European Union (Referendum) Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that we are considering a private Member’s Bill, but is it in order for its promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to be taking advice from Foreign Office civil servants in the Box?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is normal for Ministers to approach the Box, and only Ministers. I did not see anyone approach the Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I know where the hon. Gentleman is now thank you, Ms McCarthy, but I am saying that I did not see him approach the Box and I am sure he will not do that. It is supposed to be for Ministers. Having eyes in the back of my head is not a skill I have yet developed, but I am sure the protocol will be observed.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There cannot be anything further to that point of order. I have said that Ministers may approach the Box and nobody else should. I am sure that from now on nobody else will, apart from Ministers or their Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Where were we?
Mike Gapes
I was halfway through giving way, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) concluded his intervention?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Jones, you know full well that that is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the Minister or the Member who has the Floor to decide to whom they give way, but perhaps the Minister could indicate to the House whether he wishes to make some progress.
Mr Lidington
Members from all three main parties have made some serious points about Gibraltar.
Huw Irranca-Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. From the start of the debate, I have listened intently to every word. I believe that perhaps inadvertently the Government Front-Bench spokesman has misrepresented the position of our Front-Bench team. However, he is refusing to give way. Is there any recourse for our Front-Bench team to clarify a point not only of debate but of accuracy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I get the gist. It is not a point of order. The Minister has the Floor and is responsible for what he says to the House. Opposition Front Benchers will get their opportunity to speak in the debate. If the Minister does not wish to give way, that is a matter for him. The normal courtesies are that Members give way at some point, but they do not have to do so repeatedly.
Mr Bain
I rise to support amendment 69. I would also like to comment on other amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).
Some important points have been raised about the franchise. The first I would take up is the one about EU nationals. I have a regular correspondence with a Danish constituent in the Hogganfield part of my constituency who is married to a UK national, and has the right to vote in a Scottish Parliament election, a local government election in Scotland and European elections in this country. He will have the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, but under the Bill as drafted by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) he will not have the right to vote in this referendum.
That throws up an interesting anomaly. We know that one of the implications of the Scottish referendum is that Scotland would no longer be an EU member state. Therefore, my constituent is being allowed the opportunity to vote once on whether to stay in the EU, but in the event of Scotland’s voting to stay in the UK he would be denied the opportunity to vote a second time on whether to stay part of the EU as a citizen of the UK. Such anomalies show the mess that the hon. Gentleman and the Government are getting themselves into with the Bill as currently drafted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South mentioned prisoners’ right to vote. Of course none of us in the House wants prisoners who have been convicted of serious offences or given long sentences to be given the right to vote, but an important point in relation to the franchise of prisoners in referendums came up in the discussion about the Scottish referendum. It is regrettable that we have not been joined by the Attorney-General because we would have benefited from his good counsel on that point. There is case law from the European Court of Human Rights in 2008. That says that article 3 of protocol 1, which deals with the right to vote and participate in democratic votes, says that that right is qualified, is limited to the choice of the legislature and does not apply to the election of a Head of State or indeed to referendums.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been in the House quite a long time, but I have never known a debate on a private Member’s Bill in which, after two and a half hours, the promoter still has not said a word. Is that right that he never speaks, and that the Minister dominates the conversation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
That is not a point of order. It is entirely up to Members to indicate when they want to speak. In fact, I have a long list of Members who have indicated that they want to speak in this debate, and it would be good to make some progress.
Huw Irranca-Davies
A crucial point is the cost of compensation resulting from prisoners mounting challenges under the legislation. Would my hon. Friend be willing to give way if the promoter of the Bill—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is quite enough. If the promoter of the Bill wishes to take part in the debate, he will indicate that in the normal way. I do not require Mr Bain to comment on that. I would like him to speak to his amendment and the other amendments that we are discussing.
Mr Bain
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I fully support the amendment on votes at 16 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. It is clear that 16 and 17-year-olds will have the right to vote in the Scottish referendum, and I support that right for all elections. It is intolerable that, as Demos showed in 2010, 16 and 17-year-olds contributed £500 million in taxes over the preceding 10 years but are still disfranchised.
Meg Hillier
Yes, I have made that very point. All of us in the Chamber have called the Secretary of State for Education to account, and no doubt even he would be keen to ensure that education about democracy was filtering down to our local schools through the national framework. We ask a lot of our schools, but it is important to develop that area of education, and it is right for us to provide an imperative to develop it. Frankly, if something is good enough for the Scots, it is good enough for Hackney’s 16 and 17-year-olds and those from London, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let me touch on some of the other amendments in the group. We have spent an awful lot of time discussing Gibraltar, so you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not planning to discuss the 20,000 votes of the Gibraltarians, albeit not because that is unimportant. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has tabled significant amendments about British citizens and residents and their right to vote, and I feel strongly about this issue. When I was a Minister, I spent a lot of time dealing with not only issues affecting the UK, but European issues. During my three years as a Minister, I had quite a lot of contact with British citizens in Spain who were interested in and concerned about policies. I was the Minister responsible for identity cards, and those British citizens in Spain were among the greatest cheerleaders for those cards and wanted to be early adopters of the scheme. They have a strong interest in what is going on in their mother country and are keen to have a vote.
If we want to be fair in this referendum, we must unpick the Government's muddle. Why have they chosen the parliamentary boundaries rather than the local government boundaries, which will be used in the referendum in Scotland? There is a confusing message about who is a voter in this country.
My constituency is one of the most multicultural in the country, as well as one of the youngest, so Hackney is certainly up there at the top of what I like to think of as the chart of achievement. I have a large number of European and African constituents, as well as people with leave to remain and naturalised British citizens. Many of those people can vote in different elections, but there is often confusion about in which elections they can vote. Overall, the message from today’s debate is that we must be clearer about who has the right to vote.
Ultimately, in a European election, it is important that those from the wider European arena have the chance to vote. For instance, a French person living in Britain can vote for an MEP either where they live or where they are from—they have that choice. In this case, they would not have that choice. They would not be able to vote in this referendum, despite their links to Europe—this is obviously a European issue as well as a British issue—and to the UK.
I fully support amendment 45, which would enfranchise all those entitled to vote in European elections, including EU citizens. I feel very sore that I cannot vote in the Scottish referendum, as I am a British citizen with strong views about Scotland’s remaining part of the UK so that we stand united as a group of nations in Europe and the world. I do not get a say on that, and I think that that a similar anomaly will occur with this referendum.
On amendment 47, I feel that it is only fair that British citizens living in EU member states should get a say. As I said, I have had contact with those citizens abroad, and they feel that they are British even though they have chosen to live in another part of the EU. They have not gone to Timbuktu; they live in the political and economic union of which we are part. They are EU citizens, but feel that they are British EU citizens wherever they live. We are all EU citizens and we must see the issue in its EU context.
There are good reasons why many of those people would be important voters, and why 16 and 17-year-olds should be voting to support our membership of the EU. Although there is a need for some reform, as I saw at first hand during three years of negotiating on behalf of the British Government in the EU, there are huge benefits to our being part of Europe, especially with regard to justice and home affairs measures. We therefore need to ensure that all people who should have a vote get a vote.
I will not go into those benefits in enormous detail, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I fear your opprobrium if I go too far off the subject, but let us consider some of them. The much-discussed European arrest warrant, for all its faults, still provides major protection across Europe. I commend the Select Committee on Home Affairs for its report that considered all such issues, particularly the European arrest warrant. Without the warrant, we would need 27 separate treaties with EU member states to deal with the problem. It is important that we get the franchise right so that people can vote on such an important issue.
There is also a benefit from the European Union criminal records information system. People repeatedly worry when employing people from an EU member state that does not have our ability to check criminal records, which we do through our vetting and barring scheme, as they are not sure who they are getting. That information system is one way that the situation is being improved through European co-operation. If we cannot opt back into that system, it will be a real concern. I do not want to confuse the debate by going into the opt-ins and opt-outs on justice and home affairs, but those are big issues that affect and benefit Britain. Similarly, the Schengen information system—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Lady is drifting considerably away from the subject. Occasionally saying, “That is why it is important to broaden the franchise,” is not keeping her comments in order. I would be grateful if she would refer specifically to the amendments, rather than the wider debate.
Meg Hillier
As I hinted, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspected that I would be tempted to drift away. Thank you for reining me in, as my natural enthusiasm for this subject overtook me.
It is important that young people should have the chance to vote on these vital issues. British citizens living abroad should also have that chance to vote, because they will be affected by Britain’s opt-out, wherever they are living in the EU. EU citizens living in Britain also should have the chance to vote. I hope that I have made my points clear. Notwithstanding my concerns that a vote to remove Britain from the EU would be a great mistake, if we are to go down the route of having a referendum, we must ensure that it is fair and that the franchise is as wide as is reasonable to ensure that nobody feels excluded or cut out from this important decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Obviously, lots of things are said in this Chamber, but I am duty bound to point out that the hon. Member for Stockton South has been present for most of the time and that he informed the Chair that he needed to pop out for a few minutes. Although speculation is rife, I am sure he will be back very soon.
Chris Williamson
I note that my hon. Friend does not take The Northern Echo, but does he take the Derby Evening Telegraph? Just down the road from where the paper is based is the Toyota factory, which was the biggest inward investment in western Europe when it was made. It is clear that, were it not for Britain’s membership of the European Union, that investment would not have come to the UK and to Derbyshire. It has benefitted my constituency and the county and created thousands upon thousands of jobs. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the impact that this Bill and leaving the EU would have on Toyota?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We are talking about the specific amendments, which are about the franchise. I cannot quite see how they stretch as far as Toyota, unless the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is going to enlighten me.
Mr Thomas
I hope to come to the amendments on the possibility of giving 16 and 17-year-olds—some of whom may be looking forward to a career in Toyota—the right to vote. Let me clarify that I do not read the Derby Evening Telegraph. I happen to think that the Harrow Observer and the Harrow Times are the better newspapers to read.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you follow the rules of the House closely, and clearly the rules on photography in the Chamber are very strict. As you know, this morning I have been keeping a close eye on the Box, and I was aware that a minute ago one of its occupants was holding up his mobile phone. I do not know whether he inadvertently did not know the rules on filming proceedings, and I ask for your guidance on that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
It is quite simple: photography in the Chamber is not allowed by anybody. I am sure that those on the Treasury Benches are capable of ensuring that that includes civil servants in the Box.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am advised that we can ask a Doorkeeper to undertake that should it be necessary.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Deep Sea Mining Bill (Ways and Means)
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lady Hermon
I was particularly struck by the Minister’s phrase that the Bill will benefit “British companies” and allow them to exploit the deep sea bed. The Bill runs to only two clauses, but does it contain a clause that I have not noticed which reduces those who can mine the deep sea bed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland—but not Scotland—to British companies only?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister answers, it may be helpful if I remind the House that we are not discussing the Bill. This is about the charging regime for the licences; the debate is on the Ways and Means motion. I fear that we are in danger of debating the Bill, which would not be in order this evening. I know that the Minister is trying to keep in order.
Mr Swire
I am most grateful to you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would normally give the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) as straight an answer as I possibly could, but your injunction prevents me from doing so, so I will continue my speech.
The country as a whole will benefit, too, from the associated revenue, supply chain jobs and science and technology development. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
Mr Swire
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman but I fear that I would be under the same injunction from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were I to debate exploration around the sea in Northern Ireland. There will be an opportunity to explore these matters further in Committee; the motion is about allowing the Bill to proceed in Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Shannon, if you could stand up and thank the Minister for his intervention and clarification, that would help us.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his clarification on those matters and stand graciously admonished.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you for your assistance, Mr Shannon, as the Minister would otherwise have spoken twice.
Question put and agreed to.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not be here. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on how long Members should remain in their places at the conclusion of a debate to hear the winding-up speeches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr Rees-Mogg, I think you know the answer to that. Members are required to hear the speech before them and two after. We are on a private Member’s Bill today, not a Government Bill, and the Front Benchers have already spoken.
Mr Denham
I am not one of those who have been accused of abusing the courtesies of this House, but there is no requirement in the courtesies of this House to vote on a motion that is ridiculous, so I will not be voting on it.
There was a time, not so long ago, when private Members’ Bills were used for matters of great social reform, such as homosexual law reform and gay marriage. Issues of great constitutional importance were seen as the responsibilities of the Government. That may have changed. Gay marriage is an important social reform, so perhaps making it a Government proposal is progress—the Government’s gay marriage proposals certainly had many Government Members beside themselves. However, constitutional reforms, such as the Great Reform Act, the devolution referendum and the initial referendum on the European Union, which were the responsibilities of Government, have now been devolved by this weak and hopeless Prime Minister to private Members’ business. That is one great oddity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. It had better be a point of order, Mr Baron.
Mr Baron
It is a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker—or I hope it is. I seek your guidance. I have been misquoted by the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I promise the House that I have been directly misquoted. [Interruption.] I wrote the piece, so I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how one can correct the misquoting by the right hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The issue is a matter for debate, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I believe his name is down to be called in this debate and he will have ample opportunity at that point if he feels that the record needs to be corrected. I think he is experienced enough to know that these matters tend to be a point of debate rather than a point of order.
Mr Denham
The first point is that this is really a private matter for the Conservative party. Whether they believe that their Prime Minister is trustworthy or believable is primarily a matter for them, not for the rest of us. If they wish to humiliate their party leader, that is up to them. I do not intend to participate in the vote later today.
We know what happened. The humiliated Prime Minister was forced to let the Tory party publish a referendum Bill, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was unfortunate enough, from his point of view, to come top of the ballot. He might have made his name by trying to improve the lot of carers, improve animal welfare or tighten gas safety, or by engaging with the traditional territories of private Members’ Bills, but instead he has introduced this Bill. I do not blame him for it, but the Bill is about the Tory party and not the national interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I inform the House that more than 43 Members wish to participate in today’s debate. There will not be a time limit, because there is not in private Members’ business, but it would help if all Members could bear in mind that many of their colleagues wish to speak and, therefore, perhaps, make their speeches just a little shorter, if possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I again say to hon. Members that they just need to look around the Chamber to see how many of their colleagues want to speak in this debate? If we are to accommodate as many speakers as possible, Members must speak for less time than is currently the case. I cannot put a time limit on speeches, but I plead with Members to show each other mutual respect and do their best to leave enough time to get as many speakers in as possible.
Mr Nuttall
That is an interesting point, but I do not want to get drawn down the road of talking about the merits of our membership of the European Union. The Bill is not about the merits of our membership of the European Union, but about whether our constituents should have a say. It is because the Bill will give the people of Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington in my constituency the historic opportunity to vote for their freedom from the European Union that it has my wholehearted support. I wish it a speedy passage through this House.
European Elections 2014
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7648/13, a Commission Communication on preparing for the 2014 European elections and enhancing their democratic and efficient conduct, and No. 7650/13, a Commission Recommendation on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament; notes that whilst European political parties are free to support candidates for Commission President, this does not limit the European Council’s selection of a candidate; agrees with the Government that the suggestion for a common voting day across the EU is unhelpful and would achieve the opposite of the stated intention of increasing voter turnout; and further notes that there is currently no indication that these documents are going to be followed up by formal legislative proposals.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss these European Commission recommendations in the House. It is now less than 12 months until the 2014 European parliamentary elections due to be held from Thursday 22 May to Sunday 25 May. This debate is therefore timely. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry Minister. Members who wish to have private conversations would be well advised to leave the Chamber. There are those who wish to debate the European recommendations, and it is not very courteous to the Minister either.
Mr Lidington
On 12 March, the European Commission published a set of recommendations and a communication concerning the 2014 European parliamentary elections whose contents also touched on other areas of European political life. The proposals do not carry legal weight; they are non-binding suggestions to member states and national and European political parties. The Government always welcome contributions to the ongoing debate about democracy in the EU, but I believe that these specific proposals mistakenly assume that there is a single European political identity—a single European demos—and ignore the fact that the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy within the EU is derived from national Parliaments accountable to their national electorates. I believe that we need to work to strengthen the links between national democracies, their Parliaments and EU institutions.
We consider it unlikely that these recommendations will become formal legislative proposals from the Commission, but if they were to take that form, they would need to be decided by unanimity. The relevant treaty articles are articles 22(2) and 223(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, under the European Union Act 2011, any measure introduced by the Commission and agreed by the Council and Parliament under article 223(1) would also require an Act of Parliament for the United Kingdom to give it assent. The consequence of that is that the UK would have a veto over any such proposed change.
I want briefly to set out the recommendations in more detail, addressing those that concern the conduct of European elections, before turning to the Commission recommendation that European political parties make known their candidate for the post of Commission President. The first and second recommendations put forward by the Commission are intended to promote connections between European political parties and national political parties. The proposals suggest that national political parties should explain their connection with European political parties and make clear that connection in their electoral documents. Political parties in this country are perfectly free to advertise their European affiliation if they so choose. Ballot papers in the United Kingdom will continue to be produced in accordance with UK law, as will party political literature. If a United Kingdom party wishes prominently to display its European political affiliation, it is free to do so, but there should be no question of compulsion.
Recommendation 4—the suggestion that member states ought to agree a common voting day for elections to the European Parliament—has attracted some attention in the media. At the moment, elections to the European Parliament take place over a four-day period, which in 2014 is set to fall between 22 and 25 May, as I mentioned earlier. I fear that a number of right hon. and hon. Members might have read reports that the EU intends to force the UK to hold elections on a Sunday. It is my happy duty to inform the House that this is not the case. The UK will continue to hold elections on a Thursday, as is our tradition, and I am sure that other member states will rest equally assured that they will be able to continue to hold elections on their day of choice. To mandate that a member state change its election day would achieve the very opposite of the declared aim of the proposals—namely, an increase in voter turnout—and would be detrimental to electoral diversity across the EU.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I think that the Minister is stretching a point, as he has done several times already. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Perhaps we could return to the specifics of the debate, and any political jousting could take place outside the Chamber afterwards.
Mr Lidington
I am sure that, if the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) wishes to put himself forward as a rival to Mr Schulz, he will find some support on the Opposition Benches.
It is being suggested in some quarters, and was hinted at in the Commission’s communication, that only one of the candidates named by European political parties can become President of the European Commission. I have read—as, I am sure, have other Members—a fair bit of confused reporting on the process for selecting the next President, and it may help the House if I briefly explain the system as it is described in the treaties.
As is stated in article 17(7) of the treaty on European union, the European Council, acting by qualified majority,
“Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations… shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission.”
The candidate shall then be elected by a majority of the European Parliament’s Members. If the candidate cannot attain a majority, the European Council will propose a new candidate.
The House will note that there is no mention in the treaty of European political party candidates for the post of Commission President. In our opinion, such candidates were not envisaged by the requirement for the European Council to take account of the European Parliament elections. While there is nothing in the treaty to prevent European political parties from running candidates, there is also nothing to mandate the European Council to limit its selection of a Commission President to those in that particular pool, and any proposal to impose such a mandate would require amendment of the treaty.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister, you are stretching the debate very widely, as the document is not legally binding and therefore that is not to do with why this matter has been referred to the Floor of the House. This is not a blue-sky thinking exercise. Of course refer to the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which lays out the process, but please stick to what is on the Order Paper and what is before us now, not in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, I am speaking to the Minister, not you. I was not ruling what you said out of order.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion specifically refers to the proposals from the Commission, which include matters relevant to the nomination of candidates for the post of President. The article quoted by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is therefore directly relevant. Are we free to discuss it in that respect at least?
Madam Deputy Speaker
With respect, Mr Horwood, if you had listened to what I said, you would have heard me say article 17(7) is relevant. I was just suggesting to the Minister that, given that the whole document is not legally binding, while it is important that he explains the current arrangements, I hope he will not continue to stretch the debate rather wider than the document in question provides for. So you can of course discuss article 17(7).
Mr Lidington
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), let me explain our view on article 17(7). The European Council retains complete freedom to nominate whom it wishes. It is required to take into account the elections to the European Parliament, but there is nothing in article 17(7) or elsewhere in the treaty on European union that suggests the European Council is in any way mandated to limit its election to a particular pool of candidates. Indeed, it may be that no one political family commands a majority in the European Parliament, or it may be that different combinations of European political parties within the European Parliament prefer one candidate rather than another, and it may not be possible, simply by looking at which of the larger European groupings ends up in the lead after the elections next year, to determine what the preference even of the Parliament itself might be as to the preferred candidate.
Kelvin Hopkins
I must say that I am delighted by what my hon. Friend has just said about first past the post as opposed to list system PR. Does she think that our party might possibly make a commitment at the next election to restore first past the post for European elections in Britain?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Much as the hon. Lady might be tempted by that question, can we stick specifically to the European document before us? Manifestos can be written elsewhere.
Emma Reynolds
My overall objective in this House is obviously to make my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) happy, but I will defer to your instructions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not go down that line of argument.
In this case, and in others, the European Commission seems to have disregarded a very important principle that applies to European co-operation—that is, the subsidiarity principle. It is clear and obvious to me and Members across the House that it should be the decision of democratic political parties in the UK to decide how to approach European elections and how to campaign for them, and that it is up to Ministers in our Government and to this Parliament to decide on which day we should hold those elections. One of the most concerning elements of the proposals is the one to hold the European elections on the same day across the European Union. The Commission argues that member states should agree on
“a common day for elections to the European Parliament, with polling stations closing at the same time.”
That argument is problematic in two different ways. First, as has already been stated, we have a tradition in the UK of voting on a Thursday that, I understand, goes back to the 1930s. It is now fixed in law that local and general elections must take place on a Thursday. The date of European elections is not fixed in law but, according to section 4 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, European elections should be held on a date fixed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Nevertheless, here as well, the convention is that European elections take place on a Thursday, in line with other elections, as I described.
There are different traditions in different member states of the European Union. We, the Danes and the Dutch usually vote on a Thursday, the Irish vote on a Friday, and some other member states tend to vote on a Saturday or a Sunday. I strongly believe that it should continue to be a decision made by member states’ Governments as to which day of the week elections should be held. Here in the UK it is essential that there is uniformity across the different sets of elections, so general, local and European elections should all take place on a Thursday.
There is already a problem with low turnout in European elections. I would like to see a higher turnout in those elections. The Commission states that it wants to boost turnout and increase democratic legitimacy. I fear that its proposal to hold elections on the same day throughout the EU would do exactly the opposite of the stated objective. It might further decrease voter turnout and would therefore do nothing to improve democratic legitimacy.
Secondly, the idea that polling stations should close at the same time is also problematic because of the differences in time zones across the EU. Polls that close at 10 pm in the UK would close earlier in Greece, for example. As early as 1960, the European Parliament adopted proposals for a “uniform procedure” for its member states’ elections, to be used by all member states, but in reality, five decades later, there is no uniformity in virtually any aspect of European elections. In most member states, including the UK, voters choose from a party list, whereas in other member states the single transferable vote is used. Voting ages vary as well, so there is no uniformity in these aspects of European elections. Artificially imposing the same election day would be problematic and, as I said, counter-productive.
The Commission also proposes that national political parties make clear their affiliation to pan-European political parties. Again, the European Commission has disregarded the principle of subsidiarity. It is none of the Commission’s business how my party—the Labour party—or the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or others want to campaign in the European parliamentary elections. It is up to the respective national parties to decide how best to campaign in those elections. We strongly believe that it should be for national parties also to determine the content of their party broadcasts, without suggestions from the European Commission.
There are some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. Have the Government informed the Commission of their concerns about the Commission’s suggestions, as set out in the motion? What is the Government’s view on how the Commission is likely to follow up these two documents? What is the view of the other European institutions—the European Parliament and the rest of the Council of Ministers?
Increasing participation in European elections and improving the democratic legitimacy of the European Union are objectives that we share, but the proposals that we are debating today will not achieve that aim. They are counter-productive and ignore the fact that according to the principle of subsidiarity, member states and not the European Commission should have responsibility for administering elections within their borders. We agree, as the Minister set out, that national Parliaments should have a greater role and we congratulate the Foreign Secretary on adopting the proposal of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), for a red card system, which my right hon. Friend proposed in January this year. It took the Foreign Secretary a few months to come round to the idea, but we are glad that he is there. Such proposals should increase the democratic legitimacy of European Union decision making.
We are therefore content to support the Government’s motion on the European Commission documents, and urge the Government to make the strongest possible representations to the Commission that these proposals should be taken no further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are not actually discussing the position of the Conservative party anywhere in Europe; we are discussing the documents before us today. You can talk about article 17(7), Mr Horwood, but let us not venture any further.
Martin Horwood
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The second point is that there is an expression of what I used to call the Thatcher doctrine, which is to complain about the lack of democracy in the European Union but oppose all practical steps to increase democratic accountability because that would be seen as giving more legitimacy to the European tier of government. I think that is a regrettable approach.
Iraq War (10th Anniversary)
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Before the hon. Lady goes on, may I say in respect of Mr Hans Blix—I have made this point outside the House—that there is a profound disconnection between what he is saying now and what he said at the time? What he said at the time, and he repeated it in a book in 2004, was that he thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat. I know of no provenance whatsoever for the claim that the inspectors were prevented from continuing their work in Iraq by either the US or the UK in January 2003.
Moreover, the final reports from Hans Blix complained about a lack of co-operation, the inability of inspectors to interview scientists from Iraq inside or outside Iraq, and the continuing intimidation. The final report that he made, which I had to force him to publish, on 7 March 2003, catalogued in 29 chapters of 170 pages the unanswered questions that Mr Blix thought Saddam had to answer, even at that stage, about all the chemical and biological weaponry that had been known about in the past and which Saddam had failed to explain. That is where Blix was at the time. My last point is this—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
No. Will the right hon. Gentleman please sit down? I am trying to be very tolerant to facilitate the debate but there are lots of Members who want to participate, and making a speech on an intervention, however important the point, is not acceptable. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to make the rest of his points.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his intervention. Obviously, he has a great deal of information from that time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It would really help me to chair the debate if Members made brief interventions and stayed on their feet while they were doing so. I know the hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way under some considerable pressure, but I am sure she will bear in mind the length of time that she is speaking and the others wishing to participate.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was saying that many people will say that if they had known then what they know now, they would not have supported the war, and I said that that was not an adequate justification, precisely because of those Members of Parliament who were not taken in by the spin. Members of Parliament could have known then much of what they know now. A vast amount of the evidence available now was in the public domain then. We know this because of those hon. Members who did see through the lies and the deceptions, who asked the right questions, who trawled through the documents, who stood up in Parliament and said that the war was based on a false prospectus, and many of those hon. Members are in the Chamber today.
Let me give an example of three others, starting with an hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber, the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones. She saw that Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made the misrepresentation of the French position a centrepiece of their efforts to win the vote on 18 March 2003. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France had the power to veto a second UN resolution. In an interview on 10 March 2003 President Chirac indicated that, as things stood, France would use its veto in the unlikely event that a second resolution authorising military action got the necessary majority of nine members of the Security Council.
I quote from the transcript of the interview. Chirac says:
“My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.”
But by selectively quoting the words “regardless of the circumstances” when describing the French position on authorisation of the use of force, proponents of the war blamed France for blocking military action against Iraq, no matter what evidence emerged of a breach of resolution 1441. Tony Blair even included the selective and misleading quote in the motion in support of military action that was put to the House on 18 March 2003. [Interruption.] I want to finish this section. The importance of the inclusion of this misrepresentation in the motion was huge. Some MPs have stated that it alone changed their minds on whether or not to vote to go to war.
Giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, the right hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that President Chirac’s use of the phrase “this evening” did not describe the French position on the evening of the interview, thereby indicating that this could change in the future, but was simply an introduction to what he was going to say that evening. He put that argument to the panel by specifically stating the order of Chirac’s phrasing, down to where a comma is used. However, the transcript shows that he did not give the phrasing in the right order. The phrase “this evening” came after “regardless of the circumstances”, but he said that it came first, changing the meaning of Chirac’s words to suit the argument. The right hon. Gentleman said:
‘I know there has been some textual analysis of the use by President Chirac of the word “Le soir”, but I watched him say this and I took this as no more than saying, “This evening”, comma, and then he announces, “France will, whatever the circumstances”, he says, right?’
Well, that was not right. In fact, the transcript shows that Chirac explicitly ruled in the possibility that military action might be needed, stating in the same interview that if the weapons inspector reported after more time that they were unable to do their job, war would be inevitable. To quote directly, he said:
“But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn’t today.”
The French position, then, was that progress was being made on the weapons inspections and that France was therefore opposed to replacing the existing inspections process with an ultimatum that would lead to war in a few days’ time. The phrase “regardless of the circumstances” was not helpful, and it was unfortunate that Chirac used those words, as they were easily taken out of context. However, that does not detract from the responsibility of those, including Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who—I argue—misinterpreted, and continued to misinterpret, President Chirac’s interview of 10 March in order to blame France for the failure to obtain a second UN resolution. The reason that it was not possible to obtain UN authorisation for the use of force is that there was no evidence showing Iraq to be an active and growing threat; it was not because of French intransigence, as UK Ministers said.
Hansard shows that Lynne Jones was ridiculed when she tried to raise the misrepresentation of Chirac’s interview in the House, but the fact that she raised it shows that there were hon. Members who bothered to get the transcript of what was actually said before the vote and that it was not necessary to accept the interpretation being given by the Government at face value. It was not a detail; President Chirac’s words were placed at the heart of the motion that Parliament debated and voted on.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I was one of the organisers of the rebellion, and it was with great sadness that I rebelled against my party and my Prime Minister. Will my right hon. Friend concede that the vote was not gifted by the Government, but hard fought for? Many of us worked for many months to obtain the vote. Indeed, there was to be an alternative convening of Parliament in Church House, at which we would have had a critical mass, and only 48 hours before the Government conceded that there would be a vote. We had enough Members to convene a Parliament to discuss the Iraq war, and the former Speaker, Bernard Weatherill, was prepared to chair it. It would have included Members from across the House, including some very brave Conservative Members, Members from the Liberal party and friends from the smaller parties across the political spectrum. But 122 Labour Members voted on the first occasion, and indeed the numbers went up on the second vote, which is unheard of, given the whipping operation against those who did not want us to go to war. It was not a gift of the Government; it was hard fought for—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech. We have only two hours remaining for this debate and at least six Members still wish to take the Floor. I would be grateful if Members wishing to intervene did so briefly, because otherwise those who wish to make a speech will be disappointed.
Mr Meacher
I am pleased that my hon. Friend provided the House with that information, as I do not think it is well understood. It has been claimed in this debate is that the whipping was not very strong, but that is absolutely not the view that most of us take. It was an attempt to corral Members of all parties to support the war. I think that he has skilfully shown the work that was done under the counter, which forced what was necessary. Without it, the vote might well never have happened.
The second lesson—I will be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that I have been speaking for some time—is that the power and wilfulness of a Prime Minister who can so brazenly override normal democratic procedures, quite apart from the personality of Tony Blair, is a very serious issue. He made a commitment to go to war at Bush’s Crawford ranch in Texas 10 months before that vote and without consulting anyone. He regularly told Parliament, right up to the very start of the war, that no decision had been taken. Clearly an unstoppable momentum had been deliberately built up. He lent heavily on his Attorney-General between 7 and 17 March to induce him to chance his legal warning that the war was not legal. On 15 February he ignored and dismissed the biggest protest demonstration this country has ever seen, with up to 2 million members of the public marching against the war. According to evidence given by the UK’s ambassador to the US at the time, Sir Christopher Meyer, Bush even rung up Tony Blair to suggest that he could “sit out the war”, while the Pentagon’s Donald Rumsfeld was quite happy to go in alone, but Blair was obsessive and determined to see it through. In an interview in December 2009 he was asked this question:
“If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?”
He replied:
“I would still have thought it right to remove him”—
that is, Saddam Hussein. To that end, he even colluded with what his own head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, said in July 2002, eight months before the war—that
“the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
That background of the contumacious wilfulness of a Prime Minister dragging this country, virtually single-handedly, to war—as it turned out, a war of momentously disastrous consequences—makes it the duty of this House to set down inviolable conditions to prevent any such catastrophe from ever happening again. That must, at the very least, embrace unquestioning compliance with UN resolutions; a clear and unwhipped vote of the Commons and, indeed, the Lords, long before any envisaged hostilities; and a full disclosure of all the data and evidence that can be used to justify war. Only when those conditions are made to apply will we have learned the lessons of this dreadful episode.
Syria (EU Restrictive Measures)
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Jabhat al-Nusra and the Salafists were a fairly small group about 12 months ago. Part of the problem is that they have been much better armed and are much better fighters, so that elements in the Free Syria army, which is not as well armed as the Islamists, are flaking away to them. That is one area that my hon. Friend needs to consider. Another is that the UK has the chair of the UN Security Council— the presidency—next month. That presents us with an opportunity to pursue a radical agenda of engagement with all parties, perhaps including Iran, which has elections next month.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister replies, may I remind all Members that this is a timed debate? The Minister has been generous in giving way, but this debate needs to end at 8.46 pm. At least nine Members, if not more, wish to participate, so we need to make a little more progress through the Minister’s speech if we are to get everybody in—unless those who are making interventions but are on the list plan to withdraw their names.
Alistair Burt
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is always difficult: it is important to answer questions as they come up, but I entirely understand the point of trying to move the debate on. I am very much in the hands of colleagues. I will answer questions, but I know we must move on to the speeches. My remarks will not be not terribly long after this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I thought there might be a number of questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am only trying to be helpful to the House. I did not set the time limit for this debate; I am only trying to be fair to Back Benchers. I do not wish to chastise the Minister; I am merely pointing out the facts before me this evening.
Alistair Burt
I did not for a second take it that I was being chastised; I was only trying to be helpful to all colleagues—but let’s not go there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) makes two points, and I absolutely agree with him. His understanding of the situation is clear. He makes an entirely fair point about how al-Nusra has been able to garner support at the expense of more moderate elements. He makes an absolutely valid point, which I hope I have also made in my speech. He is also absolutely correct to say that we will be leading the UN Security Council next month. The Foreign Secretary set out the situation in relation to Iran yesterday. Of course Iran has influence and an interest in the area. My right hon. Friend is keen that those who get round the table for Geneva II should probably be the original cast, but my hon. Friend’s point is well made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Eight Members are seeking to catch my eye to take part in tonight’s debate. I am not going to set a time limit. Instead, I ask Members to work it out among themselves. If each of them speaks for five minutes, including interventions, that will leave a few minutes at the end for the Minister to address any outstanding questions, so watch the clock, please.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Although this debate is somewhat retrospective, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out, it raises important questions about our current and prospective roles in the conflict in Syria.
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). I have spent seven years travelling to Syria and have had the opportunity to meet Bashar Assad and other members of the regime several times. The tragedy that is unfolding for the silent middle in Syria is terrible to behold. It is a beautiful country that is being dismembered day by day. We must think very carefully about our next steps.
What is the situation today? On one side is the Assad regime, which is responsible, as we have heard, for more than 80,000 deaths, more than 1 million refugees and more than 4 million internally displaced people. The regime has 300,000 soldiers plus the dreaded Shabiha, 16,000 pieces of heavy artillery and an air force. It has the Russians on its side, who are providing hardware such as S300s, Yakhont surface-to-ship missiles and the most robust air defence system in the middle east other than Israel’s, as well as military advisers who are increasing in number day by day. It also has the Iranians on its side, who are providing the Revolutionary Guard and strategic advice, and it has Hezbollah on its side. It has electronic intelligence, money and arms provided by the Iranians, and it even has the Shabiha being formed into a national defence brigade by the Iranians, who are giving direction.
What does the opposition side have? Simply, it has two groups that are highly fragmented—the FSA, which has about 30,000 people, led by General Idris, who essentially have just small arms at their disposal; and on the other side, as many colleagues have said, the Salafis, who have about 3,000 to 5,000 people and are themselves fragmented. We have heard about Jabhat al-Nusra, but there is also Liwa al-Islam, Liwa Saqour and Kata’ib Ahrar al-Sham, among other Islamist groups that are fighting there.
So we have an asymmetric war in which Bashar Assad has no incentive whatever to negotiate seriously. What are our options? They are fourfold. One is a containment strategy that would prevent the conflict from spreading, but unfortunately it would merely lead to more death. Another is a no-fly zone, as proposed by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). That would indeed tip the balance, but it would put the lives of our Air Force pilots at risk, and I do not believe that after Iraq and Afghanistan, the military establishment in this country has any appetite for that.
The third option is lifting the arms embargo, which I believe would put pressure on Bashar Assad. However, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said—I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) will also make this point when he gets his opportunity to speak—there is a risk that arms may fall into the wrong hands. However, the signal that we would send by lifting the arms embargo would put pressure on the regime.
The final option is a radical diplomatic engagement strategy. In that regard, we have two opportunities before us. One is the fact that the UK holds the presidency of the UN Security Council next month, and the other is that there are Iranian elections next month, which may provide an opportunity for us to press the reset button regarding engagement with Iran. As the hon. Member for Islington North said, we need to engage with all parties—the Gulf states, Turkey, the EU and the US as well as Syria, Russia and Iran.
Time is running out. We must show Bashar Assad at Geneva that he is at the last chance saloon. I encourage the Foreign Secretary to exert pressure through a two-pronged strategy of radical diplomatic engagement with all parties and a real threat of lethal support to the FSA. Only then will there be a real prospect of ending the tragedy unfolding in Syria.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We have two more speakers. If each takes five minutes and no more, we will have a few minutes for the Minister at the end. I call Robert Halfon.
Syria
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A large number of Members want to contribute. I ask that contributions now be brief—one question, and clipped answers would be excellent, thank you Foreign Secretary.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
China did not veto resolutions on intervention in Libya. Have the Foreign Secretary’s Chinese counterparts explained to him what is the difference between Syria and Libya such that they are now obstructing us in the Security Council on the matter of Syria?
Foreign Affairs and International Development
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sure that you will not presume to speak for me, Mr Alexander. I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) was asking you for your view, not mine, and when you answer him will you make sure that you address the whole Chamber? Thank you.
Mr Alexander
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend’s question. I am not familiar with the grant of which he speaks, given that the principal EU grants I encountered when in government, as I recollect clearly, both related to the EU Co-ordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support and provided facilities, training and support for the Palestinian Authority to develop their own security capability, something that has been one of the glimmers of light in the enveloping darkness of recent years. Significant support has also been provided for economic development in the west bank. Alas, that has not proved possible in relation to Gaza, because of the continuing security blockade there, but there has been real economic development that has been secured in part thanks to EU funding.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the eminently wise speech by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) on both the subjects he chose.
I listened to the Gracious Speech last week, and I noticed a seemingly small passage—[Interruption.] I thought it was a good idea to listen to the Queen’s Speech; it was one of the things I was keen to do, having been elected to this place. This seemingly small bit related to measures in the field of foreign affairs. One measure—the European Union Bill required for our ratification of the treaty changes to allow the European stability mechanism to have some legality—particularly took my eye. It highlights a problem that the European Union has with the eurozone, the consequences of which, if we do not act in certain ways, will be huge for us.
Like many other countries in Europe, this country has lived way beyond its means for way too long. We borrowed too much, as did many other eurozone countries. As every family and business in the country knows, when you borrow too much, you have to repay it; otherwise, you suffer consequences that you really do not want to suffer. You encounter this horrible thing, whereby other people tell you how you should spend your money and what you should spend it on. We have suffered this in the past from the International Monetary Fund and, unfortunately, this is what is happening to other eurozone countries now.
What is going on in our economy, and what is increasingly now happening elsewhere, is that people are realising that they have spent too much. But, as with the gambler who has won big in the past but has since blown it all, the realisation that the game is up is a particularly hard one to come to. It is almost natural to blame other people or to try to carry on as normal, but if you do not take action to change your spending habits, you might well end up losing your shirt.
In the past couple weeks, interesting and important elections have been held in the eurozone. France elected a new socialist President, who won 52% of the vote. I believe the BBC called that a “clear” and “decisive” victory, which contrasts with its description of a “narrow” victory when Boris Johnson won in London with 51%. Monsieur Hollande was hardly swept to power on a tide of euphoria in France. He narrowly defeated an unpopular, not particularly conservative and frankly unappealing President who had wasted the opportunity to reform his country. The French people ejected a social democrat and elected a socialist in his place. Much has been made of the fact that President Hollande will now attack the City of London, try to impose a financial transaction tax, attempt to scrap the UK’s EU rebate and demand an agenda of further job-destroying social legislation from the EU, but has that not been France’s position for years? Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
President Hollande seems to believe that there is a stark choice between austerity and growth, but he is simply wrong. Most people are savvy enough to understand that you need to live within your means and do what you can to ensure your means grow to enable you to live that bit better. We, in this country and across Europe, need to get back to the simple understanding that you need to create wealth before you can redistribute it. What many Labour Members believe is that the money tree will continually sprout cash; the current student language of constantly attacking and wanting to penalise those who make money does only one thing: it ensures that less money is made, as people earn elsewhere, less tax is paid and so less can be redistributed.
Greece has also held elections, the results of which did not bring about a Government—we have just heard the news that there will be further elections in Greece. It was noticeable in Greece that people did not want to have the choice presented to them. They wanted a Government to reflect their true views; they do not want to be dictated to by foreign countries, and they hate the troika of the EU, IMF and the European Central Bank telling them what their Government should do. But Greece is bankrupt and it has been for months, if not years. It cannot pay its bills without help from the IMF and the EU. So it is no surprise that it is going to have fresh elections, but the most important decision about Greece’s future will be made not in Athens, but in Berlin.
Many in this Chamber, on both sides, have said that Greece should be allowed to fall out of the euro. I tend to agree, but, as ever, nothing is as simple as all that. Just for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary German. You have heard all the horror stories from your own family history about what happened to your relatives and your country when hyper-inflation struck after the second world war finished, and your gut tells you that you should avoid inflation at almost any cost. You are therefore amazingly protective of your currency. Indeed, any threat to it is a threat to you, your family and your community’s livelihood, so you will do all you can to protect both it and its value. However, a political decision that you were not really a part of, taken ages ago, puts you now in the same currency as a batch of other people miles away who are threatening your economic stability. You have two choices and you are happy with neither: you can just throw money at your costly currency partners—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am allowing the hon. Gentleman to make his speech, but he knows the form of address and that when using “you” constantly, he is actually referring to the Chair. I may look old, but I am not that old that I go back to the second world war.
Chris Heaton-Harris
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the voices in the Tea Room believe you are very young—a peach among all the Deputy Speakers that this place has ever seen—and I apologise for my use of the word “you”. [Interruption.] It is worth a try.
A political decision taken ages ago puts your family—not your family, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this particular person’s family—into the same currency as a bunch of people who are threatening your economic stability. The two choices you have are to throw money at your very costly currency partners—money that you have had to earn and pay in tax—or, as a German citizen, to say, “Enough is enough”, get rid of your costly neighbours and concentrate on ensuring that this can never happen again.
European Union
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I inform the House that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition has not been selected, and that after the Front-Bench opening speeches there will be an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speakers. That might need to be reviewed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He has indicated several times that he is not prepared to give way at this point. I hope that we can hear what he has to say now, and he may feel like giving way a little later.
Mr Lidington
I have already explained why I do not intend to give way as frequently as I usually do in these debates. Several of my hon. Friends have had, and will continue to have, many opportunities to put their arguments to me. I am sure that they will seize those opportunities, but tonight I am conscious that this is one of the rare occasions on which the debate belongs to the Democratic Unionist party, and I do not want their members to be crowded out because Front Benchers go on too long.
The truth is that we have always had a Europe in which there have been multiple forms of co-operation. We are not in the euro and nor do we plan to be. It is good that we have our own economic policy, interest rates and ability to deal ourselves with the problems we face in our economy. The United Kingdom remains a key—indeed, a central—member of all initiatives on European foreign and defence policy co-operation, but we are not in the Schengen borders organisation. We are a key member of the single market, and in fact it is the UK that often drives change and improvement in the single market.
On the other side of the equation, at the same time as the European Council was in progress, the British Government were working closely with EU partners to shape a successful negotiation on climate change this weekend in Durban. Our intention is to continue to work hard with our many allies in Europe to advance our interests. That is not isolation: it is defending Britain’s national interest, and that is what the Government are going to continue to do. That does not mean, as some have said, pulling back from our relationship with the European Union. We remain a full member of the European Union, and that membership is vital to our national interest. Our national interest and the EU interest are not mutually exclusive; we have genuine common interests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I think that the hon. Lady has indicated that she is not giving way until she has made some progress in her speech. I heard it and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen did. Perhaps they could remain in their seats for a little while, and the hon. Lady will make it clear when she wants to give way.
Emma Reynolds
I promise hon. Gentlemen that I will give way, but I am attempting to give a shorter speech than the one we just heard.
Sometimes a veto is necessary as a last resort, but it is a negative device that can be used to prevent change that we oppose. Back in the early 1990s, John Major used the veto at the Maastricht treaty summit. He got something in return—an opt-out from the single currency, which the Labour Government used to full effect while we were in office. However, the veto cannot be used as a positive device to force change that we want, as the Prime Minister demonstrated last week. He failed not only to secure the changes he demanded, but to stop the changes he opposed. The former Prime Minister got something in return for his veto; the current Prime Minister got nothing in return. It was a phantom veto; it failed to stop anything.
The truth is that the UK has never been outvoted on financial services in the 38 years during which we have been a member of the Common Market. The Prime Minister has defended nothing—walking out of the summit, leaving us weaker, not stronger. It is the greatest failure of peacetime diplomacy in more than half a century. Our partners do not recognise the Britain that walks away from a battle. As one French woman said in a vox pop to The Observer at the weekend:
“I’ve never seen the British give up.”
This is not the bulldog spirit; it is a form of diplomatic defeatism.
It is not surprising that other European leaders did not even give the Prime Minister a hearing. They were completely taken by surprise by a list of demands that did not seem to have anything to do with the discussions in the summit. Not one single line in the summit’s conclusion refers to financial services. Baroness Thatcher pioneered a single market to be decided by qualified majority voting and signed the Single European Act in 1986. The Prime Minister sought to overturn that decision last week, arguing for a removal of qualified majority voting in single market decisions. Needless to say, the Prime Minister’s handbag was not as powerful as Baroness Thatcher’s.
Judiciary and Fundamental Rights
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are not discussing the broader question of scrutiny of all European matters. This is specifically a debate that is mainly about Croatia, and I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will now come back to that subject. She has got her point on the record, and so has the hon. Gentleman.
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept your guidance entirely. Nevertheless, I would just like to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I do agree that scrutiny, particularly of Croatia—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady must respond only with regard to Croatia. I hope that she will not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about his party’s proposals for scrutiny. We are not discussing that; we are discussing Croatia.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a timed debate that is due to end at 22 minutes past 9, and that I shall want to give a few minutes to the Minister to say a few words in response. I ask Members to bear that in mind so that we can fit everybody in.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I aim to be very quick. I found chapter 23 very interesting, as it is the first time that that chapter has been used for the accession of a country. We have perhaps now hit the Groucho Marx threshold for Europe—that we would not be allowed to join the EU because our standards are not high enough to do so. It is somewhat complacent to imply that the standards of our judicial system are always higher than those in Croatia. I spent some time comparing and contrasting the case X v. Croatia and RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. If I have enough time, I will come back to that later.
If we look through the document outlining the EU’s response, we find the following statement:
“The EU underlines the importance of Croatia improving publication of and access to final court decisions both in the interests of the development of case law and consistent judicial practice, and in view of wider public dissemination.”
Well, the UK has a massive problem here. Many judgments are not handed down by the judge—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. That is not relevant to our debate, which concerns the documents before us about Croatia. I would be grateful if, in the few minutes left to him that will enable the Minister to reply, the hon. Gentleman stuck to this evening’s subject of debate.
John Hemming
I think it important to examine the issues raised by chapter 23, however, and to compare X v. Croatia with RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. In the former case, a mother’s mental capacity was removed from her and she was told that she had no locus in the Croatian courts. She had a second opinion, which was taken through the whole Croatian court system. The domestic court system was involved in exactly the same way in the latter case, but the woman had no second opinion. In my view, the Croatian system is far better.
I highlighted the issue of judgments in the accession document. There is also the question of the anti-corruption commission. The document states:
“The EU also calls on Croatia to ensure full implementation of its system for monitoring and verification of assets declarations of public officials and judges”.
According to the Groucho Marx test, this is now a club that we would not be allowed to join, because we do not operate that sort of system here.
I think it complacent to assume that countries such as Croatia are behind the United Kingdom. The chapter 23 requirements have already pushed Croatia into doing things that we do not do here. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) may be pleased to find that in future years we might be expelled for not complying with the conditions with which Croatia complies, but I do not take the same view as him on the European Union. I think that extending the EU is a good idea. Most of the people who argue that we should leave it argue that we should be in the European economic area, which allows freedom of movement throughout Europe. I also disagree with the hon. Gentleman about whether people qualify for habitual residency as a consequence of declaring self-employment, because I do not think that such a declaration qualifies people for habitual residency immediately.
I think that we should consider not just Croatia but whether we satisfy the conditions in chapter 23, but given that I cannot cite any examples of how we fail to satisfy those conditions, I will leave that to the Minister.