58

Division 183

Ayes: 26

---

Conservative: 14
Labour: 9
Democratic Unionist Party: 3

Noes: 313

---

Conservative: 254
Liberal Democrat: 49
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

19:13

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 7 December).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Consequential amendments and repeals relating to Part 1

Amendment made: 59, page 10, line 12, leave out from ‘treaty’ to end of line 15 and insert

‘that is subject to a requirement imposed by Part 1 of the European Union Act 2011 (restrictions on treaties and decisions relating to EU)’.—(Mr Lidington.)

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 7 December).

The Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at lunchtime the Prime Minister informed the House that the Member for Belfast West (Mr Adams) had resigned his seat. After checking my copy of “Erskine May”, I have discovered that it states on page 57 that

“a Member…cannot relinquish his seat”

and must therefore accept

“office under the Crown, which legally vacates his seat and obliges the House to order a new writ.”

It continues:

“These offices are…purely nominal and are ordinarily given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to any Member who applies for them.”

It is my understanding from press releases by Mr Adams that he neither applied for nor has accepted either of those two offices of the Crown. Can you confirm therefore that no such resignation is in order and that the Prime Minister has—inadvertently, I am sure—misled the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order.

I can inform the House that I have received formal notification from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Gerard Adams has been appointed to be steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. Under the terms of section 4 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the vacation of the seat of a Member of the House of Commons who becomes disqualified by that Act from membership of that House, the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty’s three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham, or of the Manor of Northstead, shall be treated as included among the offices described in part III of schedule 1 to the Act.

The hon. Member for Belfast West is therefore disqualified from membership of the House by virtue of section 1 of that Act. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, in referring to pages 57 and 58 of “Erskine May”, causes me to comment on the matter to which he referred. “Erskine May” describes the course of events in cases in the past, but as I have ruled, the law is clear. Appointment to one of the two offices to which I have referred, under section 4 of the Act, results in disqualification. With reference to the observation that the hon. Gentleman made about the comments of the Prime Minister, I am sure that the Prime Minister would never intentionally mislead the House, but the point has been heard on the Treasury Bench and perhaps the Leader of the House will wish to reply.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

May I reiterate what you have just said, Mr Speaker? Of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would never intentionally mislead the House. The House will be aware that the only way to enact a resignation is to appoint the person to one of the relevant positions. The Prime Minister was aware of the process to appoint Gerry Adams to be steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. It might have been better for my right hon. Friend to have said “is being appointed” instead of “has accepted”, and I am happy to make that clarification for the record.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. No doubt the fact that Gerry Adams has now departed this place will be greatly welcomed, given that he will no longer be able to claim the large amounts of money that the Government said he would not be allowed to claim, but that he nevertheless went on claiming as a result of being in office here.

A Treasury statement today says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the public statement by Gerry Adams that he is resigning from Parliament as a request to be appointed as steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead and granted him that office. As a result, there arises a question about in what circumstances the Chancellor may take a statement or other indication of resignation as an excuse or reason to make such an appointment—[Interruption.] These are serious matters, because the normal procedures have not been followed, in that Mr Adams did not apply in the normal way and did not accept in the normal way. Can you, Mr Speaker, investigate the role of the Northern Ireland Office and other agencies in this matter?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has exercised his responsibilities, and I do not think that it is either necessary or seemly to dilate upon how he has done so. He has done so in an entirely orderly way. I would simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think that the House will want to rest content with the thrust of what has been said to it. It is not necessary to get ahead of ourselves and engage in hypothetical scenarios. We do not need to do that. However, I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with the care and respect with which I always listen to him.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On the specific issue of whether Mr Adams has accepted an office of the Crown, can you confirm that this is the case? As of late this afternoon, Mr Adams was still claiming that he had not accepted the office, which was so graciously offered to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mr Speaker]

I have ruled on the matter. The appointment has been made; the disqualification is a fact. Beyond that, I do not think that I can realistically or reasonably be expected to elaborate.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is quite an important issue here about the nature of an application, because if, for the sake of argument, a Member were to express the view that they might feel like resigning from the House, the Chancellor might then appoint them and they would find themselves disqualified. Surely there must be a clear procedure for making it transparent that the Member in question has applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. The question that is being asked—a question to which the House would like an answer—is: was an application made in this case specifically for the Chiltern Hundreds which then led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the appointment, and was it accepted?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order, but the matter to which he has just referred—whether an application for the Chiltern Hundreds has been made—is, I am afraid, not a matter for me. The matter has been addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the execution of his responsibilities, and this is one of those occasions on which it is right for me to communicate the facts of the situation, but not to wallow in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, if I can put it that way.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. “Erskine May” makes it quite clear that someone should apply for an office under the Crown. Should I, as the Member for East Antrim, in a fit of despair when I see who will replace Gerry Adams, express publicly the view that I wished that I was not a Member of a House that contained such a person, would the Chancellor take that as an indication that I should no longer be a Member of this House and therefore appoint me to an office of the Crown? That seems to be the implication of the ruling that you have made.

[Mr Speaker]

Once again—I fear that I am being repetitive, but it is necessary for me to be so—let me say that I have made the factual and legal position clear. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, and it seems to me that the matter that he has raised—a matter relating to what could or could not now ensue—is essentially a hypothetical matter upon which it is neither necessary nor possible for a ruling to be made this evening. I believe that the position is clear: the disqualification has happened. If there are Members who are dissatisfied with the procedure—a very senior Member and others have indicated some level of dissatisfaction—it is perfectly open to them further to pursue the matter through other quarters, on other occasions, but I do not think that there is profit in dwelling further on them this evening.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Much has been said in the past 12 months and more about modernising the House of Commons. You made great reference to this yourself in your campaign speech. I hope that this will not seem too revolutionary, but would it not be appropriate for the Procedure Committee to look into these matters? Why should it be necessary, in the 21st century, to apply for an office of profit under the Crown? Why should not it be possible for an hon. Member to resign his seat? I suggest that there is a case for this matter to be looked at. People watching this might consider it rather farcical.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that he will understand that I respect what he has said, but that it is not for me to speculate from the Chair on what the future position might be. It is absolutely open to the hon. Gentleman and to any other hon. Member to request that the Procedure Committee study this issue and make recommendations. I am not in any sense dying in the ditch as a matter of principle in favour of the status quo; nor am I arguing for a change to it. I am exercising my rather limited responsibility to report to the House what has happened and the facts of the situation. I hope that that is helpful.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is indicating that he wishes further to pursue the matter; I respect that.

[Mr Winnick]

I shall write to the Procedure Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said from a sedentary position.

[Sammy Wilson]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You are absolutely correct to say that, whatever the future might be, things could be different. Can you confirm to the House now, given the shabby way in which this has been handled in order to avoid the embarrassment of Sinn Fein, that it is now no longer necessary for a Member to apply for an office under the Crown if they wish to resign?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is no, I am not confirming that at all. What I have done, and what I am doing again, is reporting the facts of the situation and the appointment that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I was, perfectly courteously, notified.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It appears that a major constitutional change is taking place, and I feel sure that the House would welcome a statement tomorrow from a Minister, so that we can question them about this matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I note the point of order. It will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and it is a matter for any Minister to make a statement if he or she so wishes.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have heard with respect everything that you have said, and will have been interested to hear your view that you are neither defending the status quo nor advocating a change from it. I know that people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), will say that a constitutional change has occurred to the point at which people will roll their eyes and smile, but this is a very serious matter. The eminent father of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), used to say that people thought procedure was boring but that it is not; it is our safeguard. If what appears to have happened today is confirmed as an acceptable way forward, that would mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could decide whether someone should be a Member of Parliament or not, without their say-so. That is not acceptable.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that I should make any further comment beyond what I have said about the appointment that has been made, the communication of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me, and my communication of the reality of the matters to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman is as articulate a spokesman for his point of view as can be found, and he has given further evidence of that this evening. We are grateful to him for that, and he might even wish to join in making representations to the Procedure Committee. That is a matter for him. I really do feel that these matters have been exhausted this evening—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for that sedentary assent to that proposition.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

19:29

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

That the following appointments be made to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in pursuance of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended—

(1) Hilary Benn in place of Ms Rosie Winterton, until the end of the present Parliament, in accordance with paragraph 1(d) of the Schedule; and

(2) as lay members of the Committee, in accordance with paragraph 1(e) of the Schedule—

(a) Dame Janet Gaymer DBE QC (Hon.), for a period of five years;

(b) Elizabeth McMeikan, for a period of four years; and

(c) Sir Anthony Holland, for a period of three years.

I hope that we can now move into calmer waters, Mr Speaker, though as the motion affects the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that might be a forlorn hope. It seeks the appointment of members to the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. I move this motion to facilitate the decision of the House.

The Speaker’s Committee for IPSA is a statutory Committee, set up under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and its role and membership are determined by that statute. It has two key responsibilities: to consider the candidates proposed by the Speaker, following fair and open competition for the posts of Chair and members of IPSA, and to approve IPSA’s annual estimate of resources.

The current membership of the Speaker’s Committee includes Mr Speaker, the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee and myself—by virtue of our offices. It currently has five other members who were appointed by the House in June 2010. To this membership, we must now add three lay members. I will deal substantively with the issue of the addition of lay members in a moment, but let me first briefly outline paragraph (1) of the motion. This was added, at the request of the Opposition, to remove the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) and add the shadow Leader of the House in her place. This is a matter for the Labour party, and I am happy to facilitate it.

As a member of SCIPSA, I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central for her work on the Committee, helping us through some challenging meetings at the beginning, and I look forward to welcoming the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), should the House agree this motion. I know that he, too, will add great value to our proceedings.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended the addition of lay members to the Speaker’s Committee in its report of November 2009, and this was enshrined in statute through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. As a former Chairman of the Members Estimate Audit Committee, I can speak first hand on how useful I have found it to have external members on Committees that focus on the workings of the House. The House will also remember that it has only recently approved the addition of lay members to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life set out its reasoning behind the addition of lay members, specifically reflecting the growing practice in self-regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council and the General Council of the Bar, which have accepted lay membership as a way not only of mitigating charges of being “parti pris”, but of widening their horizon, increasing their experience base and strengthening their legitimacy with the public. There is no reason why similar principles should not apply to the Speaker’s Committee.

These appointments are made by resolution of the House. The statute requires that the motion is tabled with the agreement of the Speaker; I can confirm that Mr Speaker has signified his consent.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

My question is no reflection on the three distinguished people involved. Fortunately, after many years, we have managed to reach a position where hon. Members have to declare all their outside interests—something for which I have fought for many years. Once appointed, will members of the Speaker’s Committee also have to declare their outside interests—or, rather, their total income? Again, I emphasise that this is no reflection on the people involved.

[Sir George Young]

I think the answer is yes and no—yes to the outside interests, but no to the declaration of income.

As recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, these lay members will have full voting rights on the Committee. The competition required by the statute was conducted at the Speaker’s request by a board chaired by the Clerk Assistant, Robert Rogers. Following a tender exercise in July last year, a specialist recruitment agency with experience in the successful management of high-level public appointments, Saxton Bampfylde, was employed to support the process.

Members will wish to know that there was a very high level of interest in these posts. A total of 166 applications were received; a longlist of well-qualified candidates was considered by the board. Seventeen candidates who were selected by the board from the longlist received a preliminary interview by Saxton Bampfylde. Following report of these conversations, eight candidates were selected for interview by the board. After these final interviews, the Speaker met four candidates recommended by the board, from whom he selected the three individuals whose names appear on the Order Paper.

Dame Janet Gaymer has recently retired from service as the Commissioner for Public Appointments in England and Wales, and as a civil service commissioner. She was previously senior partner at the law firm, Simmons & Simmons. Elizabeth McMeikan has also served as a civil service commissioner, and is a member of the State Honours Committee. Before taking on these roles, she was the human resources and change management director on the stores board of Tesco Stores plc. Finally, Sir Anthony Holland, a former chairman of the Law Society has held a number of public appointments, including as chair of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission and chair of the Standards Board for England. He currently holds an appointment in the office of the complaints commissioner of the Financial Services Authority.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has described the people who are being proposed for lay membership. They are clearly eminent and successful, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment whether they are representative. I think that many Members of Parliament are becoming increasingly tired of hearing people whose incomes are clearly way above those of Members opine on what is appropriate in relation to Members’ standards of living. I wonder whether any trade unionists were considered for these posts.

[Sir George Young]

The members of SCIPSA’s board do not undertake the function to which the hon. Lady has referred. They do not decide the remuneration of Members of Parliament or, indeed, their allowances. However, the hon. Lady has raised a serious issue about how a diversity of applications was secured. During the tender exercise, applicant companies were asked to prove a commitment to diversity as one of the criteria that would be considered in the assessment of their suitability for appointment. It may also reassure the hon. Lady to know that lay members will make a determined effort to gain an insight into the work of Members of Parliament and the challenges that confront us by observing the way in which Members work in their constituencies and, indeed, in the House.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but there is a little bit of concern about the nature of the people who have been recruited. Do any of them, as far as he is aware, have any knowledge or experience of the workings of Parliament?

[Sir George Young]

SCIPSA contains a large number of Members of Parliament, including myself and, if the House approves the motion, the shadow Leader of the House and four or five other colleagues. Input from Members of Parliament already exists on the board, and we would not expect it to come from the lay members.

Although the Act provides for a maximum appointment length of five years, the motion provides for each lay member to be appointed for a different duration, reflecting the placing of the candidates in the final report of the board to the Speaker. Thus Dame Janet Gaymer will be appointed for five years, Elizabeth McMeikan for four years, and Sir Anthony Holland for three years. All three of those excellent candidates could quite reasonably be appointed for the maximum period, but if we did that, the Committee would probably lose the expertise and experience of all three simultaneously.

[Mr Winnick]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. May I expand on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and, to a certain extent, by me in an earlier intervention? Is it not important for us to have some knowledge of the incomes of people who make judgments about the incomes of Members of Parliament, and their remunerations as a whole? It is not a question of trying to interfere in their lives. They have volunteered to be part of the IPSA establishment and to be in the public domain, and I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any secrecy about their own total incomes.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce a wholly new principle to people’s appointments to bodies that have some involvement with the House of Commons, or indeed some outside bodies. It was not one of the terms and conditions of these people’s appointments that they should declare their outside interests, and I think it would be quite wrong to require them to do that. It would be an unnecessary intrusion on their privacy.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again. I understand that to accept the suggestion advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) would be to adopt a new principle, but I nevertheless feel that we should know what remuneration the lay members will receive specifically for their work on the Committee.

[Sir George Young]

I can satisfy the hon. Lady in that regard. The Act entitles lay members to remuneration and allowances to be determined by the Speaker and paid by IPSA. The daily rate of pay has been set at £300, which is comparable to the rate paid to those fulfilling similar roles elsewhere in the public sector.

I am happy to assure the House that the competition was fair and open, as the statute requires, and I am sure that Members will agree that the three candidates who have emerged from the process have a wealth of relevant public and private sector experience to support them.

I think it worth reminding the House that the scope of the Speaker’s Committee is limited, and that it is not intended to serve as a forum or liaison for dealing with hon. Members’ issues with the organisation. That is why you, Mr Speaker, announced last week the creation of a separate liaison group, which I know the House will welcome.

I commend the motion to the House.

19:39

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

As the Leader of the House said, this motion has two parts, the first of which deals simply with the appointment of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House to the Committee to replace the former shadow Leader of the House, who is now the Labour Chief Whip. I am sure that we can rely on him to speak up for Members’ interests in that Committee, as we can on its other members.

The second part of the motion appoints the lay members of the Committee, in line with the House’s decision when it passed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That being the case, Labour Members do not intend to oppose the motion, but I wish to raise a few concerns, which I believe are shared by other hon. Members. The first, while being no reflection on the probity of the members appointed to the Committee, relates to how the public appointments process in general, which is simply reflected in this motion, seems always to appoint people from the same charmed circle to various public appointments. We do not have an appointments process that encourages people from all walks of life to apply. The House will need to consider this matter if this Committee stays in being, because we need a more balanced set of appointments as we do in many other walks of public life.

As the Leader of the House has mentioned remuneration, I should like to put my second concern on the record. The House is getting very concerned at the level of remuneration afforded to those who help scrutinise the work of this House compared with that afforded to Members of Parliament. That is a concern. I do not know how that level of remuneration was arrived at, and perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us when he sums up. It seems to me that the daily rate considered appropriate for Members of this House should also be considered appropriate for lay members of the House’s Committees. I hope that in due course the House will turn its attention to that, because we tend to forget it. Many Members do not necessarily wish to stand up and say that, but this is a concern for Members from all parts of the House.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

May I suggest that any reasonable claim for travelling expenses related to the work should be submitted through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority process, thus giving the members of the Speaker’s Committee a full appreciation of how that process works or malfunctions?

[Helen Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down a route that is far away from this motion. However, I have said, as have others, that many of the problems with Members’ remuneration and expenses would be solved if other people in the public sector were tied to the same rates as Members of Parliament. I doubt very much that that will happen.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Is it a requirement for appointment that one has to be computer literate so as to be able to fill in forms and so on online? Is that part of the qualification for appointment?

[Helen Jones]

I am not aware that that is the case, but I am not sure that even those of us who are reasonably computer literate can cope with a system that seems designed perversely to put as many obstacles in the way as possible. That being said, it is important that we continue with the process that the House has agreed. Labour Members will support the motion.

19:43

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). I think, however, that she misunderstood the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), because if anybody on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority had to apply for their own expenses in the way that Members of Parliament are required, they would have a greater understanding of either the problems that IPSA had in setting up a scheme under time pressure or the mistakes that were made when it was set up.

At the risk of boring you, Mr Speaker, I just want to mention the first fact, which is relevant to SCIPSA. When we do our own expenses, we have to get a barcode on a screen. It takes more than the number of fingers on my hand to get it printed out, but everyone has to have it printed out. What most people do not know is that when that gets posted with the receipts to IPSA, the first thing IPSA does is generate another barcode to stick on the bits of paper that we put a barcode on in the first place. I suspect that SCIPSA should be interested in following a claim from a Member’s PA through the Member to IPSA and in asking the IPSA members whether they tried the scheme before they imposed it on people in the House of Commons.

The second point on which I want to disagree with the hon. Lady is that I do not think that those who appoint the members of IPSA should necessarily be paid the same as us. It is quite clear—I say this just to make friends—that there cannot be a serious pay increase for Members of Parliament during this Parliament, but we ought to have a system to ensure that people who are elected after the next general election get a level of pay whereby being a general practitioner in politics is equivalent to being a general practitioner in medicine. If a Member of Parliament is not worth it, we should change the Member of Parliament, not lower the rate of pay.

I believe it is wrong to say that the lay members of SCIPSA should be people who represent a range of jobs throughout the economy. It is far better that they should have had the experience of being the human resources and personnel director of a major company. It is important that they have had some experience, as a civil service commissioner would have had, of seeing what appointments are like. The fact of making appointments matters most and my personal belief is that if the hon. Lady, I or any of the other right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber had been in charge of appointing members of IPSA, they would have the same kinds of talent as the present members but would not have made the same decisions. IPSA had a virtually impossible job to do to begin with and it did not do it brilliantly. I hope that SCIPSA will say to IPSA, “What do you think you’ve done wrong and how can we ensure that the wrongs get righted and that further wrongs are not created in the future?” The present system, frankly, would be better put in a wastepaper basket and I hope that the members of SCIPSA help to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Public Accounts Commission

Ordered,

That Dr Stella Creasy, Mr Edward Leigh, Mrs Anne McGuire and John Pugh be appointed, and that Dr William McCrea be discharged as members of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983.—(Mr Heath.)

Business without Debate

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Criminal Law

That the draft Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to.

Burton’s Foods (Moreton)

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

19:47

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in this year’s Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Burton’s food factory in Moreton is the largest private sector employer in my constituency and has been a mainstay of employment in the communities of Moreton and Leasowe for well over half a century. The site currently employs 342 people on permanent contracts, but biscuit making is a seasonal activity so there is the potential for an extra 200 seasonal workers during busy production times. It is not unusual for seasonal workers to work for up to 10 months of the year. During the production peak last year, for example, 566 employees were working in the factory.

Last year the company announced a supply chain review, but only days into the new year it announced the shocking news that it intends to close down the entire site by the end of 2011 with the loss of all jobs. It wishes to outsource chocolate refining for Cadbury, a specialism long performed to a very exacting standard in Moreton, to an unspecified supplier. It plans to invest £7 million in two other sites, Llantarnam in Wales and Edinburgh, as well as consolidating its distribution operations, again to an unspecified place.

We are at the beginning of the statutory 90 days of consultation that must by law precede redundancies. The work force, their representatives and I are determined to use that period in the most constructive way that we can to try to persuade Burton’s Foods to change its mind about this disastrous decision. My first priority is to work with all interested parties to win the battle to save these jobs, which why I am so pleased that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), is here to answer the debate tonight. I have given him advance notice of the questions with which I hope he can help me, so that we can give the work force the best chance of saving their jobs and avoiding the devastating effects that closure would have on the communities I represent. I shall return to those considerations, but first I want to deal with the developing situation in more detail.

I am grateful to Burton’s Foods for agreeing to make available the information on which it is basing its decision, but unfortunately it has not yet delivered on that commitment. The so-called data room that will house the information was due to be opened by Monday of this week, but the most recent information I have is that it will not be open until Thursday. That means that two weeks of the 90-day consultation period have already been wasted in waiting for the promised information to be provided. There are also serious worries that the quality, accessibility and level of detail of the data will not be good enough to facilitate a testing analysis of the company’s approach to the closure decision. I make this plea to the company: for speed and transparency, please co-operate with us and make available all the information in an easily accessible way. We aim to generate different proposals that offer a viable alternative to the decisions that the company has made in its supply chain review.

Sadly, we have been in this position before with Burton’s Foods. In 2007, the company earmarked the factory for total closure, but that was just months after the expiry of legal obligations it had agreed to in 2001 to access £4 million-worth of regional selective assistance from the regional development agency and rates rebates from the local authority. After that closure announcement, the work force were escorted off the site by security guards who had been hired specifically for the purpose. After that rather difficult beginning, we, together with the work force and their representatives, and after a successful campaign in the local community and this House, persuaded the company to change its mind. On 15 August 2007, a memorandum of understanding between the management and the Unite union, on behalf of the employees, was signed, saving manufacturing at the site and safeguarding a total of 437 jobs. In exchange for an undertaking that there would be no major restructuring on the site before May 2012, the work force accepted the proposed changes, some of which were painful, including new working practices. More painfully, there were 500 job losses despite evidence that the company’s productivity had been increasing consistently year on year.

The Moreton work force have more than delivered on their side of the deal in the MOU. They have increased their productivity still further, despite having had pay freezes in four of the past 10 years and very modest increases in the other years. They have delivered £12.7 million-worth of cost reduction to the business and have agreed major changes in working practices to achieve that transformation. Let me give two examples that illustrate the nature of their commitment.

The Moreton factory produces the Christmas selections at the high-value end of any biscuit manufacture, and have been responsible for increasing the sales of seasonal products by 16%. That is four times greater than for Burton’s main competitor and is an astonishing achievement in a tough and competitive environment. Likewise, the new Duels product, which was introduced relatively recently, was first made in Moreton and is now manufactured at the factory. The plan was for that new product to break even in 18 months, but due to the hard work and commitment of the managers and the marketing team, as well as the undoubted skills of the work force at Moreton, it has grown from nothing to a £20 million turnover business in just 12 months. None of the work force could have done any better—and what is their reward? The sack.

There are serious issues about whether the memorandum of understanding has been honoured by the company. No one is saying that conditions are anything other than tough in the £2.2 billion biscuit sector. Commodity prices have risen substantially and the retail environment makes it difficult for manufacturers to pass on extra costs to their customers. The company has changed hands in the year following a restructuring that converted into new equity £137.7 million of borrowing that had been loaded on to the company by a string of private equity owners. That has reduced the group’s interest burden to a manageable level. The previous private equity owners, Duke Street Capital, passed ownership on to a number of parties, none of which now individually has a controlling interest, but I understand that they include the Canadian Imperial Bank and Apollo Asset Management.

Although the company is clearly experiencing difficulties in the market, the 2010 annual report shows positive figures over the past year. Its turnover was up 4%. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation were up slightly, as was its gross profit margin. Although that was a modest performance, I note in passing that the directors’ remuneration increased by a staggering 97.5%, with a 119.9% increase for the highest paid director. That makes a startling contrast to the years of wage freezes inflicted on the work force at Moreton.

So there are tough conditions to contend with in the market. We all know that this requires an imaginative response, but I do not believe that the supply chain review is the right one. There are good grounds for believing that the production costs at the Moreton site have been overestimated, whereas the closure costs have been underestimated. There is much in the company’s figures to contest.

Since the factory opened in 1953, it has been a dominant employer in the Leasowe and Moreton area. It is not uncommon for entire families to work at the factory, sometimes with more than one generation on the production line at the same time. If the closure were to go ahead, it would be devastating for many of my constituents. It would decimate the local economy at a time when it is already fragile. The human cost cannot be overestimated.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I applaud my hon. Friend for initiating this debate and for her concentration on the impact on Wallasey, but despite the divisions between our two areas, people move over the borders from Birkenhead to work. My plea to the Minister is that he does not address only the points that my hon. Friend is making. The Government have a welfare reform programme and want people on long-term benefit to move into work. It is difficult anyway to achieve that. It is doubly difficult if the job market disappears for those wishing to make the transition.

[Ms Eagle]

My right hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that.

There are many local families who would lose more than one breadwinner and face serious hardship if the closure goes ahead. A closure would cause the local economy great difficulty. As an article in the Wirral Globe recently pointed out, many local small businesses benefit from the custom of so many employees on the site, and others, such as Abbey Supplies, deal directly with Burton’s.

My first priority is to do all I can to save those jobs. That is why I am glad that the Minister is here, listening to the debate. It is important that in parallel I work to safeguard the interests of those whom I represent, which is why I have written to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) seeking a meeting with him to discuss the implications for our local employment market, should the closure go ahead. However, I would prefer the Minister to work with me to stop that happening.

Any potential closure of the site would have ramifications beyond the workers and their families who work at Burton’s Foods. Two other companies, Manor Bakeries and Typhoo Tea, share the site with Burton’s. These factories between them employ 620 more people. Executives at Typhoo Tea have highlighted how any potential closure of the Burton’s factory could cause them at least £1.5 million in extra costs as they have shared agreements on electricity, gas, drainage and stock rooms. It is crucial to avoid a domino effect on the site, and I wish to know what the Government could offer in the way of support to prevent that from happening in the event of a closure going ahead.

The week before Burton’s Foods dropped the jobs bombshell on Moreton, the Prime Minister and Michael Heseltine had been visiting the docks in Wallasey. Indeed, the Prime Minister referred to that at Prime Minister’s questions today. The visit was part of their growth tour. Although the Wirral Waters development is potentially very exciting, it is a plan which by its nature cannot make progress quickly. The Government’s contention has been that the private sector will grow to fill the gap caused by the decision to cut public spending so quickly and deeply, but I am sad to report to the House that we are already experiencing public sector job cuts announced locally. Wirral borough council has decided to cut 1,100 of its employees this year—one sixth of the total—but the private sector has not filled the gap. By its announcement, Burton’s Foods has piled on the agony.

Even prior to these announcements, Wallasey was suffering high unemployment. In December, Government figures showed that 2,173 people were claiming jobseeker’s allowance. For every job vacancy, there are now 17 applicants, and that is before the job losses announced by Burton’s and the local authority have taken effect. That is why it is so important to fight to save these jobs. I implore the company to think again and work with the employees to develop an alternative proposal that can allow it to remain competitive in the market while securing jobs at the site.

I would be grateful if the Minister could lend his support by dealing with the following questions tonight. Work is going on to formulate alternative proposals that will meet the company’s requirements without closing the Moreton factory. Similar exercises have succeeded in the past, but only with active Government support. What support can the Government offer if we are able to put together a package that will convince the company to rethink its decision? What grants has the company applied for from the Scottish and Welsh Governments to support its proposals to move jobs from Moreton, and can the Minister promise to match any grant offered to secure those jobs in England? The company accounts for last year show a credit of £418,000 for

“the release of Government grants”.

Can the Minister explain what these outstanding grants are? Can he also explain what leeway, if any, the outstanding moneys may give in encouraging the company to think again?

As I have already mentioned, two other businesses remain on site, Typhoo Tea and Manor Bakeries, which employ 620 people between them. They have indicated the extra costs that they face if the Burton’s factory were to close. What support can the Minister pledge in order to prevent a domino effect, putting those jobs at risk too, if the closure were to go ahead?

The Moreton site is the only land in the area suitable for industrial development and zoned for that use. If there were a closure we would need significant public investment to ensure that it could be developed to create the potential for future jobs growth and enhance local job prospects. What support could the Department offer in those circumstances?

My constituents who work at the plant will fight for their jobs. They will not roll over, but they need the support and help of the Government to ensure that there is a level playing field in grant support in all areas of this country. We heard the Prime Minister today promise to support private sector businesses throughout the country, but particularly in Merseyside, and workers at Moreton are looking to the Government to keep the promise that the Prime Minister made earlier today and support private sector jobs and promote growth.

At a time when families in Moreton and Leasowe are desperately worried about rising unemployment, I ask the Minister to work with me to help save the Moreton site and to secure the jobs of one of Britain’s most established, dedicated and successful work forces.

20:03

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on securing the debate. She has raised a number of important questions, which I will seek to answer. I know from looking at the history of the site that this has been a vexed site and plant, so these are not necessarily new problems with this particular business or location; she rightly alluded to that.

I was sorry to hear of the decision, which I first learned about from the media, and then heard about from the hon. Lady when she raised the matter in the Chamber last week. Clearly, the concern that she has rightly shown for the 342 employees will be shared in the House. It is very unwelcome news and it is inevitably a worrying time for both the employees and the families, let alone the community. Having been through that experience myself, I understand how people often take this as very much a personal issue.

Since the company announced the factory closure earlier this month, Jobcentre Plus has been in contact to offer the support of its rapid response service. The company has accepted that offer of help and the details of the tailored support package that will be offered to the work force are currently being worked out. That support will focus on helping Burton’s employees find alternative employment as quickly as possible and will take a number of forms. In addition to offering advice on writing CVs and doing job searches, depending on what is required, the support package might include matching the employees made redundant to known job vacancies and helping individuals to identify their transferable skills and training needs to help them find work in the local labour market.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Prisk]

I will give way on that point, which is a precursor to the broader issues.

[Ms Eagle]

I understand that, but I hope that the Minister has listened with some sympathy to the fact that 17 people are currently chasing every vacancy in Wallasey. It is not a question of writing CVs; it is a question of demand and the existence and supply of jobs. What he describes would be important if the plant were to close, but I hope that he will help us to keep it open.

[Mr Prisk]

Certainly, and my purpose in elaborating on this is for people to understand the broad packages available. I will then move on to the questions the hon. Lady has raised.

In addition, the support package will set up an action fund to help workers take up a new job, for example by giving help with travel-to-work expenses, which relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). As I said, redundancy can be a personal tragedy for every individual and their families, so the Government are committed to helping people find alternative employment as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady cited the disappointing GDP figures in support of a claim that the Government are somehow pursuing the wrong economic strategy. In fact, the Office for National Statistics has made it perfectly clear that the fall in GDP was largely driven by the weather late last year, when we experienced the coldest December since records began. In looking at the figures, it is noticeable that the manufacturing sector, which we are talking about today, was in fact performing well.

[Ms Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Prisk]

I am happy to do so, but I am trying to get to the hon. Lady’s points.

[Ms Eagle]

I understand that and thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In the spirit of trying to work together to find a positive solution, I did not play politics with the issue and did not mention the GDP figures. I am trying to see whether the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be able to offer positive help to save the jobs. We all know what has to happen, and I would wish to discuss that with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who is responsible for employment, if the worst happens and the factory closes. However, I wanted this Minister to be here so that we could try to save the jobs, and I deliberately did not mention yesterday’s GDP figures because I did not want to get into a party political argument about economics. I am trying to help my constituents to get by and to save local jobs, and I am a little disappointed that he has claimed that I mentioned the figures.

[Mr Prisk]

I am trying to set out the context of where we are, because it is important for understanding why some factories are closed and others are prospering. It is important to remember that we are seeing record output levels in manufacturing as a whole, although clearly there will be individual factories, to which the hon. Lady has rightly alluded, where there are specific circumstances, such as the way own-brand goods are damaging the food and drink industry’s manufacturing side, that might lead them to close. We need to understand the reasons behind individual factory closures and why some parts of the manufacturing sector are prospering in the north-west and others are not. That is the context that I am trying to set out.

We feel at this stage that the crucial thing that industry needs more than anything is certainty and clarity on the overall picture. That is why we are cutting the corporation tax rate from 28p to 24p, which will result in the UK having the lowest corporation tax rate of the G7 nations. That matters for an important reason: by 2016 it will unlock £13 billion of investment that industry and business can reinvest. When we look at the past problems of the Moreton plant, which has received £3 million in direct grant assistance from the public sector, we must recognise that if the business itself says that it cannot make the plant viable, there is a challenge as to what the Government can then do to change that.

On the broader picture, I must say that we are focused on investing in programmes such as the manufacturing advisory service, which is expressly designed to help strengthen and improve manufacturers. We are also putting £200 million into an enterprise capital fund, which is good for growth businesses. The hon. Lady referred to Burton’s existing account balance, and that might be relevant, but we would also point to the importance of the enterprise finance guarantee, which seeks to generate up to £2 billion of additional lending—again, an important issue in that sector.

On the broader issue of adult apprenticeships, the additional investment of £250 million is very important, because, as the north-west economy restructures and we see good success—for example, in the aerospace and automotive sector—the need for more adult apprenticeships will be crucial. That is why we are seeking to expand their number, so that the opportunity for the hon. Lady’s constituents and those in neighbouring areas is significant, enabling them to retrain where other businesses cannot prosper.

[Mr Frank Field]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Prisk]

Yes, then I shall move on to the specific issues that the hon. Lady raised

[Mr Field]

One key point that my hon. Friend made was that, in the situation under discussion, we have a very specific group of employers who are very clever at managing public sector support for their industry; and one question that she asked was whether the Minister knows whether the Welsh Assembly Government or the Scottish Government are issuing support to entice the firm away from Moreton, because it enjoys taxpayer support. If they are, can the Government—the English Government—match what the Welsh and Scottish Governments are offering?

[Mr Prisk]

I am going to address the specifics of the hon. Lady’s questions, but I wanted to ensure, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out, that we looked at the context, because there are good manufacturing stories to be told in the north-west, and it is important to stress that.

The hon. Lady referred, first, to the alternative proposals, in which I know she is actively engaged, and she asked what might happen if they were successful. We have a problem, because Burton’s has decided to wind down its business and to reinvest elsewhere. I shall turn to the Scottish numbers in a moment, because we have made specific inquiries. It is therefore very difficult, at this moment, for the Government to try in any way to override a decision if the company wishes to move from that location to elsewhere—however frustrating I am sure that will be for the hon. Lady. If the company does not wish to remain on that site, it is very difficult for the Government to change the fundamentals of that particular business.

On the Scottish Government grants that have been allegedly applied for, we have made specific inquiries to try to help the hon. Lady, and at the moment we understand that no detailed discussions have taken place between the company and the authorities. There has been an initial discussion, but no business plan, details or finance plan have been discussed. The location in question in Scotland would not qualify for regional selective assistance, however, so we wait to find out what the discussions may or may not be about between Burton’s and the Scottish authorities. I have asked my officials to monitor the situation closely, and if we receive that information we will of course share it with the hon. Lady, so that she is able, in her local discussions, to deal with it. She will appreciate, however, that at this moment and at this Dispatch Box it is very difficult and, indeed, probably inappropriate for me to second guess what may or may not be offered.

On the question of the company’s accounts for last year, which show a credit of £418,000 for, as the hon. Lady put it,

“the release of Government grants”,

we have spoken to the Northwest Regional Development Agency, and I am disappointed to tell her that, as of an hour ago, it has not been able to provide us with that information. I have pressed upon the RDA the need for it, and the moment I receive a reply I shall of course share it with the hon. Lady, so that she can understand the background to the situation and what

“the release of Government grants”

actually means.

The hon. Lady referred to two other businesses, Typhoo Tea and Manor Bakeries. She asked whether there is a danger of a domino effect because the security and amenities on the site are shared. I am concerned that the closure of the plant should not have unreasonable adverse effects on the neighbouring businesses. I am not familiar with the exact site and with what those effects might be, and I am not sure whether it would be £1.5 million, £2 million or £3 million. However, we are in direct contact with the RDA to establish the specific facts and itemised numbers on that. She said that the data centre that the company offered is not yet operational. If we get that information from the other companies through the RDA, we will bring it to her. It is difficult for me, in the circumstances, to make a commitment at this moment, but I am happy to come back to her in due course when we have more information on that issue.

The hon. Lady said that the Moreton site was effectively the only land in the area that is suitable for industrial development and zoned for that use. She asked what the situation would be if there was a closure, because it could be serious. A number of avenues are open, and I urge her to work with business and civic leaders in this area, as I know she already is. She mentioned the regional growth fund, the first round of which closed today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Prisk]

We are in the last minute of the debate, so I will not give way.

The £1.4 billion regional growth fund has been set up. The first round has closed, but the second has not. The hon. Lady might want to consider that. In addition, there is the £1.5 billion business growth fund that the banks have established to deliver investment. As I said, if things do not work out, Jobcentre Plus help is available.

I appreciate the difficulties in the hon. Lady’s area, and it is important that we remain in conversation and contact on this matter. It is early days, but I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. At this moment, it would be unwise of me to make a carte blanche offer of help in monetary terms, because we are not fully conversant with the facts. When we are, I will be happy to have further conversations with her, or her neighbouring colleagues if that is appropriate. On that note, I will draw my remarks to a—

20:17

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).