Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Henry Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who makes an important point. However, this is not merely about technocrats but about the brutal fact that the political game as it is now being played is increasingly coercive. That is part of the problem that I shall address.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Following yesterday’s announcement of the Irish referendum, does my hon. Friend share my concern that if the result is the wrong one as far as the European establishment are concerned, it will be ignored and overruled by some method or another?

[Mr Cash]

I do indeed. A new rule is being imposed through the arrangements under this treaty which involves a kind of qualified majority voting for referendums whereby if member states do not have the requisite number of referendums in which they say that they do not want the treaty, they will simply be ignored. I hope that when it comes down to it and the Irish people have this explained to them, that will be a spur to their voting no, because people are being taken for a ride.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

Not for the minute.

Does the Minister agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said on “The Andrew Marr Show” in December? He said:

“Well it clearly would be ludicrous for the 26, which is pretty well the whole of the European Union with the exception of only one member state, to completely reinvent or recreate a whole panoply of new institutions.”

Perhaps there is more agreement between Martin Callanan and the Deputy Prime Minister than first meets the eye. They both believe, as the Opposition do, that the Government have flip-flopped. Despite their initial bravado, they have been unable to veto the use of the institutions.

[Henry Smith]

I have waited patiently since the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) to hear exactly what the official Opposition policy is on the fiscal treaty. Incidentally, is it still official Opposition policy to join the euro?

[Emma Reynolds]

The shadow Chancellor has made it clear that we do not think we will join the euro in his political lifetime.

The ultimate irony is that the Prime Minister, who has previously been so scathing of the EU, has now been reduced to relying on that institution to be the last line of defence in the protection of British interests, because the EU, unlike him, will be in the room. The UK will be barred from key meetings, rendering us voteless and voiceless in future negotiations. Without being in the room, we stand little chance of knowing—let alone influencing—whether eurozone Ministers will stray into areas of decision making that affect the 27.

The Opposition are right to be concerned at that prospect and to doubt the effectiveness of such a system in protecting British interests, and we are right to ask questions on how that situation was allowed to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bellingham]

The UK Government are doing all that we can. We are playing a vital part in the Djibouti process. We are supporting an uplift in the African Union Mission in Somalia to its mandated level of 12,000 troops. We are also doing all that we can to ensure that the transitional federal Government and the transitional federal institutions adhere to the benchmarks in the road map. If they do that, there is a chance for peace and progress, not just in the troubled capital but in the whole country.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T6. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his diligence in meeting, on a number of occasions now, constituents of mine who originally come from the Chagos islands. Will he update the House on what progress his Department has made with regard to visits to the Chagos islands by those islanders?

[Mr Bellingham]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done in engaging the Chagossians in his Crawley constituency. He has been an absolute pillar of strength for that community. We have organised a number of visits back to the Chagos islands this year for Chagossians from the UK, the Seychelles and Mauritius. We will organise more visits in the future, and I want to get more members of the Chagossian community involved in environmental, conservation and heritage work in the territory.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

That is one of the subjects that we have regular dialogue with the Chinese about, and the hon. Lady is right to point out the tensions and concerns that exist in some of the countries bordering China. We continue to be vigilant in trying to ensure that that is not an area of the world where conflict is brought about or tensions rise.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the level of political stability in the Balkans.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Progress on political and economic reform in the western Balkans is uneven. We welcome the successful conclusion of EU accession negotiations with Croatia but remain particularly concerned by the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where sustained international focus is needed.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the readiness of Croatia and Serbia to join the EU, given the fact that, with hindsight, Romania and Bulgaria probably acceded to the Union too soon?

[Mr Lidington]

The Croatian Government have met the conditions laid down by the Commission and supported by member states, but the European Council also agreed when it concluded accession negotiations that there should be a further stage of pre-accession monitoring to ensure that the Croatian authorities’ commitments to reform are still delivered in practice.

We look forward to the Commission’s report on Serbia’s progress on economic and political reform, which is due in December. Although the arrest of Mr Mladic was an important step forward, it does not remove the need for Serbia to do everything else with regard to internal reform and addressing regional co-operation to meet the terms of EU accession.

European Union Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am encouraged by my hon. Friend’s remarks to be increasingly confident that we can reach the group of amendments on which he is anxious to speak in good time. I remind him, however, that four hours have been set aside for our deliberations on these three groups of amendments, and I think it is right that we should do justice to the consideration that the House of Lords gave to the Bill by addressing each of the amendments it approved.

On Lords amendment 1, all I want to say further is that the phrase “or otherwise supporting” is included to remove any doubt—just as the previous Government used that phrase to remove any doubt when drafting the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008—and to ensure that a proposal could not be adopted in such a way without the appropriate authority required under the provisions of the Bill.

Lords amendments 2 and 4 make it clear beyond doubt that, under the terms of the Bill, a referendum would not be required in the United Kingdom if a treaty change did not apply to the UK but only to Gibraltar, and this would not transfer competence or power from the United Kingdom. I say straight away that it is hard to work out a scenario in which a treaty amendment that constituted a transfer of competence or power would apply only to Gibraltar and not to the UK. It is possible in theory, and this point was raised in the other place, and we have sought to assuage that concern by proposing these two technical amendments.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the recent comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on the need for brevity, let me say that while I agree that this is a technical tidying up of the clause as it left this place, I am concerned that a future Foreign and Commonwealth Office—not the current one—that wished to stitch up the good and loyal people of Gibraltar should not have that opportunity through the back door of the European Union.

[Mr Lidington]

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the current Government are absolutely committed to Gibraltar remaining British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want that to continue. We have made that clear publicly since the day we took office, and I have repeated it in public both in this country and on a visit to Gibraltar a few months ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

We sought in this Bill to define a constitutional change of the sort that my hon. Friend describes in terms of a transfer of competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union. That seems to us to be a significant constitutional change and the definition is one that we have incorporated into the Bill. Now, if he will forgive me, never mind how delightful I find his interventions, I think I ought to make some progress in addressing the Lords amendments directly.

Let me deal first with Lords amendments 3 and 5, which one might term the threshold amendments. They would provide for a turnout threshold of 40% for any referendum under the Bill. If that threshold were not met, regardless of the result the final decision over whether to ratify a treaty change would pass from the people back to Parliament. That runs contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill and would leave the British people in real doubt about the effect of their vote.

I know that the intention of colleagues in the House of Lords was to safeguard the sovereignty of Parliament, but I do not agree with them that the Bill would challenge the status of Parliament. In fact, Parliament will have a much stronger role than ever before.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being so courteous in giving way. Does he agree that, ironically, elections to the European Parliament often have a turnout of 40% or less, as do many local authority elections? Would it not be absurd to consider those as merely advisory?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right. We get into very dangerous territory as elected representatives when we start to say that only votes or elections in which the turnout was above a given percentage are valid. What is at issue is our intention to provide for the British electorate to have the final say on whether or not the Government of the day can agree to transfer competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union. The outcome of a referendum should, in our view, be determined by the will of those who vote and not by how many turn up to vote.

As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said earlier this year when we debated a turnout threshold for the referendum on the alternative vote:

“If we agree to anything that passes for any sort of threshold, people in this country will have an incentive to say, ‘If you don’t know, don’t vote’”.—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 907.]

A turnout threshold seems to me to be a recipe for apathy. It would undermine one of the fundamental aims of the Bill, which is to reconnect the British people and better inform them of the decisions taken in their name at European Union level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I think that the British people would be alarmed at the thought that they were being offered new rights and responsibilities for a term of only five years, and would then have to wait and see whether they would be graciously renewed by a new Parliament.

In a survey conducted two years ago, more than four out of every five British people wanted a referendum on any future treaty change. Everything that we do in the House is reversible—no single Parliament can bind its successor—so there is no reason to single the Bill out for a sunset clause, which would mean that it merely loaned power to the people of this country on the future direction of the EU for a limited time. After that, the decision on whether or not to lend them the power for another five years would be in the hands of the Government of the day. The British people would rightly look on such a proposition with disdain.

[Henry Smith]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. If the amendment were allowed to stand, would it not render the proposed legislation completely empty? As he eloquently said, it goes against the constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successor.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is quite right. In a previous Parliament, when we voted for constitutional legislation as far-reaching as the devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, we did not vote for the inclusion of sunset clauses. Parliament took the view that if that legislation, in due course, proved not to be workable, or if there were a profound change in the public mood or a new Government were elected with a mandate from the people to effect changes and reverse that devolution, that was a matter for the future Parliament at that time. The idea that we should impose a sunset clause in this case simply because it is something new seems to be completely inconsistent with the way in which Parliament and successive Governments have approached previous constitutional reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

But that applies to a great deal of legislation. I do not understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to make. Actually, what the Bill will do is restrict the ability of Governments to give away power and to reach decisions in the EU and present them to Parliament as faits accomplis without reference to the people. That seems to me a thoroughly good and democratic thing.

The hon. Gentleman has given the game away this evening about the future direction of the Labour party’s policy. What he has told the House tonight is that he is quite happy for aspects of the Bill to go through, but he is not happy for its provisions to apply to a future Labour Government. He does not want a future Labour Government to have their hands tied by the necessity of referendums before they give away more powers. He wants to go back to the system to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred—of signing up to treaties, promising referendums on them and then ratting on those promises. That was the record of the Labour Government.

I regard all these Lords amendments as completely unacceptable. Whatever shortcomings the Bill has—I am afraid there are many, because it is limited in scope—the amendments are designed to pull the guts out of this democratising measure. The vote threshold proposed in Lords amendment 3 is not a recognisable one but a perverse one. It does not suggest that unless the number of votes reaches a certain level, a decision cannot be taken. It suggests that if the votes do not reach a certain level, the Government and Parliament can carry on as they like. I thought the whole point of a threshold was to test whether there was a measure of consent for a particular constitutional change. The threshold in the amendment is not about testing whether there is a measure of consent but is more about testing whether there is a measure of resistance, or whether there is apathy.

Unfortunately, the people who have largely guided European policy in this country for the past 20, 30 or 40 years have got away with what they have done largely by relying on people’s apathy and ignorance. The proposed threshold is designed to create an incentive for a Government who wish to transfer more powers to the EU to maintain high levels of apathy and ignorance. I am reminded of my late noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, who during the 1975 referendum accused the right hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn of going around the country stirring up apathy. The amendment is a charter for going around the country and doing just that. It is completely unjustified and should be given very short shrift.

Lords amendments 6 to 13, to clause 6, are simply designed to rip the guts out of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe very properly went through some of the things that Governments in future would be able to do without a referendum if the amendments were not disagreed to. Under the amendments, Governments could, without a referendum, give up the veto over foreign policy and over almost anything else under article 48(7). The amendments would allow the UK to join the public prosecutor and to extend the role of the public prosecutor to any serious crime with a cross-border dimension. We should think about what that means for the criminal justice system of this country. The amendments would allow Governments, without a referendum, to give up the veto over labour laws, taxes and planning, and the multi-annual financial framework and spending of the EU. The Opposition should shed no crocodile tears over how much the EU is spending if they are prepared to give up that veto without proper consent.

The amendments would remove the veto from all the enhanced co-operation procedures, which would enable what is effectively majority voting to come into effect in a whole lot of areas. Clearly, that is an anti-democratic provision. If there is one thing that ardent advocates of the EU should have learned, it is that that structure lacks popular consent. It legislates without popular consent. If there is one thing that true Europeans should want it is that we reconnect the decisions on how powers are exercised with popular democratic consent. The Bill goes some way towards doing that.

The sunrise provision is simply the last gasp of a past generation who are trying to neuter what is today called Euroscepticism. The support of the hon. Member for Caerphilly for Lords amendment 15 gives the lie to the idea that the new Labour party, under its new leader, is flirting with Euroscepticism. It is not. It has no intention of following through. It might pretend to be, and to sound, sceptical, and it might even start talking of an in-out referendum, inviting one or two of my more radical hon. Friends to fall into the trap of thinking that that is the way out, when it probably is not. However, the fact is that we need a Government who are prepared to negotiate vigorously, and to do so with the extra leverage and strengthened hand that the requirement for a referendum gives them.

[Henry Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we see from Opposition Members is not so much a rebirth of Euroscepticism as referendum cynicism?

[Mr Jenkin]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I rather like the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who is an engaging and assiduous parliamentarian, but I do not know whether he has given vent to his real feelings on these matters. Unfortunately, if one is speaking from the Front Bench, one’s real feelings rarely matter. One just has to do the bidding of one’s superiors. I just wish to end by—

European Union Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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.

European Union Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that judicial activism is a living organism. That activism is not only in the courts of this country but in the European Court of Justice, which has a free-ranging way of interpreting European law. We must beware of its activities and the precedents it might set in interpreting any piece of EU legislation to which we give assent.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who talked of the distinction between sovereignty and the exercise of power, and whether the exercise of power can grow to such an extent that sovereignty becomes a piece of fiction and withers on the vine. He drew an interesting parallel with the erosion of the sovereignty of the Crown, through the continued exercise of sovereignty by Parliament. We must ask the same questions about the European Union, irrespective of the clause, because the power that we voluntarily concede to the European Union in so many areas will, over time, inevitably erode parliamentary sovereignty, however robust our reaffirmation.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. As we have heard a lot this evening, we have an evolving constitution in this country, and an evolving European Union. Is now not the time, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, to send a clear signal domestically and internationally to Europe that this Parliament reaffirms its sovereignty?

[Mr Clappison]

The interesting point that was missed out by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in his contribution and by the Labour Government in their referendum literature, which tried to portray the European Union as simply a trade organisation akin to the World Trade Organisation, is that there is a commitment to an ever closer union. Attention was drawn to that at the time of the original referendum, but sufficient account was not taken of it. That commitment continues today. The European Commission has signed up to measures that promote ever closer union. Measures and proposals come before us all the time that transfer further power from this House to the European Union. There is no underground supply of new power that the House can create and hand out. Power is exercised either here or in the European Union, and over the years we have conceded more and more power to the EU, which must inevitably have an effect on sovereignty.

We need a reaffirmation of parliamentary sovereignty as far as the EU and other potential threats are concerned, but we also need Ministers who are prepared to stand up to the EU, say no and not make voluntary concessions. I am sorry to say that under the provisions of the treaty of Lisbon, we will see the creation of the European External Action Service, which can only result in more power and authority being drained away from our foreign policy and going over to the EU. The Union Jack is being hauled down throughout the world and the EU’s flag run up in its place.

The EU and the European Parliament are champing at the bit to get their hands on our security policy, and the European Commission’s second-top priority in its immediate programme is the creation of its area of freedom, security and justice. There is a constant stream of directives on the matter, and let us be clear that those directives are not about picking a measure here or there that will improve the standard of justice. The point of the European area of freedom, security and justice is to create a common European legal system, which is being put together piece by piece. We currently have an opt-out from that, and Ministers need to find the resolution to maintain that opt-out and refuse to opt in to any further such measures.

I have not mentioned the list of financial regulations and proposals for economic governance that we heard earlier, but it is very long. If we sign up to all those individual measures, they will result in a transfer of power that will have an effect on our sovereignty. We need an improved sovereignty clause in the Bill, to send a clear signal of what we are about, and we need Ministers who will stand up to the EU. I am sure that they will do that, but they need to find the determination to do so and we need to support them in finding it.

European Union Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend raises a very important subject—a rather large subject, unfortunately, for those watching the length of speeches today, because I want to answer his question properly. Let us be clear that in the context of the Bill, it is any proposal to give up our freedom not to participate in justice and home affairs decisions that would be subject to a referendum. That would be from where we are starting—the extension of the power of the EU. But it is also important to be clear that the justice and home affairs ratchet clauses, as I call them, covered in the Bill amend the treaties by allowing for an expansion of what can be done within existing areas of EU competence. They are clearly passerelle clauses. We said in the coalition programme for government—that is our reference document here—that the use of any passerelle clause would require primary legislation, so that is also the case.

The opt-ins, which are a different category, are a very important subject, but they are not for this Bill. Given that there are strict time limits applying to the UK’s decision to exercise an opt-in, which is within three months of the receipt of a proposal—

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

I am answering my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), so I had better complete the answer before I give way again.

The fact that there are also 30 to 40 proposals per annum means that it is not possible to place a primary legislative lock or parliamentary resolution requirement on the exercise of the opt-in. Therefore, it is important to be clear about the distinction of these different categories of decisions on justice and home affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I remember well saying that. It was a very good speech, and it is recommended reading for all those who have trouble sleeping. It is even in a book somewhere, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting it. He can rest assured that I would have held a referendum on many things that have happened since then, including on the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, I asked for a referendum on other European treaties that were introduced during that time. However, it is our misfortune when we start in government, whenever we start, to start from where we are, and we start from here—in a coalition Government, meeting the commitments in our coalition agreement. That is what we now have to take on.

As hon. Members who were present for the Lisbon treaty debates might remember, there are now essentially two ways in which treaty change can be agreed by the Governments of member states: the ordinary revision procedure, under which any amendment to the treaties must be agreed unanimously by member states, and, following the Lisbon treaty, the simplified revision procedure, under which the European Council can decide to amend those parts of EU treaties devoted to internal policies, such as the single market and justice and home affairs.

Under our current law, any change under the simplified procedure, defined in this Bill as an “Article 48(6) decision”, would require only a Minister of the Crown to move a motion in both Houses and for both Houses to vote positively to approve the change. It is easy now, and it was easy in 2008 when that provision was debated, to see how that level of parliamentary control for a formal treaty change is grossly inadequate. The Bill therefore ensures that any future amendment to the treaty on the European Union or to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, under either revision procedure that I have just outlined, will require parliamentary approval by Act of Parliament before the United Kingdom is able to ratify the change.

That is a significant addition to the powers of Parliament to hold Ministers to account for the decisions they take in Brussels. It was an addition that I championed in opposition and one that this Government will now put into statute to ensure that parliamentary control is enhanced further. That is the first thing that the Bill achieves.

[Henry Smith]

I welcome the Bill, but if it becomes law a future Parliament will be able to repeal it, so ultimately, do we not, like other European countries such as Germany, need to codify the sovereignty of this Parliament in a written constitution?

[Mr Hague]

That is a wider debate, and there is a legitimate argument for that. I hope that the Bill becomes part of the accepted constitutional framework of this country, for which, over time, it will have to receive widespread public support and the acceptance of parties from all parts of the House. The Opposition, as we have said, will have some time to think about it. Indeed, they might have a very long time before they return to government—I certainly hope so. I hope that the Bill becomes part of our permanent constitutional framework, but the argument for a written constitution ranges much wider than the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

It is true that every piece of legislation can be repealed or sidestepped, and there may be a political cost in doing so. In a few weeks’ time, when a number of extra peers have been added, the Government will have a majority not only in this House but, uniquely since the second world war, in the other House as well, so there will be a further slowing down. The Bill provides not a lock but a brake—that is all. It does not do what hon. Members want, which is to draw a line regarding all further innovations in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

The Bill will not deal with the real problem. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) are right that my views on the EU are those of a minority. I know that partly because my father sends me an e-mail every Sunday to remind me of that fact and also to remind me that he moved to Alderney primarily so that he does not have to abide by any EU laws. He also regurgitates vast quantities of things that I hear regularly from hon. Members. I think it is a great embarrassment to him that I was not only the Minister for Europe but the Labour Minister for Europe.

The problem in Europe with those whom others have referred to as the elite and with ordinary members of the public is that there are real difficulties in advancing the European cause because there is no single European demos or political opinion. The waves of views crash upon the electoral shores in different parts of the EU at different times and it is very rare for two meetings in a row of the General Affairs and External Relations Council to include the same set of Ministers. Consequently, it is a phenomenal triumph to achieve any European co-ordination.

Some of the EU’s founding principles—indeed, the economic ones—are very powerful, such as the right to freedom of movement and to work anywhere in the EU. In the UK, Labour brought in civil partnerships—I have benefited from those changes this year—and other EU countries have introduced other ways of recognising same-sex unions. Many of us believe there ought to be a system for recognising those unions in every other country in Europe; otherwise there will clearly be discrimination against people whose partnership cannot be recognised for the purposes of taxation, benefits and the right to freedom of movement around the EU. I do not want Europe to decide the law on marriage in any European country, but I do want it to be able to enforce the basic principle of freedom of movement, and that will require a shift so that civil partnerships in this country, or same-sex marriages in Spain, can be recognised in every other country. Otherwise, married same-sex Spanish couples who move to France will have to divorce and form a new civil partnership there. The seeds that have been sown in the underlying principles of the EU will not go away. The British people who live in Spain and demand that Europe should act on property rights in Spain are arguing for an extension of the EU’s powers although many of them are profoundly Eurosceptic.

I am not a fan of referendums, because I believe in representative democracy. I believe that we are elected to come here and that the sovereignty of Parliament is the important principle on which we should act.

[Henry Smith]

Was the hon. Gentleman in favour of the referendum on the Welsh Assembly?

[Chris Bryant]

I have not been in favour of referendums at all and I have made this argument for many years. I was opposed to the suggestion that there should be one on the constitutional treaty and I said so in the House, for which The Sun and various other newspapers condemned me extensively. On the whole, I am not in favour of referendums, but there are times when the political class decides to navigate around Parliament and find some other means of implementing things. I think we were right to insist, after the second world war when we effectively rewrote the German constitution, that Germany should not be able to hold plebiscites because unfortunate circumstances can sometimes arise.

I am not a fan of referendums. Particularly in relation to treaty-making, they are unfortunate because they make it far more difficult for a Government to have the freedom to negotiate that they need. Of course there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny of that process. Notwithstanding the splendid work of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), I think the House still does European scrutiny very poorly because far too few Members want to take an active, engaged role in that process, much of which comes not from the Foreign Office but from every other Department of Government. It does not give a Government a strong hand to insist that there will regularly be referendums.

I believe the Government want to be able to repatriate some powers from the European Union to the United Kingdom. The process outlined in the Bill makes it almost impossible for them to be able to do so in the next five years. Other Governments will say, “You’ve already said you’re not going to have any treaties because you reckon that you won’t get a yes vote for any referendum.” That is why the Bill binds the hands of the Government.

On clause 18, the sovereignty clause, the European Scrutiny Committee has done a good job. It is right that, as the Committee points out, the clause adds nothing to the present situation. Lord Justice Laws, in the Thoburn case in 2002, was right when he said that

“there is nothing in the ECA”—

the European Communities Act—

“which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow it. That being so, the legislative and judicial institutions of the EU cannot intrude upon those conditions. The British Parliament has not the authority to authorise any such thing. Being sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty.”

Lord Justice Laws was absolutely right. That is why the clause is dangerous. It applies only to European law, but large numbers of the elements that affect our relationship with the EU are laws that come from other parts of Government. That is why in his evidence Professor Tomkins was right to urge the House of Commons not to proceed in this way in the Bill.

The whole Bill is, in the words of Shakespeare, “zed”, an “unnecessary letter”. It misses the need that exists out there to engage positively with Europe.

Ahmadiyya Community

Henry Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Let me start by apologising for any words that I may pronounce incorrectly. No insult is intended, and I stand to be corrected on my pronunciation. For someone with a name like Siobhain McDonagh, that is quite a thing.

Britain’s Ahmadiyya Muslims work hard and contribute greatly to this country. Their belief in peace and religious tolerance is an example to us all, and is to be expected from a community whose motto is, “Love for all and hatred for none.” Their fifth spiritual head, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, lives in the United Kingdom, and their headquarters are in south London. Indeed, one of the world’s biggest Ahmadi mosques is in Morden. It has capacity for 10,000 people, which means that I have many Ahmadi constituents, as do many neighbouring seats. I am pleased to say that we now have the backing of enough parliamentarians to start up an all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyyan community, and we will hold our first ever meeting in the next few weeks.

In my experience, my Ahmadi constituents are well-educated, cultured and have a sophisticated and peace-loving approach. I am therefore delighted to be granted this opportunity to talk about the Ahmadiyyan community. I understand that this is the first ever parliamentary debate specifically to discuss the Ahmadiyya faith, and it is a great honour to be leading it. However, I am extremely sorry to bring this community’s concerns to the House at this particular time. The circumstances that led me to ask for a debate are extremely sad. On 28 May, nearly 100 Ahmadiyya Muslim worshippers were brutally murdered in two separate attacks in Lahore. However, what makes the story especially poignant is not just the fact that the Ahmadi are so peaceful but that their murderers were also Muslim. What I hope to do today is to examine why the attacks took place, then ask whether there is anything that we in Britain and the wider community can do to prevent such atrocities happening again in the future. Finally, I want to assess what the implications are for Britain of how the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan is treated and what we can do about it.

To begin, I need to say a few words of introduction about the Ahmadiyyans. Despite the fact that they have translated the holy Koran into more than 60 languages, span 195 countries and have more than 15,000 mosques and a membership exceeding tens of millions, theirs is a faith that is little known outside their community. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community was founded in 1889 and arose out of the belief that the long-awaited Messiah had come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Ahmad claimed to be the metaphorical second coming whose advent was foretold by Mohammed. Obviously, that contradicts the view of mainstream Muslims who believe that Mohammed is the last prophet. Nevertheless, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is a very peaceful religion. They believe that there are parallels between Ahmad and Jesus, as God sent both to end religious wars, contend bloodshed and bring peace. For instance, they reject terrorism in any form. Ahmad declared that jihad by the sword had no place in Islam. Instead, he wanted his followers to wage a bloodless, intellectual jihad of the pen to defend Islam.

In a similar vein, Ahmadis believe that theirs is the only Islamic organisation to endorse a separation of mosque and state and to champion the empowerment and education of women. Ahmad also warned his followers not to engage in irrational interpretations of the Koran or to misapply Islamic law. In Britain today, we regard such attributes as modern and tolerant. However, those values are not shared by some other Muslim traditions, particularly those with a more fundamentalist viewpoint. For such fundamentalists, belief in a false prophet is heretical enough, but for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community also to follow teachings that fundamentalists believe are wrong is adding insult to injury. Consequently, Ahmadis have long faced persecution. Their first martyr was killed in custody in 1901, and it is estimated that there have been about 200 deaths in total. Of course, religious disagreements have cost countless lives over the years throughout the world. Religions have a long and very unhappy history of attacking each other for worshipping the wrong prophet, even much closer to home than in Pakistan.

I am a Catholic and we are as guilty as anyone. A Catholic pope promised heaven to mediaeval thugs who took part in murderous crusades against followers of a prophet whom they believed was false—Mohammed. That period of history continues to haunt us. This country is not immune to using discrimination against religions we have not liked, with Catholics on this occasion often being the victims. It is only a few years ago that I helped to change the law to allow former Catholic priests to become MPs. Although that law was a throwback to a much earlier time, there are, even in our more recent history, examples of discrimination of which we should not be proud, particularly in Northern Ireland. It is hard therefore to stand here and lecture other countries about their practices, and we need to remain humble. The fact that religions have been persecuting each other for centuries does not make it right, especially in Pakistan where extreme groups such as the Taliban are already very active in creating a lot of volatility.

We are lucky in this country in that, on the whole, our religions can carry on side by side without conflict, respecting each other’s right to worship. In Pakistan, most mainstream Muslims are horrified that anything could happen to their fellow countrymen just because they have a different religion. They are as shocked as we are by attacks such as those in Lahore. However, discrimination is an everyday reality for many Ahmadis living in Pakistan, and it is embedded in the Pakistani constitution.

Pakistan’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, may have said that the country should be a secular state in which all were equal and religion was no business of the state, but today’s Ahmadis do not enjoy equality. Pakistan was created in 1947. In 1948, Major Dr Mahmood Ahmed was lynched by a mob at Quetta. In 1950, Ahmadis were murdered in Charsadda, Okara, Rawalpindi and Mansehra. By 1974, riots and killings, attacks on mosques, assaults, arson and looting were widespread, and the organs of the state were not neutral. The police arrested victims and not perpetrators. In September 1974, Prime Minister Bhutto amended the constitution and declared that Ahmadis were officially non-Muslim. That was followed in the 1980s by measures introduced by Zia ul-Haq’s Government to Islamicise Pakistan’s laws.

In 1984, Ordinance 20 significantly restricted Ahmadi freedom of religion or expression, threatening up to three years in jail for any Ahmadi who, for example, called themselves a Muslim. Since then, thousands of Ahmadis have been arrested. In 1989 and again in 2008, the entire 50,000 population of the Rabwah was charged with practising Islamic worship. Ahmadis are prevented from holding public meetings and are not even able to vote or to register to vote because registering to vote would require them to deny their faith. Ahmadis are barred from entry to public office except at the lowest level. In order to claim to be a Muslim on the Pakistani passport, they are forced to sign a declaration that says:

“I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be an imposter.”

Persecution by the state is at times systematic. My fear is that such discrimination helps to feed the ideology of groups such as the Taliban and offers them a justification for some of their worst excesses. It does not legitimise what they do, but it might make them feel, wrongly, that they have some kind of legitimacy. Even if there was no violence, it makes Ahmadis feel threatened. Therefore, the Pakistan constitution poses a problem, as it gives some perverse encouragement to extremists and belittles the Ahmadi community.

Non-state persecution of Ahmadis is very worrying and appears to be growing. According to Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, Ahmadis face the worst treatment of anyone in Pakistan. The media there are often virulently anti-Ahmadi, broadcasting phrases such as, “Ahmadis deserve to die.” In particular, the Khatme Nabuwwat movement carries out regular activities to oppose Ahmadi Muslims. It calls for the banning of Ahmadiyyat and for the killing of Ahmadis. It incites attacks against Ahmadis in speech and broadcast, and is credited with introducing the widely used phrase, “wajibul qatl” which means “those who deserve to be killed”.

In the past decade, there has been an increasing number of murders and attacks of Ahmadis, and an increase in the number of pre-planned and targeted attacks on Ahmadi mosques by Islamist militants. As we know, those attacks culminated in the Lahore attacks, when two mosques were stormed in a well-planned assault that lasted for about four hours. At one stage, more than 1,000 worshippers were trapped in the Darul Zikr mosque, trying to escape militants armed with guns and grenades. The Baitun Noor mosque was also stormed in a co-ordinated attack. The multiple suicide attacks by the Punjabi Taliban took place slowly, with terrorists methodically throwing hand-grenades among their hostages and climbing the minarets to fire at them from above. When the attackers started to run out of ammunition, they began detonating their explosive vests. Although the police came, they arrived late—even after the media arrived—and the only attackers who were caught were captured by unarmed Ahmadis.

The loss of life and the prolonged and bloody siege prompted widespread condemnation and global media coverage, and it is the reason why we have asked for this debate today. Many people have been in touch with me about the outrage in Lahore. Shortly after the murders, I spoke personally with Rafiq Hayat, the head of the UK’s Ahmadi community. I wanted him to know that I was very concerned about what had happened and I wanted to see if I could do anything more to help.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

In my constituency, the attacks in Lahore in May sent a shockwave through the local Ahmadi community. However, I was very impressed that, despite that sense of shock, several months later the community displayed its altruistic and inclusive nature when it invited representatives of many different faiths in my constituency—Christian, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim—to come together for a celebration at the end of Ramadan. Is that not a great example of the way forward and of how we can include all communities together, with respect for all different faiths and religions?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman and, as I have been arguing, such inclusiveness is the hallmark of the Ahmadi faith.

We thought that it was important that Britain send a strong message to Pakistan after the attacks in Lahore, saying that we were appalled by what had happened and that more must be done to support Ahmadi worshippers in that country. At the time of the attacks in Lahore, we were concerned that the British Government should highlight both Pakistan’s duty to protect Ahmadis and the poor treatment that Ahmadis receive in Pakistan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said when he was my party’s foreign affairs spokesperson:

“It is when the international community has taken its eye off the ball in Pakistan that instability has increased…Internally, Pakistan has a duty to protect minority groups and needs the support of its allies to do so.”

Rafiq Hayat told me that he agreed with that sentiment and I hope that the Minister can join us in expressing the Government’s views to the Pakistan Government in his speech later in the debate.

I am concerned that the discrimination against Ahmadis that is embedded in the Pakistani constitution can be construed by militants as giving them legitimacy. The Pakistani Government are already facing many difficulties with al-Qaeda and other militant groups, and the British Government need to work hard to convince them to help to fight global Islamic terrorism. As the June issue of Terrorism Monitor notes:

“As the Pakistani Taliban are trying to spread their war on the Pakistani state, they are likely to continue to target minorities like the Ahmadis in their efforts to create instability.”

If we do not persuade mainstream politicians in Pakistan to stand up for the Ahmadi Muslim community, we risk further Islamicist militancy. Moreover, if the militancy continues in Pakistan, it not only threatens Ahmadis but the whole international community. After all, any increase in Islamicist activities also affects us here in the UK, so it is in our own interests for the Government to seek to persuade Pakistan’s Government to show more tolerance to the Ahmadi Muslim community.

I therefore urge the Minister to ask his colleagues to raise this matter with Pakistani Ministers in the course of their regular meetings and to keep the new all-party group informed of any progress. The truth is that the Pakistani extremists’ hatred of Ahmadis is already being exported. In fact, it is here in the UK today.

Last week, south London local newspapers carried front page articles about discrimination against and intimidation of Britain’s Ahmadi community. The police are appealing for information about inflammatory leaflets that have been distributed across south London, apparently by Khatme Nabuwwat, as part of a targeted ideological campaign, and they have said that an investigation into alleged hate crimes is ongoing. They have also said that a teenage Ahmadi girl gave them a statement, claiming that a leaflet that was written in Urdu said:

“Kill a Qadiyani and doors to heaven will open to you”.

Another KN leaflet, entitled “Deception of the Qadiyani”, was recently displayed in the window of the Sabina Hair and Cosmetic shop in Mitcham road, Tooting. When the local Guardian newspaper confronted staff at the shop to ask why they had put up the leaflet, a worker said:

“These people are not Muslims. I did it myself. They don’t believe that prophet Mohammed is the last prophet.”

Many Ahmadi shopkeepers are worried about the future of their businesses after clerics demanded a boycott of their shops. Imam Suliman Gani, of the Tooting Islamic Centre, apparently pleaded with the owner of the Lahore halal meat shop in Tooting not to sell his business to an Ahmadi man, saying:

“Since the Qadiyanis are routinely deceptive about their religion, there was a potential risk of Muslims being offered meat that wasn’t necessarily halal.”

Yet another leaflet that was posted on the wall of the Streatham mosque called for a boycott of the Lahore halal meat store.

The discrimination is increasing. An Ahmadi butcher who came to London in 2001 after fleeing Pakistan has just won an employment tribunal after being sacked by the owner of the Haji halal meat shop in upper Tooting. The owner, Azizur Rahman, had put pressure on his employee to convert to the Sunni Muslim faith. Apparently, Mr Rahman said that pressure was placed on him

“by the head of the Sunni sect who had helped Mr Rahman to gain admission for his daughters to a single sex school for girls.”

Mr Rahman also claimed that he had been influenced by a conference hosted by KN at the Tooting Islamic centre in March, where worshippers were ordered to boycott Ahmadi-run shops. During that conference, the KN’s Abdul Rehman Bawa said:

“I don’t know why our sisters or mothers are talking with these Qadiyani and making friendships...Don’t make friends with them...They are trying to deceive you, they are trying to convert you from Islam to Qadiyanism.”

According to the local Guardian newspaper, the owner of one Tooting halal butchers shop said that his trade had virtually halved in three months, and claimed:

“Some people refuse to come here just because I am Ahmadi. They use words against me like ‘Kafir’, which means I am not Muslim. I’ve lived here for 13 years and lots of people know me in Tooting, but this situation has become so much worse now.”

Furthermore, the Tooting Islamic centre was at the centre of another controversy, when an election hustings in April was disrupted by anti-Ahmadi protests. The Tory candidate was mistaken by a group of fundamentalists for the Liberal Democrat candidate, who is an Ahmadi, and he had to be locked into a room for his own safety.

I appreciate that not everything that appears in the newspapers is the whole truth and that the real story about anti-Ahmadi activities in this country may be more complicated and untypical. I also do not want to focus on Tooting any more than anywhere else, because I have lived in the Tooting area all my life and there is nowhere else in the world that I would prefer to live. My own experience is that the vast majority of mainstream Muslims are wonderful people and respect their local communities in peace.

We are still a long, long way from a Lahore-style attack happening in south London, but the emergence of anti-Ahmadi activity is a great concern. I ask the Minister to address the issue of how groups originating in Pakistan are encouraging illegal discrimination and inciting hatred in this country, and to raise it with colleagues at the Home Office and other agencies, including the police. None of us wants to see the Pakistani attacks repeated anywhere else. The Pakistani Taliban and groups such as KN have no place in a tolerant society and Ministers must exploit all this country’s diplomatic skills to work with the Pakistani Government.

In the UK, most of the time, people from different religions live side by side, even though we each believe that the other worships a false prophet. I include the vast majority of the mainstream Muslim community in that. Muslims are among the most peaceful, tolerant and understanding people in our community, and I say that as a south London MP with a very diverse constituency. However, for the sake of Ahmadis here and in Pakistan we must work towards a greater understanding of the Ahmadi Muslim community.

I hope that the Minister can make a commitment today to raising our concerns with his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office, with the police, with the Pakistani Government and with the Commonwealth. I also hope that our new all-party group will contribute towards a greater understanding of Ahmadis, because our aim is for the whole world to share and respect the Ahmadi slogan, “Love for all and hatred for none”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What his policy is on the process for UK ratification of future EU treaties.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I refer my hon. Friend to my written statement yesterday. The Government are clear that there should be no further transfers of competence or powers from the UK to the EU in this Parliament, and we will introduce legislation to ensure that any subsequent future treaty that proposes to transfer such competence or powers would be subject to a referendum of the British people before it could be ratified by this country.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Can he elaborate on exactly how transparent the process for deciding on a referendum will be, and will the legislation be drafted in such a way that there will not be undue delay by possible judicial review?

[Mr Lidington]

The legislation will be drafted to make clear those aspects of the European Union treaties on which the Government would expect to require a referendum were there to be a proposal for change. It will, of course, be possible for people to use judicial review if they wish to challenge a Minister’s decision. I think that is likely only in cases where a Minister were for some extraordinary reason—no Minister in the current Government would do this—to wish to deny the people the right to have their say.