Commission Work Programme 2015

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (a), at end add

‘; and urges the Government to encourage the Commission to develop policies during 2015 relating to the free movement of EU citizens.’

It is truly shocking that it took more than a year for the Government to bring forward a debate on the free movement of EU citizens, given that the document in question was recommended as long ago as January 2014 regarding a matter of enormous significance that was discussed on 5 December 2013 in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. This issue goes right to the heart of the immigration question, which in turn lies at the heart of the European question as it applies to the United Kingdom, and it is a matter of intense political and controversial debate. It is inconceivable that this matter should have been so shockingly delayed, and that led the European Scrutiny Committee to ask the Leader of the House to give evidence and be cross-examined on why these important matters, including free movement as well as things such as the EU budget and the charter of fundamental rights, are outstanding. We were told by the Minister and the Leader of the House that they could not disclose how that decision had been arrived at because it was a matter of collective Government responsibility. The Committee is glad that by tabling the amendment it has forced the Minister to welcome it.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wonder if I might add to what my hon. Friend is saying. Although the Minister and the Leader of the House said that they could not possibly tell us who was blocking the provision, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the First Secretary of State and the Minister for Europe all intimated that they were very much in favour of having the debate, and wished that it could be brought forward as a matter of urgency although forces beyond their control prevented it.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is right in every respect and we have all the transcripts to prove it, including from various Secretaries of State. It is effectively an example of decisions being taken behind closed doors in smoke-free rooms. Those are the new modernising methods of government. I disapprove of them and so does my Committee, as shown by the fact that we tabled this amendment.

Let us move on and accept that we are now able to debate free movement; I particularly want to concentrate on EU migration and benefits in that context. I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on 18 November, which was 10 days before he made his speech at JCB in Staffordshire on the question of free movement, and I drew attention to the fact that I believed we were faced with a real problem. However much we might want to make certain changes, unless we were prepared to dig in and make this Parliament supreme on matters of such vital national interest, we would not get the necessary changes because some of them required treaty change and others required overriding the charter of fundamental rights. Although the Prime Minister accepted in questions after his speech that some of those matters would require treaty change, in reality that is not on offer in any substantial way from the other member states.

The principle of free movement is embedded in the ideology and principles of the other member states, and particularly the European institutions and European Commission, despite how that may affect us as a small island with a greatly increasing population and pressures on social housing and education—the list is endless. Unlike other member states such as France, Germany and Spain that have large land masses and can absorb many more people, we simply cannot do so. It is therefore a matter of vital national interest—quite apart from questions that I will mention in a moment about abuse of the system—that has led us to a position where we have desperately wanted to put our foot down. Some of us believe that we should override European legislation and the charter of fundamental rights by using the “notwithstanding” formula—that is notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, which is past legislation as I have said many times before—so that we can ensure that our Supreme Court obeys the laws of this Parliament which is elected by our voters in general elections.

When the election comes—it is only a matter of 60 days or so—this issue will be at the centre of gravity in that election, and we will be asked whether we will take the necessary steps in line with what voters insist on. I am afraid the answer to that question is that there will be no treaty change or overriding of the charter, and when I have asked Ministers and the Prime Minister whether they will use the “notwithstanding” formula, I have been told no.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me begin by talking about the way in which we have arrived at this debate, and also about the amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and all the other members of the European Scrutiny Committee who were present at Wednesday’s meeting. It is highly unusual for a Select Committee to table a cross-party amendment on a subject that was recommended for debate nearly 14 months ago.

The Government should bear it in mind that no Government are in office for ever. They should bear it in mind that the great protection of our liberties is the House’s entitlement to debate what it wishes to debate, and that they should treat that entitlement properly and respectfully by allowing such debates to take place. They should also bear it in mind that delaying deliberately, for 14 months, a debate on the free movement of people—a subject which, as we heard from the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), is being discussed on every doorstep in the country—shows a contempt for the House of Commons that constitutes a grave error.

When things change and another party is in government, that party too will notice that it is possible to ignore the Standing Orders of the House. That party too will notice that it is easy to clamp down on discussion in what ought to be a hotbed of democracy, and our freedoms will ebb away.

The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for their delay, and the Ministers who claimed to be so much in favour of the debate when they appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee—or on the Floor of the House during questions to the Leader of the House—ought to recognise that they are powerful figures. When the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Europe and the First Secretary of State all want a debate, it is extraordinary that we do not get that debate. Who is the mystery figure, hidden somewhere in the corridors of Whitehall, who vetoes debates?

[Sir William Cash]

Clegg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is it our right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) who vetoed the debate, or is it simply some mystery in the machine? Is it some faceless bureaucrat, some poor fellow sitting patiently in the officials’ Box?

Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.

It is terribly important to use opportunities of this kind to discuss matters of such importance properly on the Floor of the House. It does not mean that we always have the right answers—sometimes, we do not even have the right questions—but there are some really important issues that need to be given an airing so that people outside can hear the nature of the discussion, rather than having that discussion held by an agency on its own account or, alternatively, by the civil service and then put forward in a Government brief.

Basically, this is a new proposal that deals with doctors’ language skills. There are many people in this country who believe that this is an important issue. It is pretty obvious that ensuring that doctors have appropriate language skills is rather important, especially given what happened in a particular case. I do not remember the names of the individuals concerned, but I seem to recall that the case involved a father who died after being treated by somebody from Germany. It seemed to be pretty likely, if not certain, that the reasons that happened were to do with a lack of proper language skills and proper experience of the medical practices in this country. The doctor was effectively coming here as a locum without appropriate qualifications or sufficient skills to be able to give the kind of treatment that was needed, and the result was a tragedy. Other Members of Parliament may have other such examples.

This is a very important issue. Indeed in April last year, the Medical Act 1983 was amended to strengthen the arrangements to ensure that all doctors have sufficient knowledge of English before being able to work in the UK. My new clause would help to ensure that all doctors were able to communicate effectively with colleagues and patients, which would sufficiently reduce the risk to patient safety caused by a lack of understanding of the English language that could result in the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of conditions. Many people regard that as common sense.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sorry to bring him on to familiar ground, but would this new clause be acceptable under European Union law?

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend quite properly puts that question to me as I am Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee of which he is a member. We always come across these questions of interpretation. The short answer is that in relation to the issue of having appropriate language skills, the parameters for the communication of information between the patient and the person giving the treatment would be described as being within the framework of public health and the importance of ensuring that the people concerned—the patient—had not only adequate treatment but the opportunity to ensure that they were not put in danger. I think that in those circumstances it would pass muster and that we could legislate on our own account. If there were ever a challenge, I would propose that we introduce a further provision reading “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972” and then legislate. If we did that, under sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 Act the notwithstanding formula would enable us to bypass the European Court of Justice and ensure that we could legislate on our own account in this House to ensure that language skills were needed in English to ensure that patients in this country were properly safeguarded. I hope that I have dealt with my hon. Friend’s point.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Sir William Cash]

I see him nodding and I am glad that I managed to pass that test. I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, who ensures that we all keep up to the mark.

On this occasion, I think we would have the capacity to make the change in the first place, but, if not, perhaps we can take a belt-and-braces approach in the House of Lords and use the notwithstanding formula. We shall see.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Again, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for tabling this new clause, which covers an important subject—the language skills of doctors—although of course the language skills of all involved in clinical care are vital.

Clear and understandable communication is essential to safety and the quality of care of patients. Language skills are a necessary condition for good communication, but not a sufficient condition. They must be accompanied by good communication skills, with which not all of us are automatically blessed, however good our language skills. Communication skills teaching is now an essential part of training in medical and nursing schools and it is to the credit of the previous Government that they ensured that it was embedded in the curriculum of new medical schools and was taken forward in existing schools. I welcome the Government’s support for that important approach.

I understand that regulations have been in place for a short while to ensure that all doctors, whether from within or from outside the European Union, have appropriate language skills before being granted a licence to practise. I want to hear from the Minister what the effect of those important regulations has been and whether he believes that new clause 4 is necessary. I would also like him to consider whether the assessment of language skills should include communication skills within that language.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I want to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is an important new clause on a matter that it would be wise to have clearly set forth in primary legislation.

The heart of the matter is, unfortunately, the European Union and the mutual recognition of qualifications within the EU, and there are good reasons for that. The only way to open up service industries generally is if mutual recognition of qualifications takes place, so if we are to have a single market in services that is an important basis for it. However, above and beyond that there must be a fundamental principle of patient safety, which is embodied in this excellent Bill, and a lack of good language skills and of understanding of a language is a danger in both directions. It is a danger for the doctor who is listening to the patient explain his or her symptoms and it is also a danger when the doctor explains to the patient what steps the patient needs to take for better health. If there is confusion, it can have a seriously deleterious effect on the patient’s health.

We must be clear that this is not about restrictive practice or protecting the market for British doctors but about ensuring that there can never be such confusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone says, if this provision runs into trouble with the European Union, we need to state clearly that it is of such fundamental importance that it must override international treaty obligations. It was Disraeli who said in his speech in the Manchester free trade hall in 1872, “Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas”—that the first duty of Minister is the health of his people. That statement has underlined and guided Conservative policy for nearly a century and a half.

[Sir William Cash]

I recall that Disraeli also said, “The Tory party is a national party or it is nothing.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed, although I am less clear on the relevance of that, and I was not intending to swap Disraeli quotations all morning. I just wanted to make that point about a fundamental principle that has guided our party since the 1870s and its relevance in defending health through ensuring that there is a proper standard of English-speaking—or in Wales, Welsh-speaking—physicians.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend used the word “ensuring”. That reminds me that insurance is a very important ingredient in the question of health and language skills—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, communication skills as well. If there were to be a failure of language, the consequence of which was to breach the terms on which an insurance contract was devised as between the patient and the national health service, as well as others involved in the contractual relationship, there would be massive financial consequences that could, in certain cases, run into millions of pounds.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is possible that that is taken care of by other parts of the Bill. Clause 1 contains the fundamental commitment that unreasonable risks should not be taken, and language could be seen to be part of that. The reason I like the new clause is that it makes it absolutely clear that language is fundamental.

It is very hard to think of a circumstance where a lack of communication could possibly be safe. There may be cases where a patient cannot speak, or absolutely dire emergencies where there is no alternative form of treatment, but in the ordinary course of events language skills must be essential for somebody who looks to work in this country for any length of time.

I hope that the Government will think about this new clause very seriously, and perhaps consider whether a “notwithstanding” aspect is necessary, and that if they do not accept it today, they will look at the matter again in another place.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

That is absolutely right. I have followed these matters with what could be described as a mild degree of interest since the Maastricht treaty, in which we were promised all these pillars, but they have all now collapsed as though Samson had stretched out and pulled them down, bringing the whole of the criminal justice arrangements we had previously enjoyed crashing down with him.

Despite all the promises that were made, during the Lisbon treaty debates my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and I, who were then in opposition, voted against every single measure. We were completely united as a party, not just as Eurosceptics but as sensible people—rational people, if I may say so to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). The bottom line is that we have now completely reversed our position and are in the process of accepting 35 measures that we would not have contemplated when the Lisbon treaty was going through.

Many of the issues that have already been raised and will be raised later during the debate are of deep concern not only to many Conservative Members but, I would say, to many people throughout the country, as the votes in the European elections indicated. I think that this is just another example of our giving in to European measures when there is no real, rational reason for doing so, given that there are criminals—murderers, traffickers and so forth—throughout the rest of the world.

From 1 December 2014—the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned this, but I want to reaffirm it from this side of the House—the Court of Justice will exercise full jurisdiction over all EU police and criminal justice measures. As a result, the Commission will be able to infract member states—bring them before the Court, because we have allowed it to do so—and request a fine if they fail to implement the measures correctly. National courts will be able to seek preliminary rulings from the Court on their interpretation or validity. That is a matter of grave concern to the United Kingdom. The European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees —the Chairmen of all three are present—were concerned about the 2014 block opt-out decision, and every one of us, including all the members of my Committee, was critical of the Government’s reluctance to engage fully with Parliament. All the Committees’ reports are tagged to this debate.

The history of the issue has not been by any means a happy one. In their response to the reports, the Government stated:

“ For the avoidance of doubt, we reaffirm our commitment to hold a second vote in both Houses of Parliament before making a formal application to rejoin any measures. We continue to believe that in order for this vote to be as informed as possible, it should be held after we have reached an ‘in principle’ agreement on those measures we will seek to rejoin.”

The problem is that this debate—a general debate—is not meeting what we understood would be the case. I remain somewhat surprised that we are engaging in this debate when the timing of and procedure for the real debate have not yet been spelt out. I hope that, when he winds up today’s debate, the Justice Secretary will give us a clear, factual indication of when that vote and that debate will take place, because that is what the Government have committed themselves to doing.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. We understood from the Home Secretary that there would be a vote, but we have been given no assurance that there will be a debate prior to that vote. Will my hon. Friend be seeking clarification on that?

[Sir William Cash]

That is exactly what I have said, and that is exactly what we need to have an answer to. What we do not want is a short debate followed by a vote. We want a comprehensive debate on the Floor of the House of Commons—no ifs and no buts. I am sure that the Justice Secretary will be able to give us that assurance.

A letter written to me by the Home and Justice Secretaries dated 3 July confirmed that an agreement “in principle” had been reached with the Commission on the non-Schengen measures, but not on the overall package. According to the Home Secretary, a number of “technical reservations” remained in regard to the Schengen measures, and the General Affairs Council maintained that position the other day. We must have a further, full debate on the Floor of the House, and a vote, once full agreement has been reached.

I want to put a number of questions to the Government. I should be grateful—as, I think, would the rest of the House—if the Justice Secretary responded to them when he winds up the debate.

We need the Government to explain the reasons for the changes to the 35 measures, and to identify which changes demanded by the Commission and the other member states they were able to resist. We want them to clarify whether these are the measures that the Government themselves wish to seek to rejoin, or whether they are measures that they are compelled to rejoin in order to secure a coherent package that is acceptable to the Commission and the other member states. In a nutshell, was this a deal made behind closed doors and conducted to a great extent, if not entirely, by officials, and to what extent does it reflect coalition politics?

We note that the 35 measures present only part of the picture. We ask the Government to complete the picture by making available to Parliament a list of all the pre-Lisbon measures that were subject to the United Kingdom’s block opt-out as of 1 December 2009, but no longer are because the UK has opted into amending or “repeal and replace” measures.

We should like the Government to explain why the

“solution concerning the Prüm Decisions and the Probation Framework Decision”

which was alluded to in the Council press release issued after the General Affairs Council on 24 June, is not mentioned or explained in Command Paper 8897, in the Minister for Europe’s written ministerial statement of 30 June informing Parliament of the outcome of the Council, or in the letter of 3 July from the Home and Justice Secretaries to me, as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. We note that details of the “solution” have emerged through press releases and reports and not through the provision of information to Parliament, and we want to know whether the Government regard that as an appropriate way for them to engage with Parliament.

We seek further information on the content of the deal that has been made, including any processes for consulting Parliament. We want to know how much the UK has invested so far in its preparations for implementing the Prüm decisions, and we ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to set out the Government’s current assessment of the utility of the Prüm and probation framework decisions.

We want to know about the reliability of some of the assumptions underlying the Government’s impact assessments, especially in regard to measures such as the prisoner transfer framework decision, when the capacity to operate the measures may be in doubt in some member states, or when the risk of legal challenge on human rights grounds—based, for example, on article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights if prison conditions are regarded as inhuman or degrading, or on article 8 if there is interference with the right to respect for family life—could be regarded as significant.

We note that the possibility of adverse rulings by the Court of Justice does not feature among the “key assumptions/sensitivities/risks” in the impact assessments, although concerns about the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction to EU police and criminal justice measures are at the heart of the block opt-out.

We note that the Government claim to have taken into account the views expressed in our report, as well as those of other Committees. We want to know whether they accept the assessment of our Committee that the selection of measures to rejoin

“does not signify any lessening of UK involvement in the key measures governing law enforcement cooperation in the EU” ,

our assessment that many of the measures, because of their inherent significance and impact on individuals, are likely to be more susceptible to adverse judgments of the Court of Justice than the numerically larger number of measures that the Government do not propose to rejoin, and our assessment that there is

“little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers”.

So we are asking a significant number of questions, and I am putting them on the record now, because we are going to have another debate at a later time. We want to know the significance of the answers to these questions and weigh them up in the light of the general principles I put forward at the beginning, and we need to know about the timing of this debate. We want to know not only when it will take place, but what measures it will cover, as well as receive assurances about the motions that will be tabled. I ask the two Secretaries of State to listen to this very carefully—they are having quite an interesting conversation with one of the Whips at the moment. Would they be good enough to listen carefully? We want to know that the motions will be tabled with sufficient notice to enable Members to prepare amendments, and we reiterate the position on the form of the vote set out in our Committee report: there should be separate motions for each of the measures the Government propose to rejoin.

That is an important practical question about that debate, and I believe it is incumbent on the Government to answers the questions this afternoon so we have a clear picture of the way forward and so we know that this debate will not be just a waste of time, given that we have got another debate and another vote to come when all these measures are going to be finally decided. They are critical measures of great importance not only in terms of criminal justice matters, but also in respect of the whole question of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its rule of law.

Criminal Procedural Rights (Opt-in Decision)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely glad to be able to commend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice for his good decision on the directives. Inevitably, I am pleased that he has agreed with the European Scrutiny Committee. We spent a lot of time on the subject and gave our opinions, and I am glad that he has taken a similar view to ours. That has a consequence, of course, because although we hoped for a three-hour debate, there is no need for one when there is such a healthy degree of agreement between the parties, subject only to a few comments that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is my hon. Friend struck by the fact that when the Conservative party is Eurosceptic, it is united?

[Mr Cash]

I am indeed. I must be careful in what I say, but I simply note that when the Lisbon treaty was going through the House, I tabled 150 or so amendments, and there was complete unanimity among me and my close friends of the Euro-realist type, who supported those amendments, and the Opposition as a whole. The Conservative party was completely united right the way through the proceedings, for the first time since 1972. My hon. Friend is completely right, and there is a strong lesson there.

Moving on to the substance of the matters in question, Lidington debates form part of a package of measures that were intended to

“significantly strengthen Parliament’s oversight of EU Justice and Home Affairs matters and make the Government more accountable for the decisions it makes in the EU.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]

That was what the Minister for Europe said in his written statement in January 2011, and it is important that we put it on the record. It is therefore disappointing—this is the only caveat to my otherwise considerable appreciation of what the Justice Secretary has done today—that, yet again, the Government were unable to give the Committee adequate notice of their recommended approach to the opt-in decision. That is a great pity, because we would not have needed to request a three-hour debate. There would not have been any need for it, subject to the agreement of the Opposition Front Benchers. I suggest that it would be helpful to understand what steps the Government intend to take to improve the process for holding Lidington debates and how they will ensure that their internal decision-making procedures do not continue to hamper the timely provision of information to Members of Parliament.

I also wish to make a point about explanatory memorandums. In the Committee’s initial report, we stated that we were not satisfied with the quality of the memorandums relating to all three proposals that we are discussing today. We have said that before, but I wished to put it on record again. That is a matter of concern to us in relation to not just the Ministry of Justice but Departments in general. The explanatory memorandum is the most important information that can be made available—I do not mean when compared with everything else, but it is important in its own right. It is therefore extremely important, as we say in our European Scrutiny Committee report—for which we are awaiting the Government’s response—that explanatory memorandums are of sufficiently high quality, because that is the basis on which we hold the Government to account. When they explain in a memorandum the policy that underlies their decision, that should be the basis on which we are able to address the House, and be sure that the Government are answering the questions that we have put and are coming up with a policy that is coherent and makes sense.

The first of the three draft directives under consideration is that on the presumption of innocence. Its scope, which sets out certain rights that could be interpreted more widely than similar rights in the European Court of Human Rights by the Strasbourg Court, is a matter of great concern, and I am extremely grateful for the remarks of the Chair of the Justice Committee on that issue. I am also glad that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that at no stage will that measure be opted back into, and I will give one or two reasons by way of amplification.

To take up the point made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, there would otherwise be different European Union and European Court of Human Rights procedural standards, which could cause legal uncertainty and confusion. That has now become an extremely topical question when applied to the judiciary. Members may have noted that, in their varying ways and without going into the detail, Lord Judge, Lord Sumption, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, have all made incredibly important statements, in the most measured terms, about their concerns over the manner in which the Strasbourg Court approaches some of its judgments. This is not the time to go into all the detail, but I strongly recommend that their respective speeches are read by those who read these proceedings.

It is very important that people understand our concerns as members of the Conservative party—and indeed of other parties. Furthermore, some of the arguments that are presented as if we are just Eurosceptics who are out to be critical for the sake of it, are now increasingly supported—however discreetly—by some of the most eminent members of the judiciary in our analysis, which has taken a great deal of time and expertise to develop. It is important to remember that our arguments about the directive on the presumption of innocence are illustrative of the broader question of the methods of interpretation, for example, and the procedural standards in the two different Courts I have mentioned.

On procedural standards, in a nutshell, those based on European Union law override national law. As I said in an intervention, that means that the ability to draw adverse inferences from the silence of the accused, although compliant with the European Court of Human Rights, would become unlawful under European law if the United Kingdom participated in the proposal. That is dangerous, given that we have spent the best part of 600 years in the development of a common law on such matters, some of which—for those who watched it—were well illustrated in last night’s programme on the Plantagenets and Henry II. It was an interesting programme, much of which dealt with how we developed our common law.

The fact is that our courts have a system of appeal. The trouble with EU law in matters as important as the presumption of innocence, which is absolutely at the heart of Magna Carta and absolutely at the heart of our common law system, is that they would be eviscerated if the European Court of Justice were to apply the principles set out in this directive. The consequences would be for section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, passed all those years ago, to be binding on our judicial system, with no right of appeal once the European Court of Justice has adjudicated. That is different from the European Court of Human Rights, which we can override much more easily. I contend that we can put in a provision in an Act of Parliament to rectify that, by saying that, notwithstanding the European Communities Act, we will not accept this particular piece of legislation and thereby preserve our sovereignty. It is this kind of matter that is under discussion on the basis of the European Scrutiny Committee report, to which I referred earlier and on which we await the Government’s response. It is that important: there is no appeal from the European Court of Justice.

I spent two days in Rome last week discussing the question of fundamental rights with some extremely eminent lawyers from throughout the European Union. The Prime Minister of Italy was there, as were a range of other people: Mr Prodi, who used to be the President of the European Commission, people from the Council of Europe and from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and so on. I have to say that there was a great deal of disquiet at the manner in which the European Court of Justice operates in all cases. There are questions about the qualifications of the judges, the methods of interpretation and the issue of process. I will not go into those in detail, other than to put it on the record that the reason why the Government are right, why the European Scrutiny Committee is right and why it is right for this House to agree not to opt into these arrangements, is not just related to the question of the presumption of innocence in its own right, as important as that is. There is a much broader lesson to be learned on the manner in which the European Court functions and the whole question of the supremacy of Parliament. That lies at the heart of the Committee’s report and its recommendations that, if necessary, we should regain the right to veto legislation that we do not think is in the national interest, and to repeal unilaterally at Westminster legislation that is manifestly not in our national interest.

I will now move on to the directive on procedural safeguards for children. Members may want to note that the Committee’s report said that it would be disadvantageous for the Government to opt into this proposal, because the protection of a certain category of vulnerable defendant is best left to national policy and discretion. The differing approaches to the definition of the word “child” for the purposes of criminal procedural protection in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland demonstrate this point. There is a caveat to what the Lord Chancellor said in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). We want to be sure that this would never be opted into. I heard what he said: he clearly would not want it to be. I suspect there may be a bit of coalition politics behind this, so I will not go down that route now. I hope that that will be resolved and that we will effectively find that this directive does not apply at any time. The Government’s estimates of the costs of an opt-in decision to the police and criminal justice system, and the costs of changes in domestic legislation in the context of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, are also relevant considerations.

Finally, Members should be aware that the Committee has expressed the view that the Government should not opt into the proposal in the directive on legal aid for two reasons. First, article 5(2) is premised on the directive on access to a lawyer, into which the United Kingdom has not yet opted. Secondly, the proposal would impose both a financial and a regulatory burden on the United Kingdom.

My function in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee is to set out the parameters and, in some detail, the Committee’s reasons for reaching its conclusions. I cannot say how delighted we are that the Government agree with us. I think that everyone’s concerns have been dealt with, and I therefore have no more to say on the subject—at any rate, for the time being.

Presumption of Innocence and EU Law

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I rather agree with him. Whatever the aspirations of the Scottish nationalists and those campaigning for independence, I am afraid that at this juncture what they have to say, however worthy it may be, will not be within the criteria set out for reasoned opinions under the yellow card system.

I ought to say that I have had grave reservations about the yellow card system from the very beginning. I have never thought that it is a matter that should be decided by an aggregation of member states—if they choose number X, why not choose number Y? The fact is that if a member state wishes to act, in its own national interests—the Minister, judging by what he said, regards this as a matter of critical national interest—I suggest that the reason for disapplying or vetoing laws should rest with one member state, as my Committee’s report made clear, because it becomes invidious to choose a particular number rather than another.

The real question is whether the matter is sufficiently important in the interests of the democracies, the legislatures and the constitutional arrangements of a given country for there to be a veto. Indeed, I must commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who vetoed a treaty only a few months ago, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For this purpose, I think that there is a very strong case, where it is sufficiently important in the national interest, to go beyond the yellow card system.

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

While my hon. Friend is talking about the yellow card system, is it not worth pointing out that the judge of whether the threshold is well enough argued once it has been met is the European Commission itself, so it ends up judging its own decision?

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend, as ever, is completely correct. In the case of the European public prosecutor, the threshold was actually exceeded, and what did the Commission do? It just said that it would go ahead anyway, with complete contempt for our Parliament and the others. That is really what is at stake in these circumstances. It is extremely disturbing. There is no need to enlarge that argument, so I will leave it at that.

We have had a fair description of what the measure is about from those on the Front Benches, so I will simply draw the House’s attention to the fact that, with regard to process, it is unreasonable to expect Parliament to come to an informed view on compliance with subsidiarity within the eight-week time frame allotted for issuing a reasoned opinion without the benefit of an analysis by the Government. The Minister, who may have been drawn into this somewhat at the last moment, would perhaps agree with that; I hope so.

Why was it only at the second time of asking, in a letter sent four days before this debate, that the Government gave a clearer indication of their view on subsidiarity? To put it bluntly, the Government have been prevaricating; they were not clear about their position until very recently. On the substance, however, I welcome the fact that in that letter the Government have belatedly accepted that

“a lack of evidence of necessity renders a proposal in breach of the subsidiarity principle”.

I would have thought that that was an unexceptional circumstance, but I nevertheless welcome it. I also welcome the fact that, given that the Government have accepted that the Commission has not complied with the procedural requirements placed on it to provide a detailed statement appraising compliance with subsidiarity, the Commission has agreed with the European Scrutiny Committee. We relied on both those arguments in our reasoned opinion, and we are therefore grateful and glad that the Minister has decided to support our proposal.

We note—I would be grateful if the Minister responded to this point—that the Government’s view is still conditional. There is a little bit of fudging going on. They use the phrase,

“if in principle the need were to be established”.

From what source—other than the impact assessment, which lacks the necessary evidence—do the Government think the Commission will be able to establish evidence of need? We also note that the Commission recognises that there is—believe it or not, in relation to a matter of this importance—

“limited statistical quantifiable evidence on insufficient mutual trust between the Member States”.

How, therefore, can there be the slightest justification for action at EU level? These are not mere words; they are about the application of the presumption of innocence in relation to EU law.

On a technical point, the legal base of article 82(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union specifically requires evidence of necessity to facilitate mutual recognition. On the difference between the approach to the European convention on human rights taken by the EU and by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, I ask the Government to what extent they agree with the paragraph in the Commission’s impact assessment cited in the draft reasoned opinion, as follows:

“The ECtHR’s reluctance to lay down prescriptive requirements in these areas, which can be seen as a rationale for an EU measure. The approach of the ECtHR has not been especially activist in developing detailed and prescriptive rules in the area of Article 6(2) of the ECHR. It has left a margin of flexibility for presumption of innocence and related rights in light of the requirement to balance the fair trial rights of suspects”—

I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who is Chairman of the Justice Committee, will appreciate that—

“or accused persons with the general public interest, as well as the diverse legal traditions of Member States.”

The Committee concluded that not being “especially activist” was a trait that we strongly welcomed and should inform the decisions of any supra-national court.

We have produced our report and we are grateful that the Government have somewhat belatedly come to the right conclusions on this. We regret that it is only in the past few days that we have got fully engaged with this subject, but we are now glad that the reasoned opinion will go from this Parliament to the European Commission with the support of the sole Member on the Opposition Benches as personified by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. It is important that we do it, but what worries me is that it looks as though it will be doomed unless other member states come forward. If they are not as interested as we are in the matters raised by our Committee, that will be very sad for the European Union as a whole.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am most grateful to you for calling me at this opportune moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I was going to ask a rather pertinent question about the BBC. There has been a lot of publicity recently about what I think is called the media action trust. This is an organisation within the BBC that apparently also has its own premises there and has, so we are informed, been provided with substantial funds from the EU for training journalists and activities of that kind. I have raised this issue in the House in the past, but that is typical of the kind of thing that is going on in the run-up to the European elections.

Let me say straight away that I do not have any particular concern about the first part of the Bill, which concerns the archives. There might well be some hidden problems buried in the archives in Florence that turn out to be a concern, but that is not what I am concerned about today. What I am profoundly concerned about, however—I shall vote against the Bill for this reason—is the question of European citizenship, which goes back to the treaties and the objectives of political union. One of the things that I well remember and that deeply concerned me in the very first part of the Maastricht debates, all those years ago, was the reference in the Maastricht treaty to conferring rights of citizenship on the people of the United Kingdom.

There was a good deal of debate about that in this House at that time. Although that reference did not say specifically what “European citizenship” would mean, we now know where it has been intended to lead. We only have to look at what Viviane Reding, the senior vice-president of the European Commission, said last week to know that it is based on an absolute determination to go pell-mell for a full united states of Europe. The proposals in this Bill, which, if it were possible, I would prefer to describe as a disapprovals Bill rather than an approvals Bill, aim to provide money for the purposes of generating information about and supporting the study and promotion—that is the key word—of political union.

I have with me the full documentation from the Council of the European Union dated 17 September 2013. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has already rightly referred to the passage that says that preference will be given

“to initiatives and projects with a link to the Union political agenda.”

However—no doubt when he rises to speak he will also refer to this; I hope I am not pre-empting him too much—under the heading “Programme Management”, that document also says:

“In general, preference will be given to grants for projects irrespective of their size but with a high impact, in particular those which are directly linked to Union policies with a view to participate in the shaping of the Union political agenda.”

These provisions are said to be done under article 352. Those of us who have been involved in the whole process—I have the honour to be Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I have been a member of it for the best part of 30 years—may remember the old article 308, now replaced by article 352. Those associated with administrative law will know that where there is a statute, there is often a supplementary provision that allows one to do all such things as are reasonably incidental to the carrying on of the main functions. That is precisely what article 352 achieves.

Although I deeply disapproved of the provisions of the Referendum Bill in most respects, which is why I voted against most of them, it is quite right that—and I am glad that the coalition Government have provided for this—for matters of this kind to be dealt with by Act of Parliament. This regulation and these arrangements are dictated by unanimity, which means that we could say no. I shall now provide a number of reasons to explain why I believe that this grant-making exercise is aimed at providing propaganda, as I see it, for purposes of political union. That is why we should say no.

I heard what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said in her reasonable speech about the whole question of European elections, and I alluded to the same point in my intervention on the Minister. I believe that although not much money is involved, this will benefit organisations—I mentioned the word “charities”, but this measure will not relate solely to charities—that are politically motivated for the purposes of promoting the objectives under article 352, which amount to the whole integrationist process. I have in mind statements of the kind recently made by Mr Barroso, who said in the so-called blueprint for the future of Europe that

“the European Parliament and only the European Parliament is the Parliament for the European Union.”

That shows the sort of propaganda whose mechanism and funding will drive the argument further and further in that direction. As many argued in the documents relating to the Bill, this could be extended towards schools, for example. Some in the House of Lords spoke of greater engagement with schools, educational colleges and the rest. Then there is the BBC and the training of journalists, and so it goes on.

If the money, albeit only £2 million, is to be tied under the contract and the tender by these arrangements, many of the organisations concerned will have a very significant impact because what they write will be reproduced in much of the press. There might then be, shall we say, £150,000 or £250,000-worth of grants, providing a very substantial opportunity to disseminate propaganda for the European Union.

In the present situation, however, 95 Conservative Members—I believe it is really well over 100—have said that we should veto European legislation if it is not in our interests. I would be interested to know whether I am right—I believe I am—that this is mainly aimed at providing money for foundations, organisations and, as it specifically mentions, think-tanks to promote European policies and European integration, and not the other way round.

At the same time a serious debate is taking place between those who are in favour of more integration and those who are against it. The Prime Minister is trying to find some middle ground, but it is crystal clear that what is also happening is the promotion of European integration, and this programme will assist that process. If we are to have an in-or-out referendum, albeit far too late in my opinion, I think it very important for the Bill’s immediate objectives to be confined to ensuring that no money is provided under the aegis of the United Kingdom, or with its encouragement, for the purpose of promoting activities in which we in this country have effectively said that we do not want to engage.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Does my hon. Friend fear that money from this pot could be used at any point to promote the European Union prior to a referendum in this country?

[Mr Cash]

I sense that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to go too far down that route, but the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. That is a good illustration of why we need a provision—under the aegis of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report, which has been supported by numerous Conservative Members of Parliament—to ensure that we do not end up paying for the promotion of integrationist policies that are contrary to what we believe in.

Psychoactive Substances

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We have had an interesting exchange of views, resulting in the Government and the Opposition agreeing with the European Scrutiny Committee’s assessment that there is a breach of the principle of subsidiarity in these matters. There are two issues: the draft regulation and the draft directive, both of which have already been described, so there is no need for me to go into them in detail.

The draft regulation would fetter the flexibility that member states currently enjoy to determine the level of risk associated with a new psychoactive substance, and to implement appropriate national control measures. The draft directive, on the other hand, would require member states to introduce criminal sanctions for a new psychoactive substance deemed by the Commission to present a severe health, social and safety risk.

The draft reasoned opinion concludes that the proposed legislation breaches the principle of subsidiarity simply because it would fetter member states’ action to an unacceptable degree. It highlighted the following concerns: the absence of reliable market information on the volume of trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate rather than recreational use; different cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs and new psychoactive substances and the need to accommodate different regulatory approaches at national level; the limited scope for unilateral action by a member state when faced with evidence of social or health harms which exceed the level of risk identified by the Commission when implementing market restrictions; and insufficient evidence of disruption to legitimate trade, or displacement of the harmful effects of the new psychoactive substances, to warrant market intervention on the scale envisaged in the proposed measures or the imposition of additional constraints on members states’ freedom of action.

We have had a number of successes in the European Scrutiny Committee’s proposals for reasoned opinions: we debated the proposal for a European prosecutor’s office and last week it was withdrawn by the Commission, and the Monti II provision in relation to small and medium-sized businesses. We are making some progress. The reality, however, is that we still have to get a substantial number of member states to agree to our proposals on the reasoned opinion. We have a decent track record and will continue to argue the case on the basis of analysis, logic and common sense. Having said that, I do not think there is anything I need to do to repeat the remarks that have already been made, because the Government, the Opposition and the ESC all agree.

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

From experience, does my hon. Friend agree that it is usually the most dangerous state of affairs when there is a consensus between my hon. Friend, Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition?

[Mr Cash]

I would certainly agree that it is extremely dangerous when there is collusion between the two Front-Bench teams, but when the European Scrutiny Committee comes into the equation, I think it is a virtuous circle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is good news that the Government, in their wisdom, have acceded to amendment (b), tabled by the Liaison Committee Chairman, to water down the initial proposal. It is none the less worth reviewing the process of parliamentary scrutiny that this has gone through, because what we had thrown at us last Tuesday was deeply unsatisfactory. I would like to record that dissatisfaction, even though the movements that have been made since are admirable.

It is worth bearing in mind that on 14 December 2012, the Home Secretary and the Lord High Chancellor wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee to say:

“We would hope to be in a position to provide you with the first of the Explanatory Memoranda by early January and to have provided all necessary Explanatory Memoranda by the middle of February. We hope that this will be acceptable to you.”

There were delays, time goes by, and the Whitehall machine did not work with that efficient Rolls-Royce nature that it has been noted for historically. On 11 February 2013, the Home Secretary and the Lord High Chancellor wrote once again—these were becoming regular billets-doux between the Lord High Chancellor, the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—and on this occasion they said:

“Each of these Explanatory Memoranda will be made available to Parliament shortly, to help inform consideration.”

Now, I do not know what view right hon. and hon. Members would take of the word “shortly”. Time is an elastic concept, but it seems to me that “shortly” does not stretch from 11 February 2013 through to last Tuesday. At that point, the elastic had long since snapped. It was broken, and there was a feeling that the urgency that had once been promised had dissipated.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend recall the words in Marlowe’s Dr Faustus:

“O lente, lente currite noctis equi!”—

“Slowly, slowly pass the horses of the night”?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The education at Stonyhurst of my hon. Friend is exquisitely fine. His quotations are better than mine, and I pay tribute to his ability to quote such fine words.

The elastic last Tuesday was firmly broken. Instead of having proper time for parliamentary scrutiny, and instead of having time when the Select Committees could do their work thoroughly and consider this matter of the greatest importance, we were told that what was going to happen was a vote today to agree to the Government’s position, with very little opportunity for any scrutiny at all. It is therefore hugely to be welcomed that the Government decided that that was not the right way to proceed, and that the views of Parliament, representing our constituents, were important in this matter to be able to see what was happening, to deliberate, to report, to take evidence and to decide what, if anything, it might be in the national interest to opt back into. While I am grateful that the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny has improved, it was really quite extraordinary that last Tuesday we were in such a situation as to have been denied parliamentary scrutiny almost altogether. There is some praise now, but it came from a position of dispraise before.

We have heard the most wonderful, glorious line repeated by a number of speakers that this is a most noble repatriation of powers: that never before in the history of the European Union have powers been repatriated to a nation state and that previously it has been a one-way street. The power has gone out: it has left the United Kingdom and gone to our friends in Brussels, but on this occasion there was a noble fight. Horatius was on the bridge standing there fending off the massed hoards coming from Europe to impose their will on brave little Blighty, and happily 98 powers have been restored to this great country. And the ones that are being given back? Well, they have them anyway, so why are we worrying about that at all? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is saying that I am leading up to a quotation. No, I am not; I am leading up to the detail.

This may be rather boring, and one might think speeches in this House unaccustomed to delving into such matters as detail. I hope that under, I think, Standing Order No. 42, this will be neither repetitious nor tedious—well, it may be tedious, but it will not be repetitious, because nobody else has mentioned the detail—but I should like to go through some of the items that we are opting out off, the repatriation of powers that we are getting.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very sympathetic to the view that my hon. Friend is expressing. The view of the Government is otherwise, but when the 2011 Act was being debated it was made clear that these matters can be settled by judicial review. If there is a continuing uncertainty, that is a sensible route to go down once we know what issues will be opted into.

[Mr Cash]

The very thought of a judicial review in the name of Rees-Mogg invokes memories of the greatest of all the cases on the Maastricht treaty, in which my hon. Friend’s own dear late father was the plaintiff. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to take up the cudgels in his own right.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the activities of my late noble kinsman, who did indeed bring an action on the Maastricht treaty, supported by the late kinsman of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who was the backer of that great venture. It may be that we can fight on where our fathers once fought, with the continuing help of my hon. Friend, the seemingly immortal hon. Member for Stone.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to refer to the geese that saved Rome and divert us with a bit of cackling of geese, but it was not that in the end.

Let me return to the exciting detail of where we are restoring powers. The first example that I shall regale you with, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the Council act of 3 December 1998, laying down the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees. I think that staff regulations are very important and noble, but I hardly see that as a fine repatriation of powers. There are lots of other examples—I will not go through them all, because time is short and there are far too many.

However, there are eight decisions relating to classified information. If hon. Members are willing to return to the analysis by the Government, they will see that of those eight, all of which are being opted out of, the Government say:

“To our knowledge only small quantities of classified information are currently shared with third countries under these agreements. If the UK decided not to participate in the agreement, we would continue to be able to exchange UK classified data directly with any third country.”

Therefore, eight of the 98 powers that we are repatriating are so trivial that we have not used them and, crucially, the point has been made that we could do that by agreement with the third countries individually and get exactly the same benefits. Indeed, one of the classified information-sharing deals refers to Croatia before it was a member of the European Union, so that one falls automatically, even if it were useful. I am therefore agreeing, to my horror—and probably equally to her horror—with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, who made the point about the triviality of some of these matters. They are really not very important.

The Schengen measures that we are pulling out of relate to the accession of member states to Schengen, which is hardly still relevant. Those measures include—oh, this is glorious—a council decision made on 18 September 2008 on the test of the second-generation Schengen information system, to which we are no longer committed. That is a serious repatriation of power!

I was thinking of the ancient types, making a comparison to Horatius on the bridge, but it is not Horatius; it is more like Sisyphus, perhaps in both senses of the man. The rock was pushed up to the top of the hill, and he tried to get it over the top, but straight it rolled back down again. To use a cricketing metaphor—which is appropriate in the middle of an Ashes test series—the degree of spin required to say that we are seeing the repatriation of power reminds me only of that famous ball bowled by Shane Warne, when he was first visiting England, when he removed Mike Gatting. It spun so much, so far that it went down in history as one of the great balls in cricket. Even Tich Freeman at his peak, when he got 305 wickets in a season, did not bowl so much spin as this Government are bowling. Even Jim Laker in 1956 was not spinning away so much when he got 19 wickets in Manchester against the Australians, for there is no real repatriation of powers.

Unfortunately, there are two sides of most ledgers. When we look at the powers that it is intended to opt back into, we see rather the reverse. To go into more of this tedious detail, which I know hon. Members find somewhat soporific, the first area—the biggest and most important—is the arrest warrant. We have heard from the Home Secretary about how the arrest warrant will be placed under strict controls. She even mentioned that there will be some limits on the joint recognition of offences, but that will not be decided by our courts or our Parliament. Instead, it will be decided by a foreign court, by foreign judges, and it will be subject to the agreement that has already been made in Brussels.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend, who is almost always right on matters of substance, might reflect on the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, the words “judicial authority” in this context were severely criticised by the European Scrutiny Committee, and there is no guarantee that a court or a judge would be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is an important point, and we should all learn off by heart the 2001 report by the European Scrutiny Committee, I seem to remember it was—

[Mr Cash]

The 17th report of that year.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed; we should all pay great heed to that report.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Where I part company with the Government is in believing that it would not be better to make these adjustments in the current structure, rather than under the new structure, and to negotiate to maintain the current structure with our European partners, because as it currently stands, if we change the law, that is the law of the land. Once we have opted in, it is not: the law of the land is subject to the European Court of Justice.

Then there is the issue of double criminality. The European Commission’s website, in explaining how the arrest warrant works, says quite clearly:

“If they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence of at least three years, the following offences”—

which are then listed—

“may give rise to surrender without verification of the double criminality of the act”.

Therefore, although we may pass a law saying that double criminality is a requirement before we extradite somebody, the rule of Brussels is not so. Now, in the situation we are currently in, our law is superior, but then their law will be superior.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that in the welter of information—the labyrinth that has been created by this extraordinary system—the word “xenophobia” is also mentioned? However, no definition is given, which makes things even more difficult.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This is always a complex area. I have never thought that any Briton could ever suffer from xenophobia, because no Briton has ever been frightened of any foreigner.

I should like to continue a little on the detail and look at item No. 48, which is the Council framework decision on the European Union orders freezing property or evidence. Therefore, we are potentially going to give to the European Court and the European Commission rights to freeze the property of British subjects. Item No. 59 deals with the mutual recognition of financial penalties. “Mutual recognition” is the most dangerous part of the agreement on justice and home affairs.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not think that is quite it, because I think the process is subject to a Title V opt-out. Therefore, if any of those issues are recast, we then have to decide whether to opt into the recast decision, but the decision we have opted into will be a permanent part of the acquis communautaire and we will therefore be bound by it, even if it is recast.

There are a couple of other measures that are being maintained that it is important to mention, because the surrender of powers is so significant. They include the mutual recognition of confiscation orders, which is similar to the property issue. Then there are measures dealing with the enhancing of procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. Therefore, we are going to give mutual recognition to trials that are held without the person accused being present, which I have always thought a potentially highly unjust way of proceeding.

We should be deeply concerned about the proposals to opt back in, because of the lack of sovereignty we will then have over those essential measures. In these important areas—mutual recognition, the arrest warrant, trials without the person present and many others—we are handing over to the European Court the ability to decide whether our procedures are good enough or whether they have to be changed to meet European requirements.

[Mr Cash]

I know my hon. Friend has heard this before, but does he accept that, for all the examples that could be given to demonstrate that the European arrest warrant is sometimes convenient and suits the case of those in favour of it, there are many examples that demonstrate absolutely massive deprivations of justice for those people caught up in the EAW who are most unfairly treated by it?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is certainly the case, but I have sympathy with the Government wanting to have an arrest warrant that works. I think that is a rational and sensible view for the Government to take, but I think that they should go about it in a different way.

The European Union took legal personality at Lisbon. The EU makes deals as the EU with the United States, Korea and Singapore in the free trade area, but it has not yet been tested whether the EU can use its legal personality to make deals with member states of the EU—but that does not mean that it cannot be tried. It would be a sensible thing to do by treaty obligation not within the European treaties, but by separate treaty obligation.

It seems to me that the Government are taking the path of least resistance, which requires a surrender of sovereignty. That surrender of sovereignty is clearly in contradiction of the coalition agreement, which says that there will be no further surrender of powers to the EU. It seems to me, too, that the status quo is the opt-out and not the opt back in. Why? Because the status quo is that these issues are not justiciable in the European Court of Justice, and justice—and the fount of justice—is the essence of sovereignty. Why is Her Majesty sovereign? She is sovereign because she is the fount of justice in this country. When we hand justice over, so we hand sovereignty over—and so the move in sovereignty by making things justiciable in front of the European Court is a major change and different in kind from the opting out, which retains the powers in the United Kingdom.

I am hugely encouraged that the Government have listened so much and have been willing to move so much in a correct way to have proper parliamentary oversight. I am confident that at least the Conservatives in this Government have the wisdom and the ability to negotiate what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom and not to go down the path of least resistance. We need to maintain sovereignty here. We need to have agreements that represent our interests but are not subject to the power of a foreign court that is unaccountable to our electorate.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I seem to remember that 365 economists said that Margaret Thatcher had got it wrong in 1981, but one great and noble Prime Minister had got it right and 365 economists were flawed in their thinking. I would back the British politician against a collection of academic economists living in an ethereal world.

A financial transaction tax would ultimately be paid for by the British people through higher housing costs, lower pensions and possibly through higher Government borrowing costs leading to higher overall taxation. Of course the Labour party wants higher taxation, because that is what it has always been in favour of—more taxes, more spending and a worse economy.

I would now like to move on to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), because they, too, are extremely important. They relate to the European Union’s ambitions to become a superstate based on the euro. I accept that we are outside the euro, but that is not entirely a protection from the development of the EU along the lines of a single state with a single Government based in Brussels. Of the papers we are considering today, there is one from the European Commission showing that it wants within 18 months to have a eurozone seat on the International Monetary Fund’s board, that it wants within five years to co-ordinate eurozone tax and employment policies, and that it wants a political union with adequate pooling of sovereignty with central budgets as its own fiscal capacity and a means of imposing budgetary and economic decisions on its members. That means a single Treasury and a single fiscal union.

The danger for us is that, as the European Union obtains more powers for the eurozone, our association with it will become very different from the present one, and one in which we have little influence over what happens because we are outside it. Alternatively, we could get dragged into the arrangements because, as our experience of the European Union shows, our opt-outs will ultimately expire. We have seen that happening with the social chapter, and we will see it again next year with the decision on title V of the Lisbon treaty. We should therefore be very careful about the ambitions of the European Commission in relation to this single government for the eurozone.

We should also be cautious about what the President of the European Union, Mr van Rompuy, has to say. He has published a paper lauding the success of the euro and all that it has done. It states:

“The euro area needs stronger mechanisms…so that Member States can reap the full benefits of the EMU.”

That is a fascinating way of phrasing it: “the full benefits”. After all the other benefits that they have so far received, there are further benefits to give the member states if only they will join a tighter system of governance. I wonder whether the unemployed Greek youths have noticed all the benefits that they have received from this wonderful beneficent eurozone.

Mr van Rompuy has also been kind enough to say:

“‘More Europe’ is not an end in itself, but rather a means for serving the citizens of Europe and increasing their prosperity.”

I am proud to say that I am a subject of Her Majesty, and not a citizen of Europe. The idea that we need more Europe to benefit the citizens of the member states is palpably false. The more Europe we have had, the worse the situation has become. The more powers that have accreted to Europe, the more bureaucratic, less democratic and worse run has become the whole system of the European Union. The economies of the European Union have suffered because of the euro.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I apologise, but I will not, as I have only 45 seconds left, and counting. I have had two extra minutes already.

I want to finish on the point of democratic legitimacy and accountability. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is in the Chamber, because it was his Bill in 2011 that so wisely reminded us that United Kingdom powers are ceded to Europe only by Act of Parliament and can be withdrawn. However, van Rompuy says that

“the involvement of the European Parliament as regards accountability for decisions taken at the European level”

is key. I deny that. It is this House that is key, and it is this House that should maintain our democracy.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Member for Stone—who is also Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—will of course do just that. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for drawing my attention to these interesting documents. Among the interesting statements in the documents is this in paragraph 2.17:

“The euro area is the key market for UK exporters, accounting for 42 per cent of UK exports in 2011. As a consequence, the euro area sovereign debt crisis and subsequent recession have weighed heavily on the UK recovery. Action by European policy makers in 2012”—

I must say that I am astonished by the phrase that follows—

“helped ease the crisis and there are signs of investor confidence improving, but as the situation in Cyprus demonstrates the challenges facing the euro area are not fully resolved.”

Well, we can tell that to the people of Cyprus, but we can also say it to the people of Britain. This is not just a eurozone problem; it is a European Union problem, but above all else it is a British problem, and that is why we must take the necessary action.

The document is completely wrong to describe the euro area as “the key market”. In fact, as I pointed out in a paper that I wrote with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the UK runs a trade deficit with the other 26 member states of £47 billion a year, yet we have a surplus of about £20 billion in our trade with the rest of the world. Furthermore, the Germans—about whom I shall say more in a moment, because of what was said by Angela Merkel at 3 pm today—run a surplus of no less than £29 billion a year with the other 26 member states.

That is why the debate is so important.

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

On paragraph 2.17, does my hon. Friend share my view that it is a mistake to look at the euro area as one export market, as the individual countries that make up the eurozone have their own characteristics, and we naturally have a huge trade with Ireland, as all countries do with their nearest nation, irrespective of which currency bloc they belong to?

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely, and one of the greatest pleasures I have had in the past couple of years has been to have my hon. Friend serving on the European Scrutiny Committee, with the diligence, knowledge and judgment he brings to all these matters.

It is also stated, at paragraph 2.19, that

“Brazil, Russia, India and China taken together were the destination for 6.5 per cent of UK exports in 2011.”

The real problem here is that our exports certainly have to go to the BRIC countries and also to the rest of the Commonwealth, which is where the emerging markets are, as well as to the United States.

I strongly recommend that this House of Commons and this Government start waking up a bit. I really mean that, as I am very concerned indeed, as any right-minded person in this country should be.

It is also argued in this paper that:

“Between 2009 and 2012 UK goods exports to Brazil increased by 49 per cent, to Russia by 133 pre cent, to India by 59 per cent and to China by 96 per cent.”

I have heard those figures before, but I asked what our actual import penetration into China was in relation to that of the rest of the world. It is 2%. The 96% increase is entirely relative, therefore. The real question is how much we are managing to export into China. Germany exports into China 45% of all the EU exports into China. I do not cite that figure in order to denigrate the expert efficiency, determination and political will of those who run Germany, but I do say that we had better get our act together. Continuing to be locked into these absolutely penalising treaties is causing us enormous damage, when we could gain so much by trading not only with Europe, but with the rest of the world on a much more enhanced basis.

There is far too much discussion and not enough action, and I was glad to note the campaign launched today by 500 business men and run by Matthew Elliott, and I also commend the book about the euro by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which puts its finger on many of the problems in the euro area.

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

To paraphrase President Hollande, with whom I have no doubt those on the Opposition Front Bench are in agreement, a Euro handout is not just for Christmas, but for life.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) pointed out, subsidiarity is the issue in this debate. I could spend a great deal of time debating this, but the European Scrutiny Committee’s report sets out some of the aspects in more detail. The Government have set out their arguments in the explanatory memorandum and the Minister has spoken, so it seems to me that on this occasion it would be more appropriate to deal with the question of subsidiarity than to attempt to deal with the questions that arise regarding the relationship between the member states themselves and the United Kingdom.

A reasoned opinion is a new procedure provided for under the Lisbon treaty. It provides a mechanism for challenging Commission legislative proposals on the grounds of subsidiarity. In a nutshell, it means that national Parliaments have eight weeks, from the publication of a proposal, to submit a reasoned opinion. If such opinions represent one third of all the votes of national Parliaments, the Commission has to reconsider its proposal. The deadline in this case is midnight Brussels time on 26 December 2012, which is why the debate is taking place now.

I am glad to read in the motion that the Government agree with the Committee’s proposals. I was also extremely glad to hear the shadow Minister effectively say that the Opposition agree with the principles that underpin our reasoned opinion. The motion before the House is to approve the draft reasoned opinion, which is set out in the annex to chapter 3 of the report, and to instruct the Clerk of the House to forward it to the presidents of the European institutions. That is the formality.

The purpose of the draft regulation is to establish a new fund for European aid to the most deprived with, as the Minister said, a proposed budget of €2.5 billion for the period 2014-2020. I am bound to point out that those years reflect the period of the multi-annual financial framework on which a number of us voted recently, with respect to the European budget, saying that it should be reduced. The object in this instance, however, is:

“to alleviate poverty and material deprivation in the EU by supporting national schemes for the distribution of food products and the provision of basic consumer goods for the personal use of homeless people or children. It would replace an existing EU Food Distribution Programme…in place since 1987”.

The new fund will be based on the EU cohesion policy and resourced from the structural funds.

With respect to the draft reasoned opinion, we conclude that the proposed legislation breaches the principle of subsidiarity for four reasons. The Commission says that there is uncertainty about the ability of some member states to provide the social investment needed to prevent further fracturing of social cohesion, but it does not demonstrate that all member states are in the same position. Furthermore, there is no evidence about which member states are unable to provide this investment. The draft regulation would, however, bind all member states.

Secondly, the Commission has not provided sufficient justification for EU action on the basis of the Europe 2020 strategy—we go into that in more detail in our report, which is available to the House. A principal objective of the proposal is a desire for a highly visible EU funding instrument to mitigate negative perceptions of the EU’s contribution to economic and financial crisis. The Committee argues that such anxieties, whether founded or unfounded, are not a legitimate basis for EU legislation.

I would argue that the answer to alleviating poverty and preventing the difficulties being experienced in member states lies elsewhere. No one can doubt that the difficulties in many member states—youth unemployment running at over 53% in Spain and Greece and vastly increased unemployment among young people and others in all member states, with one or two exceptions—are the result of the economic policies that have been pursued under the existing treaties. The answer lies in growing small and medium-sized businesses. The taxation then taken from their profits could be ploughed back into the relevant part of the public sectors in each member state—including in this country—to provide the kind of help that the Government here have rightly indicated they will provide in order to alleviate poverty, where it is necessary to do so.

The question of whether these anxieties are founded or unfounded is not a legitimate basis for EU legislation. For EU supranational intervention on poverty and social exclusion in member states to be justified, there must be evidence of a problem that cannot be satisfactorily addressed by action at national level in all member states, but this evidence is simply lacking. I am glad to note that both the Minister and the shadow Minister agree with that proposition, and I repeat that the answer lies in growth, although how we get that growth is the subject for a separate debate.

Another problem is that the rule of law, which is the basis on which the much-vaunted aspirations of the EU are meant to be based, is consistently being breached. I could give many such examples; we have reported on them in the past. There is article 122 in respect of the European financial stability mechanism, there are the breaches of the no-bail-out clauses, the failure of the rule of law in respect of the stability and growth pact and the 25/27 decision that the Prime Minister vetoed but which is still subject to a legal reserve. There have been many other instances and they are continuing.

The principle of subsidiarity, which is embedded in the treaties, is meant to mean that, where matters should be dealt with at member-state level, that is where they should be dealt with, and the EU and its institutions should not arrogate to themselves the alleged right to legislate or impose burdens on member states in contravention of the legal requirements prescribed by the treaties, one of which is subsidiarity. It so happens that in the Lisbon treaty member states agreed to this procedure for reasoned opinions, which is a way of challenging a breach of the rule of law. For precisely that reason and in the light of the arguments I have set out, we put forward this reasoned opinion.

There simply is no basis in existing legislation to justify the use of this €2.3 billion for the purpose described by the European Commission. The Commission’s impact assessment states:

“European financial support can demonstrate the direct solidarity of the Union with the poor people, thus taking up on the broad request by European citizens.”

It is difficult to understand what that is supposed to mean in practice. It is just a generalised description, rather than an analysis of the use of the power for the right purpose. I am bound to ask the Minister, therefore, whether he thinks that the cohesion funds—resourced as they are by member states—should be used to

“demonstrate the direct solidarity of the Union with the poor people”

in those member states. On the use of expressions about demonstrating direct solidarity with the poor people, I am bound to say that, yes, people are being seriously adversely affected, but we should be asking what the real cause of that is, and whether this is the right way to try to solve the problem. Those generalised expressions of anxiety are not the way to run the European Union.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the most extraordinarily condescending language for people who are on very high salaries and paying very low taxes to be using?

[Mr Cash]

I could not agree more, and I would love to go down that route. I will not do so tonight, but the overpayment of civil servants in the European Union is a scandal.

Does the Minister believe that there is evidence of a broad “request by European citizens” for this type of supranational financial support? From what he has said, he clearly does not. The Commission’s impact assessment also states:

“Currently more and more social stakeholders and EU citizens perceive the EU as a threat for their personal and collective protection.”

It goes on:

“Action at European level is required, all the more so, as a lack of social cohesion would hinder the Union's further development and undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.”

In other words, this aspiration is based on the fact that the Commission wants to create a perception that the European Union is helping people, and it is then calling for a vast amount of money to justify that perception. In a way, this is an exercise in legitimised propaganda.

The Committee found that statement startling on a number of levels. Does the Minister agree with the Commission that the EU is perceived as a threat to the “personal and collective protection” of its citizens? Does he think it legitimate for this type of humanitarian funding to be used to reinforce the EU’s legitimacy? This is almost akin to Soviet propaganda.

A constant complaint by our Committee is that the Commission does not pay sufficient attention to the need to confirm that its legislative proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity. I have given the House some instances of breaches of the rule of law. What kind of Government does the Commission purport to run, if it breaches the rule of law whenever it suits it to do so? When it was breaking the rules on the European financial stability mechanism, for example, Madame Lagarde came out of a meeting and said, “We’ve violated all the rules because we want to preserve the euro.” The thinking, which is very dangerous, seems to be: “Providing we can use the power that the member states have given us to get what we want, it does not matter whether we can justify our actions according to the rule of law or the principle of subsidiarity. We’re going to do it anyway, and we’re going to justify it by talking about people’s perceptions.”

It is no wonder that people like me get up repeatedly—like pestering wasps, as I said to the Prime Minister the other day—and try to ensure that we keep the European Commission under surveillance and control. That is precisely what the European Scrutiny Committee is doing. We are ensuring that these matters are properly looked at, and I am delighted that the Government are going with us on this occasion. In this instance—believe it or not—the word “subsidiarity” is not even mentioned in the Commission’s explanatory memorandum. Will the Minister give us his assessment of the Commission’s assertion that the proposal does comply with subsidiarity? Does he agree that, in order to warrant supranational action, the Commission must show that the provision of emergency aid in some member states is undermining social cohesion in others, and that there is a genuine cross-border element involved?

I am arguing the case on subsidiarity, never mind on the justification of the arguments on the merits of giving money. It is an utter, complete and devastating tragedy that people all over Europe are resorting to using food banks. I sympathise with the concerns of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) about those very people. I do not have any problem there. It is one of the reasons why I spend as much time as I can on matters relating to international aid in countries throughout the world and in the Commonwealth. I am concerned about these people, but we cannot use this sort of legislative framework because of the misuse to which it is being subjected. So does the Minister think that the Commission has proved the existence of this cross-border element?

--- Later in debate ---

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

As so often, the European Union finds itself in these positions essentially by accident. If we look at the documentation, we see that this proposal would replace the existing EU food distribution programme for the most deprived, which has been in place since 1987. That was put in place when the common agricultural policy was building up butter mountains and milk lakes—and, rather excitingly, wine lakes—and it was thought that it would be a good idea to distribute them to member states and the people within them rather than allowing them to rot or having to pay large sums for storage. I cannot remember anybody getting any of the wine out of the wine lake, but that problem went away when the basis of subsidising the CAP was changed and there was a move away from all the payments relating to production. Production fell to be more in balance with demand, so the lakes and the mountains dissipated.

Once the EU as an organisation has its hands on a particular power—[Interruption.]—or piggy bank, it is reluctant to give it up. It sees that it has this power that is no longer of any use because the intervention stores in member states cannot be used to provide food for the needy, so it comes up with a scheme—one that will cost €2.5 billion of our money—to provide a means of distributing that food in deprived member states. It then comes up with the reasons to justify it.

It is worth noting on page 11 of the documentation the justification in the Commission’s explanatory memorandum. It states:

“EU action is justified on the grounds of Article 174 (TFEU) which provides for the Union to ‘promote its overall harmonious development’ by ‘developing and pursuing its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion’, and on Article 175 (TFEU) which specifies the role of the EU structural funds in achieving this objective and makes provisions for the adoption of specific actions outside the Structural Funds.

EU-level action is necessary given the level of poverty and social exclusion in the Union and the unacceptable diversity of the situation among individual Member States, further aggravated by the economic and fiscal crisis, which has led to a deterioration of social cohesion and lessened the chances of achieving the Europe 2020 Strategy’s objective in relation to the fight against poverty and social exclusion.”

There we see the heart of the matter.

Having bankrupted its member states by making them tie themselves into an overvalued euro, the European Union now says that people are poor and suffering as a result, and that we—the European Union—must therefore look after them. That is like shooting someone in the leg and then ringing for an ambulance. It is a most unsatisfactory way of carrying on, and it does not remove the offence of shooting someone in the leg in the first place. It is, in its way, deeply dishonest, troubling and bordering on wicked that the European Union should force such great austerity on Portugal, Ireland, Spain and, in particular, Greece so that grandmothers in Greece cannot afford their housing, and then come along with a scheme that will give them a little bit of money. Although €2.5 billion of our money is a lot to us who are paying into Europe, it is not a huge amount in the grand scheme of expenditure across member states. It is a little bit of money to spend on a propaganda exercise to persuade member states that things are not as bad as they seem.

[Mr Cash]

Does it not smack rather of the words attributed to Marie Antoinette at the time of the French revolution, when she allegedly said of the starving people of Paris, “Give them cake”?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I should like both hon. Members to return to the specific points that we discussing this evening. The scope of the debate is the subsidiarity issue as outlined in the proposed reasoned opinion, and that is what we should be discussing.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very reluctant to see controls on the free movement of people within the UK. We ought to have secure borders, and the extension of the EU has weakened our border controls and allowed member states to give their citizenship away. One recent case is Hungary, which sells citizenship. If Hungarian citizenship is sold, UK citizenship is also effectively sold, because people will have the free right to move and settle here. In due course of time, when the provisional practices that apply to countries such as Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania end, their citizens will also be able to work here.

That ought to concern us. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has said that we need to look at the whole question of the free movement of people, because of certain extraordinary anomalies within it, which were highlighted on “The World Tonight” on Radio 4 last night. The programme explained the difficulties that UK citizens have in bringing in a dependant who is not an EU national. However, a member of another EU nation state who is resident in the UK can bring in a dependant who is not an EU national.

One could argue that the structures of the free movement of people in the EU are in fact racist, because they deny the right of people from Commonwealth countries, who are often non-white, and who have very close associations with the UK, to come here, when people within the EU, with whom we sometimes have very little connection, can come here. We must therefore look at the free movement of people of the EU. It used to be a rich man’s club, but it is a European man’s, and indeed woman’s, club that excludes members of the Commonwealth who are not also EU members, who are often not white. This is a serious question for us to think about. Is the basis of the free movement of people within the EU fundamentally a racist principle? We need to consider whether seven years will be enough for Croatia, and whether we should amend British law to restore controls over immigration that are fair to people across the world, and that do not discriminate favourably towards Europeans but unfavourably towards others.

Croatia might not be ready to join and might fail to meet the requirements of the EU. On tackling corruption, the Commission is concerned that only three people have been found guilty of abuse of office. The Commission states:

“The implementation of the Law on the Police should be ensured, in particular to depoliticise the police and increase professionalism”.

The fact that that problem has not been tackled is a difficulty. What if we cannot have confidence in the police in a country that is about to join? Even if it is not part of Schengen, it will be part of the European arrest warrant arrangements, but it does not have a de-politicised police force or one that has been made sufficiently professional. Are we really, after the middle of next year, going to allow British subjects to be arrested on the say-so of a Croatian court, when Croatia has a police force in which even the European Commission does not have confidence?

The European Scrutiny Committee report shows that what is sought from Bulgaria and Romania is not happening. The same applies to some extent to Croatia. Is there an autonomously functioning and stable judiciary? That, too, relates to justice and home affairs agreements. We allow the judiciary of foreign countries to have an effect on subjects of Her Majesty going about their business in the UK, but countries that are joining the EU do not meet basic standards. The report states that we have not seen

“concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”.

We are therefore concerned that the state is corrupt at the highest level, yet we are allowing it to join before the problems are sorted out. That is once again the triumph of hope over experience—can letting them in and hoping to sort it out possibly be the right way forward when we have so many commitments through joint recognition of standards in fellow member states? We are also concerned that Croatia does not have

“a legal system capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way.”

We must be more careful and prudent. Widening is a good thing—it is splendid to have a wider rather than a deeper EU—and it is good thing that newly emerged democracies have been able to come into the EU fold. However, when we have so many commitments to the EU that can be enforced upon us by foreign countries, is it right that we should let them in before the requirements have been met or without installing protections for ourselves by amending the treaties? I therefore have concerns that the opportunity to negotiate repatriations of power to the UK that could protect us from some of the inadequacies of the Croatian state before it joins the EU has not been taken—whether by the previous Government or this one is beside the point.

In that context, it is worth looking at what Ireland has done. As we know, Ireland was bullied by the EU into voting twice. That was a classic example of the EU believing in democracy for others but not for itself. It is a question of it saying, “Vote as often as you like until you give the right answer, and then you don’t need to vote again.”

[Mr Cash]

The problem is not only with the application of the principles of democracy, but with the rule of law, as we will debate later. The EU makes the law, claims it has a legal framework for the rule of law, and then breaks European rules itself.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a problem with how the rule of law applies across the EU. How can the EU have a rule of law when it allows in countries that do not meet the basic tests of being free of corruption and of having a properly functioning judiciary? They can then apply their law to our citizens. Surely that cannot be just or in line with the rule of law.

On the concessions Ireland received, I give my wholehearted support for what the Prime Minister said in 2009, when he thought it was a good idea to do what the Irish did and to get concessions for the UK. In his brilliant speech, he said he wanted

“the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services, for example the aspects of the Working Time Directive which are causing real problems in the NHS and the Fire Service”.

I agree with him, but we should have brought those powers back in the negotiation on the treaty we are debating. He also said he wanted a “complete opt-out” from the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, and was once again absolutely right. The Minister for Europe ought to go back to our European friends and say, “This is what the Prime Minister wanted in the treaty, so perhaps we could have it.” The Prime Minister also said he wanted to limit

“the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and”

ensure

“that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain”.

The Prime Minister showed brilliant prescience. He knew what this country needed and what it ought to get back. The Bill could have brought it back, because we could have said to our European partners that we will not agree to Croatia’s entry or Ireland’s protocols if we are not given—[Interruption.] You are looking as if you were doubtful that my remarks would be relevant to the subject matter at hand, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that—

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

For a few moments before that tragic statement, I was commending my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for bringing in the Bill, for the manner in which he did so, and for the importance of the legislation. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). As a scientist—if not the only one in the House—and as the Member for Cambridge he has put up a strong case, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, for the continuation of the organisation that has carried forward the remarkable historical, geological and scientific achievements in Antarctica. It provides a framework for present and future scientific exploration and reflects the past.

I was fascinated to read an article—I think it was in yesterday’s Evening Standard—by the famous art critic, Brian Sewell, whom I find extremely engaging. He is one of our foremost art critics, and he described the photographs that were taken on the Antarctic expeditions as being of such immense quality that he ranked them alongside some of the greatest works of art. That is an astonishing statement when we consider that he was talking about photographs, rather than sketches, water colours or other paintings.

Those photographs are mainly held in the archives in Cambridge. I have had reason to look into those archives, and anything that can be done to maintain that institution is vital. I was also delighted to hear from other speakers that steps had been taken, notwithstanding the urgings of the hon. Member for Cambridge, to ensure that the collection remains intact and that the organisation should actively continue to perform the work that I am about to describe, which originated in the expedition of 1901-04.

The Bill has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud in sufficient detail, but I would like to elaborate on one or two points. What is being proposed strongly reflects the heritage of the United Kingdom, as well as its endeavours, adventures and sense of commitment and exploration, and this Second Reading debate is an appropriate occasion on which to call attention to the heroism not only of Captain Scott, who so tragically died in the second expedition, but of the accumulated courage and endeavours of those who went on the first and second expeditions. It must have been astonishing, in 1901, for those pathfinders to go into those extremely hazardous conditions. They had a sense of adventure that the likes of Ranulph Fiennes perpetuate today. We owe those people an enormous debt.

Many people will have seen the film “Scott of the Antarctic”. Others might also have been to the exhibition about the Antarctic that was held in the annexe of Buckingham Palace. I am not sure whether it is still on, but if it is, I strongly recommend that people go and see it, because the photographs that I was just describing are displayed in it. The book that accompanied the exhibition is also fascinating; I think that His Royal Highness Prince Philip wrote the foreword to it. It is important to remember that those who went on the expeditions were not just a few people who wandered off to have an interesting time. We should always recall their sheer courage and the intrepid nature of their characters, as well as the hardship that they endured.

I want to refer to certain aspects of the Bill, before I go on to talk about the history of the expeditions. Clause 15 deals with historic sites and monuments. Under section 10 of the Antarctic Act 1994, it is an offence to

“damage, destroy or remove any part of a site or monument”.

However, it was thought that that prohibition could occasionally impede the effective conservation management of the sites. It has therefore been decided—rightly, I think—to enable the Secretary of State to grant a new form of permit in respect of the conservation of, or repairs to, designated historic sites and monuments.

Clause 16 is an important measure that deals with the conservation of animals and plants. I shall mention that again in a moment when I make reference to what went on between 1901 and 1904. I have with me the two volumes written by Captain Scott entitled “The Voyage of the Discovery”, and it would be appropriate to put on record one or two of the matters to which he refers. These books are quite difficult to get hold of, and this is a good opportunity for me to give the House an indication of what was going on at the time.

The 1994 Act contains a provision that makes it an offence to

“remove or damage such quantities of any native plant that its local distribution or abundance will be significantly affected…except in accordance with a permit…or under the written authorisation of another Contracting Party”

to the protocol. The provision also extends to native invertebrates, which is an important and necessary measure. Because of the vast wilderness of the Antarctic landscape, the plants and native invertebrates are essential to the preservation of the integrity of the environment, and it is important that nothing is done to damage them. It is also vital to maintain their presence there.

The 1994 Act also makes it an offence to introduce a non-indigenous species. That is to preserve the integrity of the existing continent, but there are provisions allowing for plants and animals to be kept on board vessels visiting Antarctica, provided that they remain on board. Of course, if we go back to the original expeditions, it would have created a few problems if it had not been possible for the explorers to take their dogs with them to pull the sledges. Amundsen’s expedition eventually won the battle by virtue of having his team of dogs with him. The difficulties that arose for Scott’s expedition meant that they were left having to pull the sledges by hand—quite a remarkable feat. The intensity of the cold and the distances were such that it was an amazing achievement that they managed to do what they did.

Other provisions on microscopic organisms are designed to ensure that we can develop certain native plants, while other provisions prohibit the introduction of non-sterile soil into any part of Antarctica. These provisions may seem unusual, but we have heard in the last few months about the destruction of the ash tree in this country, resulting from spores coming here from other parts of the continent— from Denmark in particular. In dealing with an area such as the Antarctic, it is essential to maintain the integrity of local species and not to have them contaminated. In practice I believe these provisions will turn out to be immensely important as the Bill is brought into effect and then into full operation.

I thought today might be an appropriate moment for this debate, given that some of us feel that the people participating in these expeditions were so intrepid and fearless. This is perhaps also reflected when we think of other great explorers, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles). As I understand it, he and his mother have been to the Arctic, and I believe from a speech he recently made in my constituency that he is going to the Antarctic, too, following in the footsteps of Robert Scott. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not here—never mind, he probably has an important constituency engagement—but his journeys are fascinating. He used to be in the Army; he has rowed across the Atlantic with his mother; and he is now proposing to go to the Antarctic as well. He will be following in the footsteps of the other explorers that I am about to mention.

It is important to put on the record those whom Robert Scott acknowledged in his own book, “The Voyage of the Discovery”. He pays tribute to Sir Clements Markham, whom he describes as the father of the expedition and its most constant friend. One has to remember that, with Scott having died in 1912, no successor book was written about the second expedition. To feel the character and sheer quality of these expeditions, we can read the “The Voyage of the Discovery”, published in two volumes, to find out how Scott and his team of fellow explorers felt during the first expedition. I strongly recommend that anyone interested should take the opportunity to read it.

I have taken a particular interest in another aspect of this topic, not least because my wife’s family included a certain Thomas Kennar, who went with Scott to Antarctica as the quartermaster of the first expedition. Another young man, a petty officer, was pretty much seconded as the geologist to the national Antarctic expedition. I pay tribute to him as well. He was called Mr Ferrar, and in the book’s appendix 1, he set out a summary of the geological observations made during the cruise of the SS Discovery between 1901 and 1904. There is the now-famous Ferrar glacier, and I am glad to say that Mr Thomas Kennar was given the opportunity to use his name, too, so there is a valley in the Antarctic known as the Kennar valley. It could be said that we are pretty proud of that.

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

In view of this habit of naming places after great men who have led fierce expeditions, I wonder whether Brussels should be renamed Cashland.

[Mr Cash]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to suggest that, but if any such thing were ever done, I should prefer it to be done after we had defeated those in Brussels. Let us get that done first, and then we can think about some method of commemorating the event, if and when it occurs.

I thought that it would be helpful to give some idea of the sort of activities in which those on the expedition were engaged. There was, in fact, an important expedition within the expedition, which took place in October 1903. Scott writes: “Because the region in which much of our work lay was very beautiful and interesting, I propose to take the reader”—and, on this occasion, the House—“into the details of one more sledging excursion. The party with which I left the ship on October 12th 1903 numbered 12 members in all”, and he says who they were.

Scott led the advance party himself; the second party was led by the geologist Mr Ferrar, with whom went two men, Kennar and Weller. He says: “The original scheme was that the whole party should journey together to the summit of Victorialand, and it was said that there should be an absence of nine weeks calculated for the advance party.” To cut a long story short—[Laughter.] It is quite a long story, but I make no apology for that.

I do want to make one thing clear. Astonishingly, although they were completely lame and exhausted, those who had led the second party were determined to follow the first group. Scott writes: “Once or twice they halted to brew tea to keep themselves going, but not one of them had suggested the halt should be extended.” That was in absolutely incredible conditions. He goes on: “In the hard struggle of the last few hours, some of the men had kept things going by occasionally indulging in some dry remark which caused everyone to laugh. Kennar’s attitude had been one of grieved astonishment. Presumably referring to me, he kept repeating ‘If he can do it, I don’t see why I can’t…My legs are as long as his.’”

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, although it is known by others as Black Wednesday. However it is described, it saved our economy then.

To come back to the unemployment that has been inflicted by treaties that are not meant to be changed—the single currency is regarded as irrevocable—the youth unemployment level in Spain has moved beyond 52%, as it has in Greece. Other countries are moving in the same direction and the quack remedy contained in these bail-out provisions does not have enough snake oil in the bottle to make it even half realistic.

There are those, such as the coalition Government, who claim that under the arcane procedures of section 4(4) of the European Union Act 2011, we should vote for this arrangement because it will solve the euro crisis and—miracle of miracles—will not affect us. That is but a harrowing indication of the pain of hopelessness in the face of proven experience. There have been at least 20 economic summits in the past 24 months and not one has come up with a rational solution. All they ever do is promise more and more money that they do not have, with the implicit assumption that if they do not have it they will print it, and break the rule of law—the law laid down through the European Union that we implement under the European Communities Act 1972. Although we are not members of the eurozone, it certainly affects us, and it certainly affects the other European countries.

The explanatory memorandum to the 2011 Act, which I and many other colleagues here voted against, put down amendments to and did everything in our power to prevent from passing, because it simply was not going to work, stated that

“an Article 48(6) decision does not apply to the UK merely”—

I repeat “merely”—

“because it may have consequences for individuals or organisations within the UK, such as UK businesses.”

Believe it or not, that is given as a reason why a referendum is not required—because it would “merely” have an effect on UK businesses. That is on the astonishing grounds that although it has consequences for the daily lives of our voters and their small and medium-sized businesses, it is a mere detail that under the 2011 Act the Government can swat away with reference to “the opinion of the Foreign Secretary”. And that opinion cannot be properly challenged. Anyone who knows anything about administrative law knows that where an Act of Parliament states, “In the opinion of”, it effectively bars challenge in judicial review. I would be extremely surprised, therefore, if it was possible to set up a judicial review—I noted that the Foreign Secretary said that none had been forthcoming. People might well assume that because those words are in the Bill—it has not been enacted yet—there is no point in seeking to upset it because it will only have effect when it becomes an Act of Parliament.

The legislation goes further. Clause 1(3) explicitly states that the decision taken by the European Council on 25 March 2011 does not warrant a referendum, on the spurious grounds that it is the view of the Foreign Secretary, whose opinion once given cannot be effectively challenged, irrespective of the consequences for voters and UK businesses. I certainly concede that we are not part of the eurozone or directly contributing to the bail-out, but what is happening is having a devastating impact on our growth.

As I said in reply to an intervention a few moments ago and as I clearly demonstrated in an article I wrote for The Daily Telegraph on 14 August, I simply do not subscribe to the view that changes in planning law and ever-more Keynesian attempts to boost public spending will do anything if we do not sort out the problems with the single market. We are trading a monumental deficit with the EU, and it is doing immense damage to our economy. Trading with the EU is now like trading with a bankrupt company. The Bill will allow the drug of continual bail-outs, so heavily criticised by the President of the Bundesbank, with the involvement of the ECB, to drag Europe into an ever-deeper maelstrom. To then pretend that it does not affect us, when 50% of our trade is with the EU, is economic and political nonsense on stilts, which is why I voted against the proposals in 2011. Since then the situation has got worse and worse.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I nearly always agree, for giving way. However, if Europe is determined to follow an economic policy for the eurozone that is completely idiotic, there is no referendum in this country that could stop it. So I do not see what a referendum on this subject would do.

[Mr Cash]

I am merely arguing that, given the consequences of the mistakes being made and the damage they are causing to our economy, in the light of the 50% trading, we need to renegotiate the economic governance of Europe. The consequences of our not doing so would take us into the same kind of deep black hole that it is already in. I did not say, at this juncture of my speech, that I thought that a referendum on this issue would necessarily produce all the answers to that question. I am committed to the idea of a referendum on more general terms—with respect to the EU as a whole—but I take my hon. Friend’s point on that particular issue. I insist, however, that the European project needs to be renegotiated into an association of nation states, not unlike the European Free Trade Association in the EU, based on the principle of consent. That issue should be the subject of a referendum on the broader landscape of the direction in which the EU is taking us.

The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the exemption condition is met if the Bill, as enacted, states that the decision is not within section 4 of the 2011 Act. In other words, under the Bill, everything is fine, whatever the consequences, if Parliament is foolish enough to state in the Bill that what is patently absurd can possibly benefit the voters of the UK. I have pressed the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe for about 18 months on the proposals in the Bill. It is impossible for me to understand why a referendum on the broader landscape of the EU is not provided for, and I cannot understand why the Prime Minister continually reaffirms his commitment to this failing, unreformed EU project. I know that many other Members agree with me.

By the same token, as the UK appeases the EU and Germany, so Germany pushes up the ante of a radical vision of deep fiscal and political union for the EU as a whole, while the ESM evolves into a full European monetary fund. That is why I argued in my article that we must refocus our trading relationship. The shadow Foreign Secretary referred to the single market as the answer to our questions, although I admit that he qualified that by saying that other things needed to be done, but, among those things, as I said in a pamphlet I wrote last year called, “It’s the EU, Stupid”, we have to refocus our trading relationship with the rest of the world, given the massive deficit that exists between us and the member states, half of which is with Germany itself. We have real options for trading with the Commonwealth and the Americas. Indeed, last year alone we ran a surplus of £36 billion with the Americas, yet the Bill re-endorses the nonsensical view of Europe adopted by the Euro-elite, and our acquiescence in the Bill is part of our failure.

Only recently, 41% of German voters indicated to YouGov that they wanted to return to the deutschmark, and similar indications are growing in other countries, but with them are also growing dangerous moves towards the far right, which I constantly warned would be the consequence of breaking the rule of law in Europe and of creating the kind of situation we now face. Europe is in the throes of a massive schizophrenia, and at stake is not only the stability of democracy in Europe but of the stability of our democracy. In Germany and Ireland, the ESM is being taken to the courts—to the German constitutional court at Karlsruhe and to the European Court of Justice in respect of Ireland. I have to say, however, that past references of this kind give us little confidence that the legal route will solve the problem.

The rule of law, on which this whole edifice is based, is constantly being broken, not only on the article 122-EFSM basis but in respect of the stability and growth pact, which was broken by Germany and France in 2003. This is a challenge not only to the interests of the UK and other member states but to the rule of law in Europe as a whole. I most strongly urge the Government not to proceed with this Bill, and as it proceeds I will strongly urge all Members of Parliament to vote against it.

The treaty should have been vetoed, just as the Prime Minister rightly vetoed the fiscal compact. The figure of €500 billion or so that is being proposed has simply been plucked out of the air. Most serious commentators believe that the current crisis in Spain, Italy, Greece and elsewhere would need at least €2 trillion, and probably much more, yet it is simply not there. Given the evidence of the continually evolving euro crisis in those countries, €500 billion-plus—some suggest that the figure could be €700 billion—is peanuts compared with the billions that are wasted and is inadequate to deal with the problem that this failed European economic governance has created. It is about time that we put our foot down in this Parliament, because the issue affects those whom we represent in their daily lives and we increasingly gain so little from our deficit with the single market. In pursuit of their failed ideology, the euro integrationists call for more and more Europe, however much the problem lurches from one disaster to another. That is not remorseless logic; it is a remorseless path to disaster.

It is said that under the European Union Act 2011 a referendum is not required unless it involves a new power or competence affecting the UK. What does it take to hold a referendum when a Bill actively encourages the European Union to implode, with dreadful consequences not only for Europe, but for the United Kingdom?

Court of Justice of the European Union

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is so wise in these matters. We ought to be looking at the inefficiencies in the European Court of Justice and saying, “Could these matters be decided in our own courts?” Is there a way in which, instead of saying, “Give them more power; give them more money; and give them more judges,” we can say, “Let these laws be determined in our country.”?

It is interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, that one of the reasons for the increase in the European Court of Justice’s work load is that our courts are sending it judgments for preliminary approval and guidance on what European law says. Would it not be better to repatriate that? Indeed, when we are in the process of negotiating on the European Court and how to make it more efficient, this is surely the opportunity to do so.

[Mr Cash]

On the preliminary reference procedure, Mr Rösler says:

“The judges in Luxembourg constitute a supranational court beyond national jurisdiction, dealing with an incredibly diverse range of issues that no national judge is faced with”.

He goes on to say that

“in contrast to national judges, the EU judges are not specialized in specific fields.”

Is it any surprise that they make such a mess of things?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a rather terrifying thought that we have a court that its own friends say does not have judges with the expertise to rule on issues, but that instead of saying, “Well, let’s decide it in our own courts, where we have judges of proper expertise and standing,” we should be just appointing more second-rate judges to Europe, to get them to sort it out. That cannot possibly be the right approach to take.

We in the United Kingdom have a very high view of judges. We have been fortunate in this nation to have judges who have been rigorous figures of the law. They have not been political participants. However, the European Court is not of that category or standing. It is part of the operation of the European Union; and, along with the Commission and the European Parliament, it is in a constant battle and struggle to take powers from the nation states. Anything that we do to reform the European Court should mean bringing powers back to our own courts, where they will be judged on their merits and not on a scheme to push forward the programme of ever-closer union.

It is worth remembering, if anyone questions whether that is true, what happened in the United States in the 19th century, when the Supreme Court was avowedly federal in its approach and the 10th amendment was increasingly ignored to empower the central authorities. The European Court of Justice is doing exactly the same thing. Therefore, I go back to the intervention that I made on the Minister: the more the system is gummed up, the better. The fewer opportunities there will be to interfere in the nation state, the more opportunity we will have to repatriate powers to our own systems and our own judges. Therefore, although the matter before us is minor and essentially trivial, let it go through, but let us watch like hawks any further changes that the European Court may seek to make, to ensure that this drift of power to the continent ceases.

Financial Services (Market Abuse)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I thoroughly endorse almost everything my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said, but I would go somewhat further, because I have a complete aversion to the whole concept of the transfer of our jurisdiction over matters affecting the City of London. I have said that for many years now. In fact, when the de Larosière report was published I wrote in the Financial Times that I saw it as a ticking time bomb, or words to that effect, and that if matters were allowed to continue we would find ourselves mopped up by European jurisdiction.

Following the statement my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made to the House only last week, I asked a simple question: in the light of the vast amount of commitment and time that has been spent transferring jurisdiction over matters affecting the City to the European Union, how on earth will we be able to protect the City, the related single market aspects, including financial services, and matters of the kind now before the House in the market abuse directive when they are governed by qualified majority vote? Those are the realities.

The truth is that we have made the most massive strategic mistake in relation to matters of this kind, which are governed by qualified majority vote, under directives such as the MAD directive otherwise known as the market abuse directive, which was bitterly opposed by the City of London in the early part of this century. I have to say that events then turned for the worse and those proposals have now been overtaken.

Before I turn to the specifics of the matter before us, I ought to mention that the veto on the fiscal compact, which the European Scrutiny Committee said was effectively unlawful on the evidence we received, has not been followed up. The Government and the Attorney-General are clearly of the view that the agreement on the fiscal compact between the 25 was unlawful, but in reality nothing has been done. We have just had a reply from the Government to our report on the question, and on which we held an inquiry, but in no way do they continue to do anything to put to the test the illegality that lies at the heart of the fiscal compact. We are therefore still in the position whereby the Government regard the fiscal compact of the 25 as being a matter of irregularity, but they do not do anything about it.

That is a dangerous situation, and it has gone beyond that—to the fiscal union itself being promoted and advocated by the Government. That will make things even worse, with an even deeper black hole, as I said on television yesterday. The banking union proposals, which are also now being pressed upon us, will come to fruition around the time of the summit on 28 June, and I fear that we are being taken down an extremely dangerous route.

The market abuse directive before us is one example of that tendency to legislate continuously on financial services matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is quite right that we could legislate for ourselves on them. Bad markets, as I have said in articles I have written in the past, are bad business, and we have at our disposal in this Parliament every means to pass legislation on our own account, without necessarily or by any means having to leave it to the European Union. I would be going beyond the remit of this debate if I went into that in any further detail, but I repudiate the idea that we cannot legislate for ourselves on such matters.

I am by no means convinced that the Government intend to make it entirely clear whether or not we will opt in, and that is the problem with the opt-in. I think my hon. Friend is of the opinion that the Government have decided that we will not. I am not sure, but I thought he said that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. No, that is not what I think. I think that the Government have not opted in, technically, at the moment, but hope to do so in future, and I think that will be a great mistake.

[Mr Cash]

In that case we are, as so often, ad idem and in agreement, and I am glad to hear that confirmation from my hon. Friend.

This whole business has one way or another been developing over the past 12 years—and before. It has been before the European Scrutiny Committee, and we have recommended it for debate, but it has been overtaken by further developments, particularly since the financial crash, which we are now in. I am extremely doubtful about whether market abuse in itself—important as the subject matter is, and something that needs to be dealt with—is in any way a contributor to the financial mess that the European Union is in.

We are in an economic crisis, we are in a black hole, and we should have a convention at which all those matters, including directives of this kind, are put before the member states with their cards on the table. We should say unequivocally that we want a different kind of Europe and put it to them, and the negotiating position that we adopt, those red lines, should then be put to the British people. We should have a referendum on those matters to make it absolutely clear that the direction of this over-legislated, over-burdensome European jurisdiction is doing no good whatsoever to the free markets—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

Well, to put it simply, the Committee is concerned that the Government might opt into the draft criminal sanctions directive once it is adopted. There would be a debate on that matter if they decided to do so. I do not think that we should opt in. That matter is part of the broader landscape and specific issues that are before the House.

The question of what the draft directive means by the word “intentionally” in relation to market abuse raises some very important legal issues. Then there is the question of whether the draft directive would apply automatically if there were proof of intent or whether there would be discretion to apply an administrative penalty rather than a criminal one. Those are all matters on which we could legislate on our own account if we wished to do so. I make no apology for repeating that point.

A further point concerns the practical application of the proposed new definition of “inside information”, which involves the whole issue of insider dealing. The trouble is—I say this with respect to Madam Deputy Speaker—that definitions in relation to European legislation raise the question of how this matter will be adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice. We have our own means and opportunities to pass legislation in this House that will define these questions.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has come to the absolute crux of the matter. Once we opt into something, it is then justiciable by the European Justice of Justice. That brings the ECJ into a role regarding our criminal law, and that is a very substantial step for the Government to be taking.

[Mr Cash]

I am deeply grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and who has very considerable expertise in his own right. He has developed an acute sense of British and United Kingdom interests in relation to matters of great importance to the City of London.

A further point is that there is no useful recital in the directive, as there normally would be, to indicate the parameters of the draft regulations. We are deeply concerned about that. There is no certainty that we will opt in, but that does not alter the fact that there is grave concern that we will eventually end up being told that we will do so. If that is what happens, I, for one, will undoubtedly vote against it.

The directive aims to prevent insider dealing and the misuse of financially sensitive market information in the financial markets. That cannot be separated from the broader landscape of the manner in which the European Union is interfering in matters in the United Kingdom that affect the City of London. The City of London represents some 20% of our gross domestic product. I entirely take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that we are at the top of the league in global financial market activity. I believe that a serious attempt is being made by other members of the European Union—with Frankfurt at No. 13—to move further up the positions. That will be done partly through regulatory collusion and the use of qualified majority voting, as Professor Roland Vaubel has indicated in his general concerns about the manner in which qualified majority voting and directives are dealt with.

The intervention of the financial crisis in 2007 delayed the implementation of the original provisions and prompted a rethink. Whether that rethink is beneficial is another issue. The new EU regulation that will replace the original directive, which is proposed alongside the new directive, provides for minimum harmonised standards of enforcement and sanction throughout the community. Although the UK Government are broadly supportive of the measures, there are procedural uncertainties, notably in the problem of aligning the three interlocking legislative measures at the same time. That has led the Government to conclude that the UK should not yet opt into the directive. I am interested to hear whether the Minister has a view on the words “not yet”. I do not think that he will commit himself at this stage, but there will be considerable difficulty and trouble for the City of London if we do opt in.

I do not believe that the directives are in the interests of the United Kingdom. We can legislate on these matters ourselves. There is much talk of fiscal union, banking union, supervisory authorities and the wholesale transfer of our jurisdiction over the City of London, which means so much to our gross domestic product and to our ability to compete internationally. That is being undermined by proposals of this kind, whether or not they are brought into effect.

Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I find it extraordinary that my hon. Friend should seek to defend the Government’s breach of a series of requirements as prescribed in the spirit of the orders before the House, but in addition, it is perfectly clear—to me at any rate—that these proceedings are happening because of the timetable of Prorogation.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether the real reason why this is being done in this appalling way, completely ignoring the proper forms of scrutiny, is that the Government know they have an absolutely rotten argument and thought they would push this through quickly while people were thinking about Prorogation and the Queen’s Speech and what will be in the next programme. It is little more than prestidigitation.

[Mr Cash]

I concur. Other hon. Members wish to speak, so all I can say is that this matter will not to be allowed to rest. We will look into it further. The Committee will expect the Minister to give an explanation in person to us. I shall leave my remarks at that for the time being.

Public Procurement

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If I may divert from the set text from the European Scrutiny Committee, it is always worth remembering that subsidiarity started as a theological term in the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am a member. That is one of the most centralised bodies of any organisation anywhere in the world, with power vested in the Holy Father, so I have always been rather suspicious as to what the purpose of subsidiarity is.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As a fellow Catholic, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is one thing to have the Jesuitical concept of subsidiarity, which has been brought into the rule-making of the European Union, as a theological question, and that it would be far better if the matter were regarded purely as one of theology and not exclusively one for political purposes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I do not think one should use the term “Jesuitical” too pejoratively, as the Jesuits are a fine body who, I believe, educated my hon. Friend—

[Mr Cash]

With great success.—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

With enormous success, which is acknowledged around the country and for which we are all grateful. However, I agree with the fundamental point that it is a political rather than a theological reality in this case.

By virtue of article 5 of protocol No. 2, any draft legislative Act should contain a “detailed statement” making it possible to appraise its compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

I turn now to the Committee’s view, as expressed in the draft reasoned opinion. The first conclusion we came to was that the Commission had failed to consult member states in the Green Paper, or otherwise, on the possibility of setting up a single national oversight body. This is in clear breach of article 2 of protocol No. 2, and I ask the Minister to say whether he agrees with this, and whether he intends to pursue it with the Commission.

Similarly, there is no evidence in the Commission’s explanatory memorandum or impact assessment of it carrying out the requirement under article 5 of protocol No. 2 to prepare a “detailed statement” containing

“some assessment . . . in the case of a directive of its implications for the rules to be put in place by Member States, including where necessary the regional legislation”.

As a consequence, the draft directive on public procurement and, by implication, the draft directive on procurement by public entities is said by the National Assembly for Wales to breach the devolution principle in both Wales and Scotland. I quote from the letter of 23 February from the National Assembly for Wales:

“The proposal also fails to have regard to the principle of devolution in imposing the duties on a single body.”

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid to say that I disagree with my hon. and almost learned Friend. Law is the foundation of what politicians do, and politicians use their political will through the law. Indeed, they have the ability through Parliament to change the law, but they cannot just ignore it.

That is why I want to come on to Sir Jon Cunliffe’s important letter. He makes two significant points. First, he notes that

“the EU institutions must only be used outside the EU Treaties with the consent of all Member States, and must respect the EU Treaties.”

In response to a question at a meeting of the European Scrutiny Committee last week from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), the Minister for Europe—who, if I may say so, was extremely helpful at the evidence session—said when asked whether permission had been given by the Government for the EU treaties to be used:

“No, we have not been asked so to do.”

It ought to be of grave concern to the House and to the country that the member states of the European Union, excluding us and the Czech Republic, have decided to proceed with a treaty without establishing that they are following the correct legal forms.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that yesterday in the European Parliament, which I attended as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, in a dialogue between MEPs and MPs, one of the French representatives said from the platform to the chairman that she did not think it appropriate for me to be able to make certain comments because the United Kingdom Parliament and the United Kingdom were not part of the eurozone. My hon. Friend might find that rather extraordinary.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Indeed, but one never knows what people might say in relation to the European Union.

As I was saying, it is a shocking state of affairs that our partners in Europe should want to proceed with a treaty without even bothering to go through the proper forms to ensure that that treaty is lawful under EU law. They have not even asked the question. It may be that they know what the answer will be, but if they do, they are one up on most Members of Parliament.

The other point raised in Sir Jon Cunliffe’s letter is that

“we must reserve our position on the proposed treaty and its use of the institutions”.

This, again, is very important because what we are trying to find out is whether the Government are reserving their position on the current legality of the treaty, or how the treaty will be used in practice. If it is the former—if the Government are concerned about the current legality of the treaty—it is important that they act now to establish their concern and to have a judgment from the European Court of Justice, rather than waiting. If the Government wait, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said earlier, he who is silent is seen to consent, and we will find that we have allowed the treaty to be implemented and we will have lost our ability to have recourse—

EU Criminal Policy

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Certainly not. I am not conjuring up a spectre; I am talking about a tendency. In almost every area, the original proposals—from Maastricht, through to Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon—have adopted a minimalist approach at the beginning, but then expanded, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired. I am not going to dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says about what he has heard; I am merely referring to what I have observed, which is also understood by many others, including the Government.

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

The ambition of the European Commission is set out on page 18 of the documents. Its ambition is not a limited extension of criminal policy; it is to have

“an important tool to better fight crime”—

that is, any crime. It is not limited.

[Mr Cash]

I entirely agree. Furthermore, article 83.1 sets out the following areas of crime:

“terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.”

It continues:

“On the basis of developments in crime”—

the broader remit under which such an extension is proposed—

“the Council may adopt a decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph.”

Although article 83.1 says that the Council

“shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament,”

we are talking about a process of opening up and extending those areas of domestic control over criminal jurisdiction that are likely to be transferred to the European domain.

On a final note—and to reply to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee—the Committee noted that the third sentence of the communication states:

“An EU Criminal Policy should have an overall goal to foster citizens’ confidence in the fact that they live in a Europe of freedom, security and justice”.

I ask the Minister to say whether he agrees with that statement. For our part, we in the Committee think it an example of dangerously ideological thinking. We are concerned that such thinking may inform future proposals from the Commission. Citizens look to their Governments to provide freedom, security and justice in their own states. To expect freedom, security and justice to flow in 27 European states under the auspices of supranational institutions may sound laudable, but in reality it is both implausible and unwarranted. We think that the Commission would have done itself a service by cutting out such a statement from a policy paper of such importance and limiting its ambitions to more practical objectives.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The shadow Chancellor concluded his remarks by saying that he had looked up the Commons Journal for 1760. He is, of course, a very modern man. I went a little earlier and looked up the Commons Journal for 1575. I thank the Library for its assistance in helping me to find what I was looking for. I was looking for the behaviour of the House towards a Mr Peter Wentworth, a man who represented a Cornish seat and had the temerity to criticise the then sovereign, Elizabeth I. He said that

“none is without fault, no, not our noble Queen”.

For this “prepared speech” and

“divers offensive matters touching Her Majesty”

he was taken prisoner to the Tower and held there for a month at the insistence of the House of Commons. I must say that I think they knew how to behave in 1575, and it is a model for us today.

I want to come on to who really owns the Crown Estate, because that is important in this discussion. That is why I intervened on the Chancellor, and I am grateful to him for taking my intervention. It is important to remember that the Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign in an ultimate sense, though gifted for a reign. The importance of that is that the sovereign therefore has a right to ask for money. One might think that they would get the money anyway, but sovereigns have been promised money by Parliament that has been stopped. One just needs to go back to Charles II, who handed over all his feudal dues to the Government for £100,000 a year in perpetuity for all his heirs and successors. I am not sure that that £100,000 has been paid once in the last three hundred and some odd years. The Crown, by virtue of owning the Crown Estate, can guarantee that it is entitled to a revenue. The fact that at the beginning of each reign it could theoretically demand the Crown Estate back is important reassurance and a reassertion of that right.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend conscious of the fact that at the time of the secret treaty of Dover in 1670, the Crown would not recall Parliament because Louis XIV insisted that we should do what the French and the rest of the Europeans wanted, in return for which he would give enough money to Charles II to keep him in with his mistresses and the royal household in the manner to which he felt he should be accustomed?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I remember the secret treaty of Dover well, although I was not an active participant. However, it is not particularly relevant to this debate. It has to be borne in mind that Louis XIV did not deliver the cash, which is always a slight problem in such negotiations.

The Crown Estate belongs to the sovereign. Any other great landowner who has inherited land owns that property outright and is free to pass it from generation to generation. The Crown Estate is in that position. We have discussed before whether, because it is exempt from death duties or because it used to be used to pay for Government expenditure, it is in some sense different and the nation’s. I would argue that that reasoning is not accurate. In the same way that the feudal duties that fell upon other landowners were abolished as time went on, so the Crown Estate would in all normal circumstances have become the Queen’s outright.

I therefore go back to my point, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) dislikes, that the Queen pays an 85% tax rate. There would be £200 million or more in income for the Queen every year, but in fact there will be only about £30 million. So Her Majesty is the highest-paying taxpayer in this country. Members of Parliament might like to think that we could do a deal with the Government, hand over our salary and be given £9,000 a year back.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I accept that that is an important point, but we have been put in this position, historically and legally, by the manner in which the European Communities Act 1972 has increasingly been eating away at the way in we legislate in this House.

This is a difficult question, and I do not want to get too historical about it, but similar considerations arose at the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights, and also in the proposed constitutional settlement around 1648. At that time, the sovereignty of the monarch was regarded by the Crown as absolute, and there was a question of how to deal with that. Unfortunately, it was dealt with, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, as a matter of “cruel necessity”. Despite the fact that many people did not want it to happen, he took off the King’s head as a symbolic demonstration that the King was no longer sovereign.

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

I am afraid that I would dispute my hon. Friend’s interpretation of what led to the execution of Charles I. I think it was much more complicated than that.

[Mr Cash]

I am prepared to accept that it was more complicated than that. I am making a point, but I defer to my hon. Friend. The real point is that the word “sovereignty” in this context has a practical, legal and factual base. We need to assert our sovereignty when it is under invasion, which is exactly what is going on now. I think that that is the simplest way to put it.

European Union Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I think there is a slight confusion. If we have an in/out vote, and it is won by the pro-Europeans, it is a vote for the EU as it exists and with all the powers that it has. Those of us who support this referendum lock Bill do not want further powers going to the EU or to get accidentally into a situation in which we sign up to things we probably opted out of. That is the complication of having an in/out vote that is won by the “in” side but not on the issue discussed and subject to the referendum lock. That is the danger; that is the unintended consequence.

The unintended consequences go further than that. Should there ever be a Labour Government again—I am sorry to say that there probably will be, although possibly not in my lifetime—those of us who support the Bill would want them to accept it and ensure that the referendum lock held as an important constitutional change. We would also want any change to the powers of the Europe Union to be subject to a referendum of the British people. However, if the Government concerned were unpopular, as happens to Conservative Governments too—and even, possibly, to coalition Governments—and felt they had to sign up to some marginal European treaty requiring a referendum, but knew that it could result in an in/out vote, they would be more likely to repeal the Bill lock, stock and barrel and say, “Look, we cannot do that because we would then have a vote against us at the second stage.” The second unintended consequence, therefore, is that we would weaken the whole effect of the Bill by making it less likely to become the accepted constitutional practice, which is what I would very much like to see.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that this is in fact a debate about an ingenious device—I hope I am right in thinking he mentioned the word “genius”—and that it is about the principle of continuing membership? Does a question not then arise that has not yet been answered—namely, membership of what?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend always puts his finger on the nub of any European matter. I agree that the new clause is a device concerning a strong principle—that is the genius and anger I was talking about. The problem is that in its anger, it could achieve the wrong result. We do not want to set our firm principles on a weak base and a new clause that would actually undermine what those of us who are supporting the Bill wish to see achieved.

I agree with many hon. Members that there may well come a time when we would want an in/out referendum, but it needs to come when it has been the subject of important and urgent debate up and down the country; it needs to come when the British electorate are marching to say, “Now is the time to decide whether we should stay in this rotten institution, corrupt as it is, or whether we will put up with it in spite of its corruption, its inconvenience and all the problems associated with it, because there are some marginal trading advantages and we have got a few sanctions against Iran”—or whatever the other arguments are in favour of it. We need to have the referendum at the right time, as a matter of a discussion of and about itself, not as a result of the random collision of atoms and following a debate on something completely separate—for example, a minor extension of some European power or competence.

Neither should an in/out referendum suddenly follow a referendum in which 20 people or 20% of people—let us be generous—have voted. Suddenly, we would have thrown all the balls in the air without any proper consideration or deliberation, and without having set out the framework for the debate we want. Those of us who are broadly Eurosceptic should oppose the new clause, because it undermines exactly what we want to achieve, and should support the general thrust of the Bill, which is designed to protect this country from further sacrifices of our authority and the people’s power. We should rightly remember—it being a referendum lock—that it is not the power and mystique of these green Benches that are being given away, but the power and mystique of the British people themselves. They are the people we should trust. We should trust them with a referendum lock, and not rush headlong out of anger into a confusing and mistaken new clause that would undermine this lock that we are giving to the Great British people.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and William Cash

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

That is a noble aspiration, but I am not at all convinced that that is how it is intended to operate in practice, mainly because there are other people involved who are called Whips. Unless provision has been made for expiry, there will be a natural locomotion towards a future coalition, which I strongly resent, and towards fixed-term Parliaments, in the plural, and we will be in “a new kind of politics”. I see in their places at least one or two of my hon. Friends who, from what we read, would strongly advocate such a proposal. They have some constitutional ideas so perhaps they will elaborate on them during the debate. I rather doubt it, but we shall see.

New clause 5 is designed so that section 2 of the eventual Act will expire. It also provides for the circumstances that might obtain in the first month after Parliament has returned after a general election, when it might have a totally different complexion and composition. We have no idea who will be sitting on the Government Benches at that time. In that first month with Members reconvened for the first time—leaving aside the constitutional doctrine about successive Parliaments—would it be right for those Members to be saddled with something with which they did not agree? It is a simple as that. That provides another reason, quite apart from the constitutionality of the issue, for the new clause.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend’s new clause ensure that after the next election, the Prime Minister, instead of going through the fiction of having a vote of no confidence in himself, could simply ask for a Dissolution by a vote of the House? If the new clause were accepted, would it not provide a much more straightforward way of getting an early Dissolution?

[Mr Cash]

That is a perceptive way of putting it; I congratulate my hon. Friend on his perspicacity.

I have great reservations about our movement towards what is seen as a new kind of political understanding. One of the great objections relates to the ease with which it is possible to break manifesto promises, enter into coalitions and then break them as well. Subsequently, a Parliament might emerge that embodied all the thinking of those broken promises in the form of a new politics. That next Parliament is then intended to carry on as if nothing had happened. I think that that is a very unsatisfactory way of governing, and a very undemocratic way of conducting our affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Cash]

rose—