Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War.

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling me to secure this debate, which has the support of colleagues across the House. It gives us a chance to reflect not only on the Iraq war but on Parliament’s role in that war. It is a debate that I believe our constituents would expect us to hold as we pass the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion.

All of us will have in mind today the 179 members of our armed forces who have lost their lives in this conflict. I pay tribute to them and to their bravery, and my sympathy goes out to their families for their terrible loss. Other service personnel have suffered physical and mental trauma as a result of the war which, for many, will be with them for the rest of their lives. We also have in mind the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who were killed during the war or who have died since in military operations, bombings, acts of terrorism or through sickness and disease.

Possible estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the invasion and occupation of Iraq vary wildly. A Lancet survey between March 2003 and June 2006 pointed to over 650,000 excess deaths, while an Opinion Research Business survey put deaths as a result of the conflict at over 1 million up to 2007. The Iraq Body Count, or IBC—an independent US-UK group—reports 112,976 documented civilian casualties and points out that further analysis of the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs may add 12,000 civilian deaths to that the number. The IBC has always said that its number is an undercount because proper records have not been kept by the coalition forces, a fact that tells its own story.

Whatever the true number, there is no dispute that there has been a grave civilian price, one that continues to be paid and threatens to get worse. For most of us today, this 10th anniversary of the invasion is largely history, but for the people of Iraq it is a state of continuing war. Iraqis are being hit by almost daily attacks, with tensions growing between the Shi’a Muslim majority and the minority Sunnis, raising fears of a return to the worst level of sectarian violence. Just this week we have seen harrowing reports of at least seven people killed in a single day in a wave of bombings and attacks in central and northern Iraq. Last month was the bloodiest since June 2008, with over 1,000 Iraqi civilians and security officials killed, according to the UN.

It is a grim understatement to say that the Iraqi people do not have security. There are deep concerns about human rights, massive corruption, unemployment and miserable basic services, such as electricity and water supplies. But even if Iraq finds a way out of its current difficulties, as we all fervently hope it will, there is the legacy of the last 10 years of warfare and terrorism as well. Part of that legacy is the deeply disturbing cases being taken to our High Court, involving more than 1,000 killings and acts of torture committed in Iraq by UK forces. We must have public scrutiny of the systemic issues arising from these cases and look to reform the training and oversight of our armed forces.

What of our own country? Do we feel more secure? Is the terrorist threat diminished because of those 10 years of bloodshed and chaos? In fact, the contrary is true. According to the former head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Iraqi invasion increased the terror threat in Britain, radicalising a generation of young British Muslims and substantially increasing the risk of a terrorist atrocity on UK soil. A major unprovoked attack without UN authorisation took place with dire consequences. These terrible and deeply troubling outcomes add real substance to the argument that this was the biggest foreign policy failure of recent times.

As an individual, I opposed the war in Iraq because it was my view that the burden of justification for undertaking a major unprovoked attack had not been met. I joined the anti-war protest in February 2003, which saw between 1 million and 2 million people marching in London, the biggest political demonstration in history. In successive polls by different and reputable agencies, around two thirds of British citizens say the Iraq war was a mistake.

Ultimately, Parliament was responsible for that decision to go to war. It was MPs in this House who questioned, debated and voted on the decision, both on 26 February and 18 March 2003. But if this war was a mistake, what should Parliament do now? If it were a public body—a school, perhaps, or a hospital or local authority—we would expect an admission that things had gone wrong and a pledge to learn the lessons so that it could not happen again. That, I believe, is at the heart of today’s debate. Not a blame game or resignations; not heads on platters or humble pie; not a chorus of “I told you so.” What I want to focus on specifically is the role of Parliament. How was it that, with some very honourable exceptions, parliamentary scrutiny failed? How was it that the intelligence could be so misinterpreted and misused? How was it that facts clearly in the public domain were ignored or dismissed?

These are not academic questions. Their relevance and consequences are all too real today. We cannot simply leave them to others to answer. The Hutton inquiry and the Butler inquiry had their own terms of reference. Hutton’s remit was the death of Dr David Kelly; Butler’s was a panel, handpicked by Tony Blair, that was insufficiently independent and held far too many hearings in private. Shamefully, we still await the results of the Chilcot panel fully five years after it was established, while battles continue over declassifying material. I know of at least one freedom of information battle that is still being had with the Foreign Office; the sticking point is not national security, but national embarrassment.

All of these processes can play a useful part in revealing some of the truth of what happened in the lead-up to the war and beyond. But it is not the job of these men, however eminent or well intentioned, to stand in judgment on Parliament. Parliament is sovereign, and must remain sovereign even when it comes to considering its own failures and necessary reforms. As parliamentarians in 2013, we can and must ask, and answer, whether sufficient evidence was available in the public domain to allow Government Back Benchers and Opposition MPs to both question and oppose the Government’s case for war in 2003.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I have always found that hindsight in politics is a great thing and makes things a lot easier. The hon. Lady should look at the evidence that came not from the Government or the security services, but from Hans Blix in his final report. I had the honour of meeting him in New York the night before his final report was published and he clearly said to me and to Bruce George—a right hon. Gentleman at the time—not that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, but that he needed more time, with full co-operation, to determine whether Saddam did.

[Caroline Lucas]

I can only ask why, then, did we not give Hans Blix more time? I, too, have met Hans Blix and I, too, have heard him say that were the weapons inspectors given more time, they could have established the answer without the bloody war that happened.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely recall that and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It was in the interests of this country for the weapons inspectors not to go back into Iraq so that the Government could make that case.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Last night, I looked at the notebook that I had at the time. [Interruption.] No, it is in my own handwriting. What it said is not that Hans Blix needed more time, but that he needed more time if he was going to get full co-operation from Saddam, and at that time he clearly was not.

[Caroline Lucas]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I will come to other quotes from Hans Blix, who made it clear that to a great extent Saddam Hussein was co-operating and that with more time we could have avoided the war.

We as parliamentarians have the role and the job of scrutinising the available evidence that was in the public domain. I entirely take the point that hindsight is a wonderful thing. The point I want to make is that plenty of information was in the public domain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was saying that many people will say that if they had known then what they know now, they would not have supported the war, and I said that that was not an adequate justification, precisely because of those Members of Parliament who were not taken in by the spin. Members of Parliament could have known then much of what they know now. A vast amount of the evidence available now was in the public domain then. We know this because of those hon. Members who did see through the lies and the deceptions, who asked the right questions, who trawled through the documents, who stood up in Parliament and said that the war was based on a false prospectus, and many of those hon. Members are in the Chamber today.

Let me give an example of three others, starting with an hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber, the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones. She saw that Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made the misrepresentation of the French position a centrepiece of their efforts to win the vote on 18 March 2003. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France had the power to veto a second UN resolution. In an interview on 10 March 2003 President Chirac indicated that, as things stood, France would use its veto in the unlikely event that a second resolution authorising military action got the necessary majority of nine members of the Security Council.

I quote from the transcript of the interview. Chirac says:

“My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.”

But by selectively quoting the words “regardless of the circumstances” when describing the French position on authorisation of the use of force, proponents of the war blamed France for blocking military action against Iraq, no matter what evidence emerged of a breach of resolution 1441. Tony Blair even included the selective and misleading quote in the motion in support of military action that was put to the House on 18 March 2003. [Interruption.] I want to finish this section. The importance of the inclusion of this misrepresentation in the motion was huge. Some MPs have stated that it alone changed their minds on whether or not to vote to go to war.

Giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, the right hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that President Chirac’s use of the phrase “this evening” did not describe the French position on the evening of the interview, thereby indicating that this could change in the future, but was simply an introduction to what he was going to say that evening. He put that argument to the panel by specifically stating the order of Chirac’s phrasing, down to where a comma is used. However, the transcript shows that he did not give the phrasing in the right order. The phrase “this evening” came after “regardless of the circumstances”, but he said that it came first, changing the meaning of Chirac’s words to suit the argument. The right hon. Gentleman said:

‘I know there has been some textual analysis of the use by President Chirac of the word “Le soir”, but I watched him say this and I took this as no more than saying, “This evening”, comma, and then he announces, “France will, whatever the circumstances”, he says, right?’

Well, that was not right. In fact, the transcript shows that Chirac explicitly ruled in the possibility that military action might be needed, stating in the same interview that if the weapons inspector reported after more time that they were unable to do their job, war would be inevitable. To quote directly, he said:

“But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn’t today.”

The French position, then, was that progress was being made on the weapons inspections and that France was therefore opposed to replacing the existing inspections process with an ultimatum that would lead to war in a few days’ time. The phrase “regardless of the circumstances” was not helpful, and it was unfortunate that Chirac used those words, as they were easily taken out of context. However, that does not detract from the responsibility of those, including Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who—I argue—misinterpreted, and continued to misinterpret, President Chirac’s interview of 10 March in order to blame France for the failure to obtain a second UN resolution. The reason that it was not possible to obtain UN authorisation for the use of force is that there was no evidence showing Iraq to be an active and growing threat; it was not because of French intransigence, as UK Ministers said.

Hansard shows that Lynne Jones was ridiculed when she tried to raise the misrepresentation of Chirac’s interview in the House, but the fact that she raised it shows that there were hon. Members who bothered to get the transcript of what was actually said before the vote and that it was not necessary to accept the interpretation being given by the Government at face value. It was not a detail; President Chirac’s words were placed at the heart of the motion that Parliament debated and voted on.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I got on well with the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who was a very good Member of Parliament, but I think that the hon. Lady is reading far too much into this in order to support her conspiracy theory speech. On the same visit to New York, I also met the French ambassador to the UN, and it was quite clear that there was no way the French would vote for a resolution that endorsed action, and they were working with the Germans, who took the same position. It is not the case that the French were somehow up for negotiation.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the point is the issue of when they were going to accept intervention—

[Mr Jones]

They never were.

[Caroline Lucas]

Well, I have seen the evidence from Chirac and the way it was treated when it came to the Chilcot inquiry, and I think that it is perfectly plain that Chirac’s intervention was deliberate misinterpreted. The words were taken in the wrong order and made to mean something different. [Interruption.] We can trade our beliefs across the Chamber, but the bottom line is that there was evidence out there that would have led Members to suspect that what they were being told at that point was not necessarily the case.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman also pay tribute to Colonel Tony Davies and to the Falkland Islands veterans association? The association’s Liberty Lodge in Stanley accommodates many of the veterans who return to the Falkland Islands to remember some of the experiences that they went through in 1992.

[Guy Opperman]

I totally agree. The way in which we look after the Falkland Islands has got better and better, under the previous Government and now under this one. The organisation that the hon. Gentleman mentions does a great job.

It is right to make it clear that the United Kingdom wants nothing more than peace, trade and prosperity with Argentina and the other south American countries. There are so many problems in this world, and it is surely wrong that we are in any way falling out over these islands. While we in this House stand four-square behind the residents of the Falkland Islands and their overwhelming vote in favour of self-determination, we must try to reach out to the Argentine and other south American peoples and stress that this is a matter entirely for the islanders.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

This has been a timely and useful debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on obtaining it and on his considered opening speech. I also thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.

The Falkland islanders enjoy the support and friendship of Members from across the political divide in the British House of Commons. They will receive that message loud and clear as we debate this momentous day for the people of the Falkland Islands.

The referendum on the future of the Falkland Islands has been an event of momentous significance for that small community in the south Atlantic. An overwhelming majority, 99.8% of those voting, have chosen to retain the islands’ status as a British overseas territory, with an astonishingly high turnout—at which we can only look with jealousy, envy, amazement and, when it comes to our elections, incredulity—of 92%. Just three no votes were cast.

More than 50 international journalists have descended on Stanley. Those hon. Members who have visited Stanley, sometimes more than once, will know what pressure that has put on that place. They have been joined by academics, electoral experts and a formal observer mission made up of members from Latin America, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, who have confirmed that the poll was

“free and fair, reflecting the democratic will of the voters of the Falkland Islands.”

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the Minister agree that that is a very important point? The Falkland islanders can now argue not only that the election was free and fair but that the result shows the will of the people.

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend—I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say the hon. Gentleman, although he is also my friend—has visited the Falklands and what he says is absolutely the case. The world was watching, the Falkland islanders spoke and the world should therefore react accordingly. These were free and fair elections, observed by the international community, and the result is stronger because of that.

Not for the first time, the Falkland islanders find themselves the focus of intense political and media attention. Most will now understandably want life to return to normal, but they can do so secure in the knowledge that they have shown the world in no uncertain terms what political status they want for their home. The result of course reflected what the Falkland islanders have always asserted: their overwhelming wish is to maintain the islands’ status as a British overseas territory. The referendum was not some crude public relations stunt, as the Argentine Government sought to portray it. The islanders organised it not to indulge themselves in establishing the obvious, but to send the clearest possible message to those who either do not know or do not care about what future they want. Today’s absolutely decisive result undoubtedly achieved that and once again I congratulate the Falkland Islands people on their definitive act of self-determination.

The British Government backed the referendum from the outset. Support for the Falkland islanders is absolute, and the Prime Minister made that very clear in his statement earlier today welcoming the result. The Government would have respected whatever result emerged from Stanley but, as is reinforced by the interventions this evening, we are delighted by the overwhelming support for a continuing partnership with the United Kingdom, based on our shared values and mutual respect. For as long as the people of the Falklands wish their homeland to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, we will stand by them.

[Mr Swire]

As a former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). This is a time to remember all those who lost their life in the conflict, but particularly the British lives lost in re-securing freedom for the islanders.

It would be wrong not to acknowledge that the main factor that led the Falkland islanders to hold the referendum was the increasingly antagonistic behaviour of the Government of Argentina over recent months and years. In many ways President Kirchner herself inspired the referendum. Her aggressive policies motivated the Falkland islanders to stand up so proudly for who they are and what they want.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), I deeply regret the direction of Argentina’s policy. From harassing the Falklands fishing fleet, to threatening air links with the islands and issuing hostile letters to companies operating on the Falklands, it seems that the Argentine Government believe that the Falkland islanders can be bullied into submission, and that the British Government will eventually decide to negotiate away their rights. That is never going to happen.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the Minister agree that when relatives of Argentines killed in the Falklands visit the islands, they receive a very warm and respectful welcome from the people of the islands?

[Mr Swire]

Indeed. It is my understanding that more than 20 nationalities took part in the referendum, including Argentines. That speaks volumes.

Europe

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It was Winston Churchill who said that we should learn to trust the people. For far too long, the British people have believed that European matters are decided by a cosy political elite from which they feel completely excluded.

Let me say to Labour and Liberal Members that they have nothing to fear from putting their arguments to the British people. Listening to some of the speeches made by Labour Members today, I wondered whether they lived in the same country as I do. I hear what the British people are saying, and they have said to us regularly, for a very long time, that they want their say on European matters.

I have enormous trust in the good sense and wisdom of the British people, and in their ability to know what is in the British national interest. Conservative Members are proud to be sending this question back to the people, because we think that the people are grown up enough, wise enough and sensible enough to make a decision that is in the British national interest.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a matter of fact that every increase in our integration with Europe has come about under a Conservative Government. We joined under a Conservative Government, and we signed the Single European Act under Margaret Thatcher. What has changed in the Conservative party in terms of giving the people a say, which it clearly has not done in the past? The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Single European Act was the key piece of legislation that took powers away from Britain and transferred them to Brussels.

[Andrew Selous]

Treaty signing took place under a Labour Government. It was a Labour Government who promised the British people a referendum on the constitution—as did the Liberal Democrats—but transformed it into the Lisbon treaty, which they signed into law before the general election, thus denying the British public a choice. The then Conservative Opposition were drawing up legislation to offer the people a referendum, which could have taken place had the Lisbon treaty not been signed into law before the election. Conservative Members have been consistent in wanting to allow the British people to have their say on these matters.

We believe that the changes the Government want to see in Europe are in the United Kingdom’s interests, but—and this is vital—we also believe that they are in the interests of the European Union. We should bear it in mind that 47% of our trade is with the European Union, and that the ability to trade with a market of 500 million people, with a GDP of £11 trillion, is not an insignificant matter.

Car manufacturers are free from paying tariffs of £900 million because we are in the European Union. Every Range Rover that we exported to the EU would carry a tariff of £6,000 if we were outside it. One in 10 jobs—3.5 million—depend on trade with the European Union. Of course those jobs would not disappear completely if we left, but the fact remains that there are significant economic interests of which we need to be very mindful. The United Kingdom is the largest recipient of foreign investment in the European Union, and the Foreign Office believes that in 2011-12 about 111,000 jobs were either created or safeguarded because of investment in this country.

We have already heard about the Chinese, American, Japanese and Indian car manufacturers that have been moving to the United Kingdom. We also know from an analysis of 147 decisions made by finance firms that 47% of those firms said that they came here because of access to the European market. It is beyond question that half our trade is with Europe, and we recognise that that trade is vital for the UK economy.

Of course the Government are rightly determined to increase our trade with the growing markets in Asia, Africa and South America, and we have experienced some success. So far we have increased our trade with India by a third, and our trade with China by a fifth. The EU South Korean free trade agreement that we negotiated has already increased our trade with South Korea by 32%. Dorset Cereals, for instance, has experienced a sixfold increase in its trade with that country. We need to put all those developments on the record, so that the British people can make a dispassionate decision about what is in the British national interest.

The Vauxhall van factory is in Luton, very close to my constituency, and some of my constituents work there. The factory recently secured a 12-year contract with Renault to extend production of the Vivaro van. I do not believe that General Motors would have given it that contract if the United Kingdom had been outside the European Union. There are other van factories in Europe to which it could have given the business.

That is the positive side of the argument, and people need to hear it, but we also need to recognise that European regulation is hurting British business. For instance, a firm in Leighton Buzzard called ProEconomy, which does highly effective work in eradicating legionella throughout hospitals in the United Kingdom, recently experienced enormous difficulty in obtaining European Union authorisation and approval for copper and silver ionisation. The science is perfectly safe and the Health and Safety Executive is entirely happy with it, but because of the cost of obtaining EU approval and the length of time that it has taken, ProEconomy, along with a similar firm in High Wycombe, was almost put out of business. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), for the action that he has taken to help those firms.

That is one example of European Union interference going too far and causing difficulties to firms. Another involves a small haulier in Leighton Buzzard who used to transport two vehicles on his trailer up and down the country, but who has been put out of business because of a transport regulation that this country did not want and the Department for Transport opposed.

I have raised both those issues with my right hon. Friend Minister for Europe, and I am grateful for his help, but I wanted to put them on the record to demonstrate that we need a balance. We must realise that there are instances in which we should say to Europe, “You are hurting business, not helping it. Your regulation is heavy-handed, and it is causing us difficulties.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I welcome this debate, allowing us to reflect on the Prime Minister’s speech of last week. I also welcome not only what he said, but the considered and direct way in which he said it. He is to be congratulated on his straight and direct approach. Politicians must be clear; they are the architects of their own downfall when they are not. Whatever people’s view of the content of that speech, there can be little ambiguity regarding the Government’s approach to Europe in the future. For too long there has been a tendency for politicians to hedge with supposedly clever words, enabling a later get-out, almost as though they wish to be all things to all men. By golly, we had a wonderful example of that today from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Binley]

I would like to make a little progress, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

No wonder the political classes are held in such low esteem, when politicians prevaricate and refuse to give straight answers in meaningful English.

[Mr Binley]

In keeping with a tradition first established by Labour—so we will not go too deeply into that question.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister rejected the ploy of not straight-talking last week, and spoke directly to the British people in terms they could understand. He also dealt plainly with the “R” word, and he was right to do so.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister has been straight-talking, but he will not say what the red lines are in the negotiations and how he will handle them. He also will not give a commitment on how he will vote in a referendum if he does not get what he actually wants. What is straight about that? Is it just a political fudge for the Back Benchers in the Tory party?

[Mr Binley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been involved in business negotiations. Business people start by saying they will negotiate, then think about how they will negotiate, and then undertake those negotiations. That process is occurring at this very moment, I hope. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with my answer, and that I can make some progress.

The starting point for this debate, on which almost everybody is agreed, is that the present arrangements are going to have to change. The pressures within the eurozone will require a greater convergence than the current sticking-plaster approach allows. Increased integration among eurozone member states will require a new settlement, and that will include a new settlement for those outside the zone, too.

It may not be necessary to create a new treaty, although I would put money on the fact that the Germans will want one, but another quick political “fix” is no way to put right the fundamental issues that have confronted the single currency. There may be a need for a more centralised fiscal eurozone, and that means there is no place for Britain. It means at least a two-tier Europe, and that could raise its head before the next election. We need to be doing the contingency work now, to be prepared for that possible outcome. I assume that such contingency work is under way, but I look appealingly to the Minister for Europe to assure us on that point.

When Europe looks to achieve that new settlement, it is right that we should present a positive vision for our own future. The Prime Minister has outlined the principles which will underpin the approach to those discussions, and the outcome of the negotiations will determine his approach to the referendum—which, incidentally, I quite look forward to. This debate is an opportunity for the House to provide some further detail on what we want the Prime Minister to achieve in those deliberations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) referred on a number of occasions to the UK and not to Britain. I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary, who talks about “Britain, Britain, Britain”, seems to have forgotten that we are part of the United Kingdom. So I thank my right hon. Friend, but that is probably as much as I am going to be thanking him for. I am here to say on behalf, I believe, of many Labour voters, the majority of the British public and the majority of my constituents that what the Prime Minister said about a referendum, our changing relationship with Europe and the need to bring back powers from Europe is absolutely right, and those comments have been welcomed by the country. I am genuinely disappointed that my party is going to take a little bit of time before, inevitably, it comes round to saying that we want a referendum.

Normally, it is just a few of us who put forward the “Eurorealistic” case in such debates, but it is great to see that today quite a number have come along to put forward that view, which I welcome. I remember when there were just a few of us here and we were supporting the Government in putting in place their EU lock. We said it was right that we should be saying that if any more powers were going back to Europe we should have a referendum. I am sorry that Labour Front Benchers were not in favour of that at the time, but I am delighted that we have changed our mind and are now supporting that.

I know that before the European elections my party will without doubt be saying that it wants us to have a referendum, because that is a basic tenet of democracy. We know that the European Union—the Common Market to which we signed up all those years ago—has changed so much. We have seen many changes and the British public never got the chance to say what they thought about them. We had promises from Members on both sides of the House that there would be a referendum, but we never got that referendum.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the major change in our relationship with Europe was the signing of the Single European Act in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher?

[Kate Hoey]

I perhaps differ in that I do not take that tribal attitude to the matter—I want to do what is best for our country. I do not care who made those decisions; my party made terrible decisions, as did the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats always make terrible decisions on Europe. I do not care who did it—it was wrong. I voted against the Maastricht treaty, as did many of us way back then. We were right in everything we said at that time and everything we said about joining the euro, which of course my Front Benchers did have the right view on, and our Government rightly did not join it.

Let us remember something about the people who are now all doom and gloom about what would happen if we had a referendum, and we did not get enough powers back and voted to come out of the European Union. These people are saying that that would be the most catastrophic thing that could happen, but they are the very same people who were wrong earlier—the Richard Bransons of this world and the other top business leaders who, for their own particular interests, have always been in favour of more integration. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, and the British public know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

As so often, I agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope to build on that thought.

The reality of the world economy is shifting patterns of trade and emerging markets. They have been tapping us on the shoulder for some time and are now tapping even harder. Some hon. Members in the Chamber today may remember John Major pointing out to Peter Mandelson that if we do not notice when reality taps us on the shoulder, one day reality will grab us by the throat. Yet it is sadly clear that the EU has become divorced from reality—from real people and from real lives. When the British people voted to stay in the European Economic Community in 1975, it was for real world reasons—for jobs, for growth and for the common market—and at that time the EEC gave every impression that that was its purpose. The EU needs to give us and our constituents similar cause for optimism today. There is an urgent need for reform and a fundamental resettlement in the UK’s relationship with Europe.

This is not about being little Englanders. It is about being big Britons who want to seize the opportunities available in the global marketplace; so do big Germans, big Swedes and big Danes—not to be confused with Great Danes—and we need to work with them, our reformist friends, against those who should be called little Europeans, who would turn our continent’s shoulder to the world. Just as we led Europe to the single market, we can lead in its completion and help our local businesses and our constituents to compete better on the global stage. The channel is little more than 20 miles across, but the gulf is huge between the global economic horizons of the big Britons we represent and the continental introversion represented by the little Europeans on the Opposition Benches.

The EU has been caught flat-footed in the economic crisis, and the euro—a political creation—has been caught in an economic straitjacket, yet there remains clear political will among many people in the eurozone for it to succeed. That has already led to calls for deeper, thicker integration and less flexibility at national level, and that is not the Europe that was voted for. We are told that we should not demand a Europe à la carte, yet the eurozone members chose to set up a new club within the club of Europe and—perhaps unsurprisingly, given the problems that the euro has caused—they are now demanding a European fixed price set menu. The Prime Minister is resisting this, quite rightly.

The bottom line for our constituents is this: are we better off in or better off out? Are we more likely to create jobs and economic growth, or are we to be suffocated by excessive regulation and told that our national Parliament cannot do anything about it? Those are important questions that we want answered. We do not want to fudge them. The Government have already taken important action, which the Foreign Secretary told us about. We wanted to ensure that, if transfers of power to the EU were proposed, they would have to be put to the British people first, and we have achieved that by creating the referendum lock. Rightly, no further powers can be transferred to the EU without the British people having their say.

The Government have already taken action to kick-start the debate on the resettlement with Europe. The review of the balance of the EU competencies will provide a national audit of what the EU currently does and what it means for our country, and it will provide us with the information that is needed to take future decisions about our relationship with the EU and in the referendum that now, thank goodness, lies ahead.

The House will not be surprised that I regard myself as a Eurosceptic. As I said at the beginning, in scepticism there is hope, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) said. On the Government Benches and across the country, Euro- scepticism is on the rise. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are surely right to press for renegotiation before an in/out referendum and to work with our partners for a more competitive EU and one that is worth considering voting for.

Some people have asked, “What are you considering repatriating?” or “What do you want to renegotiate?” I commend the fantastic work that is being led by my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on the Fresh Start project. A wealth of options is being put forward there—worked through, thought through and analysed carefully. Take a look. I think that Opposition Members will find something to learn there.

This negotiation must be aimed, laser-like, at improving our economic position, cutting through red tape, safeguarding our financial services, delivering government at the lowest possible level and trusting the people to have the final say. That is the Conservative way. But in their heads the Opposition, with a few notable exceptions, do not want the British people to have their say. The reality of the Labour Government was the Lisbon treaty, with no promised referendum at the end.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Rutley]

I have given way twice already.

The Opposition prefer the top-down, little European approach which I spoke about, where EU membership is a price worth paying and staying in an unreformed EU is worth any price at all. How depressingly pessimistic that is. How unambitiously 20th century of the Labour party. It is here, on the Conservative Benches, where Members are fizzing with ideas for a sustainable, successful and competitive Europe, which I suggest the Opposition should take a look at. The Prime Minister has taken a bold approach. It is the right approach for Britain; it is the right approach for Europe; it is optimistic and reformist; and it is based on reality—the reality of where we are, where we could be and where we should be to compete in the globally competitive marketplaces that we face today.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I want to start by paying tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Their leadership on this issue has electrified Europe, the nation and this debate, and not before time.

The context for this debate is that the EU has changed fundamentally and is still changing. The eurozone crisis demands that we rethink our relationship, and the rise of globalisation and new markets require us all, as Europeans, to look to new models of economic growth.

The principal reason why this debate is so important to my constituents is democracy. The British people voted nigh on 40 years ago for a common market. They have been delivered a federal political union that does not have the legitimacy of their support. At the heart of all democratic politics is a golden principle: those who are elected to serve should never give away the power vested in them by the people they serve without their authority.

The electorate are looking to us to build an economic future for them and their families. They demand that we leave no stone unturned in insisting that the European project adjusts to the realities of globalisation and growth. Furthermore, the world economy demands that Europe becomes more enterprising and more prosperous, and that it engages more with the economies of tomorrow.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman says that we do not have what we signed up for in 1975. I agree with him about that. However, does he not agree that the biggest transfer of power to Brussels and the biggest change in the EU came with the Single European Act, which was signed in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher, who never even considered taking it to the country in a referendum?

[George Freeman]

I disagree. We could have an interesting debate about how the illegitimate ratcheting of power has happened over the past 30 years. The Lisbon treaty had a big part to play. The previous Government’s promise to hold a referendum and their denial of one played a big part in the destruction of trust.

Twenty-five years ago, the then Conservative Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, made a major speech on Europe that became known as the Bruges speech. I think that our Prime Minister’s speech will become known as the Bloomberg speech. I pay tribute to his leadership. He set out some important messages, not least the idea that Europe requires a new model to deal with global growth and that we cannot build a 21st century economy within the constraints of a 20th century political and economic institution. I warmly welcome the five principles that he set out to guide this important renegotiation.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement of our belief in a common single market—not a market that is over-regulated by big government and dominated by the big businesses that feed of it, but a single market that is dynamic, entrepreneurial, open, innovative and global. We are, as the Prime Minister said, in a global race. We need a Europe that helps us and itself to cope and compete in that race.

I consider myself to be an optimistic, entrepreneurial and global European. I am Eurosceptic in terms of the political, federal project that I have witnessed during my lifetime, but I am an optimistic democrat and businessman when it comes to Europe’s future in the world and our future in the world through it. We have much to be optimistic about. Post the cold war we have seen an extraordinary change in Europe, the middle east and across the world, and more recently we have seen the Arab spring and an opening up across the middle east. Rather than focus on ever-deepening European political union, should we not seek to widen the influence of a looser, pro-enterprise and entrepreneurial Europe? I dream of the day when the strife, poverty, violence and terror that dominate the middle east are vanquished because that area is part of a much wider European market. I want to buy goods from Syria, not watch it on television while it and neighbouring countries are torn apart by violence and strife.

Globalisation creates enormous market opportunities for us and for Europe, and a Europe that is plugged into that global phenomenon would be capable of leading against the two big blocs of America and China. That is not, however, the Europe with which we are confronted. In my field of science and innovation I know all too well how powerful the European market is and can be because of CERN, the life sciences and the European Space Agency. On Monday I was at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge and visited the European Bioinformatics Institute where hundreds of young European scientists here in Britain are at the forefront of breaking down the human genome and increasing our understanding of how disease affects different populations.

As a mature, sophisticated set of western economies, we can lead the world with the translation of our knowledge to help the developing world. Over the next 30 years, the developing world will have to go through revolutions that took us 200 years. Perhaps they will go through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from the basics of food, medicine and energy to becoming sophisticated western markets that will unlock enormous markets for our talents and skills.

The problem is, however, that the European Union of today is not in a fit state to unlock such opportunities. Economically, the eurozone is riven by debt—I remind the House that as a whole, Europe currently owes €10.9 trillion—and it has high rates of unemployment, with the EU average currently running at 10.7%. That is unsustainable. Furthermore, politically we are seeing that the federal model of ever-closer union is simply not capable of accommodating the needs of the eurozone as well as those of us who are—fortunately—outside it. The need to recover trust among those of us who have observed the illegitimate ratcheting of a federal union demands the change set out by the Prime Minister.

Closer integration in the eurozone is a problem for the UK but also an opportunity for us and other countries not included in that zone. We need to define a new structure and I believe that a two-tier Europe is emerging. I have in my hand a list of the 17 nations in the eurozone. It is a long list, and the big leader is Germany. On the right is a list of the 10 nations outside the eurozone, and if Norway, Switzerland and the next wave of possible new entrants are added, the obvious leader of that group would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We can, I believe, develop our leadership in the context of a debate about that structure. Our leadership must be in the context of the global race about which the Prime Minister, and many hon. Members in this debate, have been so lucid.

The life sciences are a particular interest of mine, and this country and Europe have a big part to play in the big markets of food, medicine and energy. Through collaborations between European universities, investors and companies, we lead the world in that sector. The truth is, however, that the European Union is not always—and of late has increasingly not been—supportive of our, or its, ability to unlock that strength. In particular, it has begun to develop a series of policies and directives on genetic modification that are holding back this country’s leadership. Global food demand is set to increase by 70% in the next 30 years, 29 countries are growing GM crops, and biotech crops are valued at £90 billion yet only two are licensed in the European Union. If the European Union will not let us lead in that sphere, we need the freedom to do it for ourselves.

I congratulate those hon. Members who have put together the Fresh Start group, and reiterate my support for them. If we set out a positive vision of a new Europe and build alliances with nations that share our interests, we can deliver real change. The truth is that Europe 1.0 is over and we need Europe version 2.0 in which we can lead and to which we want to belong. We must seize the moment and build the alliances to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

I wish I knew how the Deputy Prime Minister’s mind worked. You would be quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule me out of order for being unparliamentary if I used the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber, and I would never use the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber to refer to another right hon. or hon. Member, but I think that the Deputy Prime Minister is guilty of rank inconsistency over his party’s position on a referendum.

This country has a unique position in the world; we have global links like no other nation on earth and we of course have our proximity to the European continent. This nation’s success has been rooted in being a free trading nation that seeks links and co-operation with the world. Our best opportunity for the future, as in the past, is to utilise those unique links and act as a conduit—a bridge—between the world and the European continent.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman a history lesson, but the British empire was actually founded on protectionism. Until the repeal of the corn laws, we had very restrictive markets for our goods.

[Henry Smith]

I was hoping to speak yesterday, to quote from the Reform Act of 1831 and refer to the sweeping away of the rotten boroughs—[Hon. Members: “1832.”] My apologies; I will refrain from using dates. Nevertheless, our history is based on free trade, as is our future.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I start by saying that the speech the Prime Minister gave last week was probably the most important speech that a Prime Minister has given on Europe since we joined 40 years ago, and the first time we have seen a Prime Minister showing genuine leadership on the issue. There has been lots of rhetoric from previous Prime Ministers about wanting to lead in Europe, but all too often they have found themselves drifting along with an agenda set by others. For the first time we have a Prime Minister who does not necessarily want to make friends with Europe, and who is challenging Europe’s failure and challenging it to move in a new direction. Such an intervention is long overdue because for many years there has been tension in the European Union between those who wanted to integrate policy making more deeply within Europe, and countries such as Britain who said we should have a broader Europe and bring on board countries from eastern Europe.

The decision to enlarge the European Union to include eastern Europe should have been a triumph for British foreign policy and have led to a situation in which the EU tried to do less but did a few things better. Some powers should have started to return to national Governments, but instead the relentless dogma of ever-closer union has continued. It is high time we called time on that.

We have heard a great deal from Labour Members about pessimism and defeatism, but I will tell them what those things really are. Pessimism and defeatism are seen in those who agree with the analysis that Europe needs to change and reform, and that some powers should return, but who have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to deliver that—they will not even try; they are not prepared to embark on the process. I heard the shadow Foreign Secretary agree with the five principles, but he will not say whether he thinks there should be a new treaty or intergovernmental conference, and he will not commit to any kind of renegotiation. There is a kind of craven fear among those who say they agree with our analysis but are completely unwilling to do anything about it or make a change.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Prime Minister is not clear what powers he wants to repatriate—it changes every time the Downing street spin machine gets into gear and whenever he is asked. Negotiations on that basis will mean four, five or seven years of uncertainty, which will damage the UK’s economy.

[George Eustice]

The Prime Minister is clear that we will have a renegotiation and put it to the people. The whole point of a renegotiation is that such things are developed in the negotiation. Labour Front Benchers say they share the Prime Minister’s analysis, but they are unwilling to do anything about it.

Three other aspects of the Prime Minister’s speech were important. First, he was right that the core of the EU is not the euro, but the single market. We are committed to the single market and want to expand and extend it. Research last year by Open Europe concluded that the current arrangement in the single market was better for Britain than the alternatives. It is better because we need to be in the single market for things such as financial services, and because we need to be in the customs union to support our manufacturing, because of complicated country-of-origin rules. For those reasons, we are committed to, and want to expand, the single market. The euro is not the core of the EU, as some would say. In fact, the euro is an optional project. Britain and perhaps other countries will never join it, and some member states trapped in it might yet choose to leave and re-establish their own currency.

The second important point expanded on by the Prime Minister is that we must end the dogma of ever-closer union. It must now be possible for powers to return to nation states. The reality is that the more competences the EU has taken on, the less competent it has become. We must give the EU the power to adapt and the power to let go of things when there is no longer a rationale for deciding them at European level. Who is really on the side of the EU? Is it those like me who say, “Let’s make the EU more flexible and give it the ability to adapt to new challenges in future,” or is it those who say, “It’s all too difficult to change. Let’s just leave it like it is”? Those of us who are arguing for change are on the side of the EU.

The third important aspect of the Prime Minister’s speech was the distinction between willing co-operation between nation states and national Governments, and the integration of policy. There is an opportunity to roll back the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in many areas. That has already been done on matters such as justice and home affairs by countries such as Denmark. It co-operates with directives and works with other countries in a spirit of co-operation but does not accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We do something similar on foreign affairs, and it works. We co-operate with other European countries and work to have co-ordinated policies on foreign affairs, but we do not have an integrated policy and we do not make foreign affairs subject to QMV.

I conclude by dwelling on whether change is possible. The big challenge in the debate is answering those who say, “It’s all well and good. We agree with you about what needs to be changed, but it’s impossible. What will you do if they say no?” I am more optimistic than many on that point, for a number of reasons. First, the euro has created challenges that mean that the EU will change anyway. I believe there will be growing demands for a new treaty in the coming 12 months if Angela Merkel is re-elected later this year. That demands a policy response from Britain. If other countries say that they want to integrate more deeply and understand that Britain will not follow them, we must at that point have a grown-up discussion on what a new model for Europe looks like.

The second thing to remember is that the differences between countries that are out of the euro and those that are in it can be exaggerated. The truth is that countries such as Germany, Holland and many others see Britain as an ally in liberalising markets and opening up the single market. They want us in the EU because they see us as an ally. The EU needs us because we give it influence in the world. People often say that Britain might be losing influence, but there is a two-way street, because we give the EU influence.

The third thing to bear in mind is that other countries have problems with aspects of EU policy. Germany and Sweden do not like measures such as the data retention directive. Therefore, we should discuss which bits they want to drop and which bits we want to drop.

Finally, the Prime Minister struck absolutely the right tone. He made it clear that Britain wants to be in the EU, but that we want Europe to change. He said that Britain will play its role as a genuine leader and challenge Europe to face up to its failures and make that change. To those who say that is impossible, I say that we should reject such defeatism. People used to say that the euro was inevitable; it was not. There is no such thing as historical inevitability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), who has been an isolated and lonely voice of sanity on the Government Benches this afternoon.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), I am fascinated by the modern-day Conservative party’s obsession with Europe. We only have to mention the word “Europe” to send many Conservative Members into an act of communal or self-flagellation. As my hon. Friend said, however, that has not always been the case. The major changes in our relationship with Europe were introduced by Conservative Governments. They took us into Europe, and it was Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act.

Now, however, the Conservative party holds to a little Englander narrative, which goes as follows: Europe is a foreign place that is anti our culture and somehow does things to poor old little Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that we are an island off the continent of Europe, but we are part of Europe. For centuries, we spoke French, not English, and we even speak Norman French at the Prorogation of each Parliament. Our royal family has a proud German history and heritage, too. It is therefore plain wrong to argue that Europe is somehow alien to our culture. It is part of our history, and it is in our DNA, too, as the blood of people from Europe who have settled here flows through our veins. All this also influences the decisions we take: if we go down to the Members’ car park, we can see the most fervent anti-Europeans driving French and German-made cars.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said what is important is inward investment and access to the European market. I completely agree. The EU is vital for jobs in my region of the north-east, and also for our future prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made a point about structural funds, too. They made a real difference when the last Conservative Government ripped the heart out of the north-east economy. This is not only about manufacturing, however; it is about access to financial markets, too, and liberating the European telecommunications market, which cannot be done from the sidelines.

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is making a strong argument about our being an English-speaking gateway to Europe, but we are not the only one. There is also the Republic of Ireland, so we must be on our toes and make decisions at the centre of Europe.

[Mr Jones]

That is true, which is why current policies and statements are potentially putting us at a competitive disadvantage.

There are those who argue we would be better off outside Europe, and that we should have an in/out referendum now. I respect that position—although I totally disagree with it—but that is not what is before us. It is worse than that. We will have five or more years of indecision because this Prime Minister has put party advantage ahead of Britain’s national interest. We will have five years of companies looking at Britain and asking themselves, “Should we invest? Can we be sure Britain is going to be part of Europe?” The Prime Minister will not even tell us what the red lines in respect of Europe are going to be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said earlier, they will involve, for example, driving employment rights down to the bottom to try to ensure that we are competitive with the rest of the world.

Europe is our major trading partner and we need to be at the centre of it. We will not achieve that by standing on the sidelines, or, as this Prime Minister seems to do, by threatening to take our bat and ball home if we do not get our own way.

Much has been said about the free movement of people throughout Europe. This is nothing new. I grew up in the region of the north Nottinghamshire coalfields and went to school with people with Italian and Polish names—the children of people who had settled there after the second world war. Conservative Members who represent areas such as Lincolnshire will be aware that many generations of immigrant workers have come there to pick fruit and other agricultural produce. That has added to, not taken away from, this country’s prosperity.

[Mark Hendrick]

My hon. Friend, coming has he does from the north-east, will remember the “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” generation who went to work in Germany because they could not find work in this country under the Thatcher regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When the Tyne shipyards were decimated by the last Conservative Government, most of the welders and other skilled workers got work in Holland and other parts of the EU, and those skills continue to be exported today.

It is important to remember that being part of, at the centre of, Europe is in this country’s interest. On the idea that Europe is doing things to us—that the Commission tells Britain what to do—Conservative Members tend to forget the nature of the decision-making process. What on earth do Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers go to Council of Ministers meetings for, if not to influence debate? Similarly, the last treaty actually changed the role of the European Parliament. I have my criticisms of the way it operates, but at least it increased the so-called democratic voice in decision-making processes.

Are we going to end up with a two-speed Europe? If we continue as we are, we certainly will, because our voice will be ignored in Europe. There are some changes that could be made. I am not one of those who argue for a federal Europe; I am arguing strongly that we need to be an active and loud voice, speaking up for what is in Britain’s national interest: the single market and the security that Europe offers this country.

There will be changes to, for example, the eurozone, but I should remind the Conservatives that we are not part of the single currency. Change will happen, and we need to be part of a constructive, positive dialogue. Standing at the sidelines stamping our feet, saying that we must get our way on every single thing or we will take our bat and ball home—in some instances, the Government do not even know what it is they want their way on—is not the way to get the economy out of the dire straits this Government have got it into.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Certainly, I discussed the wider region. In particular, we had a detailed discussion about the situation in Syria. I absolutely condemn the Syrian regime’s actions over recent days, particular in relation to the city of Deraa and similar places that have been under attack by the Syrian army. I have urged the Arab League to take a strong line on this. Arab League Foreign Ministers are meeting on Thursday. After the contact group meeting in Rome, they will meet in Cairo, and they will discuss Syria then.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the situation in Libya.

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

I have regular discussions with Secretary Clinton on the situation in Libya, as on all other international issues. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has similar discussions with President Obama, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was in Washington last week. I look forward to seeing Secretary Clinton in Rome on Thursday.

[Mr Jones]

Has the Foreign Secretary had discussions with his American counterparts on the possibility of arms being smuggled to the Gaddafi regime from countries neighbouring Libya? Has there been an intelligence assessment yet about the possible influence of anti-western elements that might want to exacerbate the situation in Libya?

[Mr Hague]

Certainly, I have had discussions with Secretary Clinton and representatives of many other nations about the smuggling of arms or mercenaries into Libya by land routes. That is under discussion. I do not have anything to announce today about it, but clearly where such things are taking place, they are in breach of UN Security Council resolutions, so we reserve the right to take action. We have made representations to neighbouring countries in connection with these matters, and we will certainly continue to pursue them.

European Union Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

With the greatest respect, we have already had one intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would be kind enough to wait.

It would be ironic to say the least if the slogan “Working together in the national interest”, which we saw at our party conference, were to become “Working together against the national interest”. I do not believe that any Member of Parliament or any Minister would agree that the coalition—a “temporary alliance”, according to the “Oxford English Dictionary”—should be employed in any way to pass legislation that would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Incidentally, I am somewhat appalled at the lack of coverage not of this debate but of the European Scrutiny Committee report when it came out, given the fundamental nature of the issues at stake, and the quality of analysis not only in the report itself but in the evidence given to us by probably the most distinguished constitutional experts in the land.

I will turn first to the constitutional and legal issues that clause 18 raises and which were carefully considered for several weeks by the European Scrutiny Committee, which received evidence on a completely even-handed basis, which, because of the fundamental importance of the issues to our constitution and our democracy, was well worth doing. In the course of the proceedings it became clear that many of the constitutional experts concerned felt that, at the very least, clause 18 was completely unnecessary. The most compelling evidence—the evidence that we received from Professors Tomkins and Goldsworthy, along with a number of others—was that clause 18 was hazardous and dangerous, particularly in the light of the Government’s assertions.

The issue of parliamentary sovereignty has been a matter of fundamental concern, importance and action since the 17th century. However, parliamentary sovereignty acquired a special and fundamental significance with the extension of the franchise in the mid-19th century, from the Reform Act of 1867 onwards—for example, through the Reform Acts of 1885 and 1884—and is undoubtedly the democratic basis of the United Kingdom constitution. However, irrespective of its now democratic basis, parliamentary sovereignty has become increasingly questioned recently—and only very recently—by reason of judicial assertions. Although on the tin, as well as in many repeated statements, we were told—I refer now to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches—that we would be getting a sovereignty clause or even a sovereignty Bill, clause 18 is emphatically not a sovereignty clause. For reasons that I will explain, the clause will actually undermine parliamentary sovereignty by encouraging judicial supremacy. The explanatory notes put forward the dangerous notion that parliamentary sovereignty is a “common law principle”, and therefore subject to judicial authority. However, even if the explanatory notes were disavowed on this matter, the problem of judicial assertions relating to parliamentary sovereignty would not disappear.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues stood in the election on a manifesto that said on page 114:

“We will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.”

Is he therefore disappointed that the Government have binned that part of the manifesto that he stood on?

[Mr Cash]

Not disappointed—absolutely appalled.

The sovereignty of Parliament is the most important principle of the United Kingdom constitution, and has been since 1688, as confirmed by constitutional authorities without question until very recently. Indeed, the greatest judge in recent times, the late Lord Bingham, who died only a few months ago, stated in the Jackson case in 2005:

“The bedrock of the British constitution is…the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament.”

I fear that the sovereignty of Parliament is in grave danger, however. There are judges in the Supreme Court whom Lord Bingham himself felt it necessary to name in black and white in chapter 10 of his book “The Rule of Law”, published shortly before his death. He publicly criticised their judgments and their attitude to parliamentary sovereignty. In the Jackson case, Lord Hope, who is now deputy president of the Supreme Court, said that

“parliamentary sovereignty is no longer…absolute”.

He went on to say that, “step by step”, it “is being qualified”. In his view, the rule of law, enforced by the courts, is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based. Lady Hale, who also remains on the Supreme Court, agreed with Lord Hope.

The fact that that case did not relate specifically to EU law does not alter the fact that the views expressed by Supreme Court judges can be as easily applied to cases involving EU law as to another judicial matter, contrary to the suggestions being put forward by the Minister in evidence earlier. It is not an answer to the question, as the Prime Minister has sought to suggest in a letter to me, for the Minister for Europe to state in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee that the Government are not seeking, and have never sought, to provide

“an all-embracing doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.”

The Supreme Court justices, who have a process of selection outside the Judicial Appointments Commission, have a significant critical mass of those with profoundly Eurocentric credentials. I mention this because the sovereignty of Parliament, which is a constitutional doctrine of the United Kingdom, is also under threat by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. The construction placed on legislation emanating from that Act affects the daily lives of the electorate in almost every sphere of present-day activity. According to the Government themselves, such legislation affects at least 50% of all economic laws in the United Kingdom, including those that impose burdens on businesses small and large that, according to the best estimates, have cost £124 billion since 1998.

The threat comes not only from the common law radicalism of such judges but from the EU law itself, which claims constitutional supremacy over member states’ constitutions. We have also seen cases of terrorists appearing to get away with things and people not being deported when they should have been, as well as a whole range of other matters occurring under the European Human Rights Act, which, as I have said, is mirrored by the new charter of fundamental rights in the Lisbon treaty. We are witnessing a vast increase in the volume and impact of such legislation on the British people, and this is resulting in the anxieties I have described. Those anxieties could be allayed by my amendments, however, and it is time for us to turn the tide and make it clear exactly where we stand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and correct point. There is concern in this House that it does not control the laws of the nation, because so many laws come from Europe. That brings me to my key concern.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman stated that he wants to revisit our membership of the European Union. I know that he is a new Member, but he stood for election in May on a manifesto—perhaps he opted out of this part of it—that stated:

“We will be positive members of the European Union”.

It also stated:

“We believe Britain’s interests are best served by membership of a European Union”.

It went on to say:

“A Conservative government will play an active and energetic role in the European Union to advance these causes.”

Did he not believe in that part of the manifesto when he stood in May?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Allow me to explain. I did not say that I believe that we should pull out of the European Union tomorrow—[Interruption.] I did not say that. I said that underpinning this debate is a question about our future membership. I do not believe that I should be responsible for pulling us out of the European Union; that is a matter that the British people should decide in a referendum, if and when such a referendum is ever put to them. I reject entirely the idea of a European federation that mimics the United States, and of an autonomous legal system that governs that federation and is imposed automatically, as a corpus, on every member state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Personally, I believe that it is wrong to see EU law as having primacy. I underline again that the UK Parliament is sovereign, and has decided to be part of the EU and allow its laws into our national life through the medium of the European Communities Act 1972. Equally, it is abundantly clear that the UK Parliament could change that position. To my mind, clause 18 amounts to a codification of that principle, which is clear from the Factortame case and from the metric martyrs, Thoburn case. In the latter case, as Members will recall and as paragraph 107 of the explanatory notes explains, it was argued that EU law

“includes the entrenchment of its own supremacy as an autonomous legal order”.

That argument was rejected. It is an important principle to understand: there is no autonomous legal entrenchment from the European Union. It is taken into account and part of our law only because we have made it so.

I can do no better than quote Lord Justice Laws, who hit the nail on the head. He said:

“Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the European Communities Act.”

When I was a law student, studying my books, I always viewed Professor Dicey’s principle as giving voice to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It is quite simple—I always thought of it as: the last Act to hit the statute book takes precedence. If it says anything different from a previous Act, the latter is discarded to that extent.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is not it also important in the case of the metric martyrs, Thoburn v. Sunderland city council, to note that it reinforced the fundamental point that European law could not limit Parliament in enacting legislation? The judgment reinforced the sovereignty point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments are inaccurate, because we did not give a commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty; we gave a commitment to have a referendum if there was a constitution, and there never was a constitution.

We have heard a long and well-argued speech by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Although many of us on this side of the House would not agree with many of his views, we recognise that the European Scrutiny Committee, and he himself, have done much to ensure that this House will give proper consideration to the Bill. I have to say that I was shocked that the Prime Minister allegedly tried to block the hon. Gentleman’s appointment as Chair of the Committee. I was a member of that Committee for several years, alongside the hon. Gentleman, and I was pleased that when this Bill was presented to Parliament on 11 November last year, the Committee immediately announced its intention to conduct an inquiry and produce a report on the sovereignty clause before the Bill’s Second Reading. This report was extremely helpful during the Second Reading debate, and I am sure that all hon. Members will also find it useful for today’s debate.

I note that it is the intention of the Committee to publish further reports on aspects of the Bill, and I welcome that too. It is important to note that this is the first occasion on which the Committee has conducted pre-legislative scrutiny; I hope that its work is recognised by the Government and that the practice will be more widely adopted. Even more importantly, I sincerely hope that the Government will change the Bill in the light of the Committee’s report.

I have two disappointments. The first is that the Government did not allow the Committee sufficient time between First and Second Readings to hold thorough public evidence sessions. Given that the Committee stage of the Bill is being drawn out over several weeks—indeed, we do not even officially know when the other Committee days will be held—it is clear that the Government are in no rush to put this Bill on the statute book. Why then did they not allow the Committee more time for its evidence sessions? Are they afraid of more scrutiny?

My other disappointment is that the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to give evidence to the Committee. If he is so sure that his Bill is as robust as he says, why would he not appear before the Committee, put his case and answer questions? We all know that the reality of the Bill does not match the rhetoric that the Government employed. This so-called sovereignty clause is not what its advocates claim it is. It does not challenge the supremacy of European law; nor should it. It does not alter the nature of European law, change the relationship of European law or elevate the sovereignty of Parliament to a higher level.

In fact, what is most striking about the sovereignty clause is that it does not even mention the word “sovereignty”. It is simply a reaffirmation of the status quo. As the explanatory notes admit, this is merely a declaratory clause. It reflects the dualist nature of the UK’s constitutional model, by which I mean that EU law has effect in the UK only because of a decision taken by Parliament. In this case, the relevant legislation is the European Communities Act 1972. That is what clause 18 confirms, and as such it is nothing more than an exercise in legislative tautology—a puffed-up reiteration of what the law of the land already states.

So why have the Govt chosen to draft this clause? The reason we have been given is, in part, in the explanatory notes, which explain that in the metric martyrs case—Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council 2002—an attempt was made by counsel for Sunderland city council, Eleanor Sharpston QC, who is now the Advocate General at the Court of Justice, to argue before the divisional court that the binding effect of the EC treaty in domestic law depended, in part, on the higher principle of the supremacy of EU law. Eleanor Sharpston argued that the EC treaty did not owe its authority wholly to an Act of Parliament. That doubt, expressed by one individual in one case, is being used by the Govt to try to justify this clause.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the case also clearly rejected the notion that EU institutions or legislation could somehow limit the powers of Parliament?

[Mr David]

Indeed, and that is my next point. Significantly, the argument made by Eleanor Sharpston QC was rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy was not in the manifesto, although it might have been in the personal manifestos of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I gave it as an example because I believe it has a great deal of cross-party support. Most people think the common fisheries policy is extremely badly run and is not in the interests of the fish or the fishermen. Casting all those dead fish back into the sea is not my idea of conservation and it does not bring cheap fish to the fish market either, so it does not seem to be good news.

Successive Governments have always said that they quite agree with those of us who make such points, but they have never managed to negotiate a better deal. Would it not be wonderful if the Government said, “If we cannot negotiate a better deal next year, we will use British parliamentary sovereignty to pull out of the CFP”? I would like to do that and I do not think it would be tantamount to leaving the European Union. It would be pretty cross, but it would probably do a deal with us because it would be more embarrassing to have a sovereign Parliament taking unilateral legislative action than to do a deal. I hope the EU would do a deal; it would be sensible for it to do so.

If we are not prepared at some point to assert our power, we lose our sovereignty. Just as the Crown lost its sovereignty, became the Crown in Parliament and eventually lost practically all its real powers, so this Parliament is losing its powers. If it goes on losing them, without sensible provision being made of the kind proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and without at some point standing up for a better deal for Britain, this Parliament, too, will no longer be sovereign.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate the European Scrutiny Committee on its excellent report. I commend it for the clarity with which it looked at the Bill and for the evidence it took. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) that it was disappointing that the Foreign Secretary did not deem it necessary to come before the Committee to explain why this Bill is so important.

Basically, the Bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is full of contradictions. On the one hand, it tries to constrain the sovereignty of Parliament by committing future Parliaments to referendums; on the other, through clause 18 it tries to put on the statute book support for parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 18 makes no difference whatever. That is the important point to be made here, and one that was made in the excellent European Scrutiny Committee report.

The reason for the Bill and for clause 18 was evident in some of the earlier contributions, particularly in the speech of the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer in his place. It is to placate the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party—something that it is completely failing to do, judging by the smiles on the faces of some Opposition Members and by some of the earlier contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman had spoken to me a couple of days after the general election, he would know that my views were very clear—that under no circumstances would I want a union with the Liberal Democrats. Part of me feels sorry for individual Conservative Members as they have to work with a party with which they are not at all comfortable and sacrifice some things that were very dear to them.

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

On this side of the House, we work with the Liberal Democrats, and there is one aspect of their manifesto on which my Conservative colleagues—certainly those on the Back Benches—are happy to work, and that is their very clear manifesto commitment to an “in or out” referendum on the EU.

[Mr Jones]

If there is a referendum, it will be interesting to observe the actions of the coalition. As on many other occasions, it will behave rather like Dr Dolittle’s pushmi-pullyu. Let us be honest: the hon. Gentleman and others are unlikely to agree with the Liberal Democrats on most European issues, given their clear view that nasty foreigners across the water are somehow doing terrible things to this Parliament and this country.

[Mr MacShane]

Is there not an alternative reading of the manifestos? The Liberals’ “in or out” referendum offer led to their losing five seats, while the Conservatives’ isolationist sovereignty Bill offer led to their failure to secure a majority. I suspect that if the Conservatives had remained true to their vocation of being internationalists, they might have secured that majority. It was their Euroscepticism that gave them only 303 seats. That is an alternative reading of all the figures that have been given.

[Mr Jones]

I imagine that it is, but the real point about the modern Conservative party is that it has not changed. It is virulently anti-Europe. At the time of the election, however, the Conservatives had to give the impression that they had put all that behind them.

Another view—amplified by the hon. Member for Dover—is that these nasty people in Europe do things to Britain in which our Parliament has no say, and that if we do not stand up and make token gestures such as this, those nasty foreigners will take away the rights that we have developed over many centuries. It should not be forgotten that, early in this country’s history, the Norman invaders spoke Norman French, and for a long time northern France was part of England.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman has made a compelling point about Conservative Back Benchers, but is not part of the problem the fact that the Notting Hill set—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary—agree with the Liberal Democrats more than they agree with their own party? That may be why the Prime Minister has been so enthusiastic about spending much more time with the Deputy Prime Minister than with fellow members of the Conservative party.

[Mr Jones]

I would not wish to encroach on private grief—

[Mr MacShane]

Private pleasure!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

In some cases, possibly. However, it is clear that some members of the Conservative party feel more comfortable with Europe than many of those who are present this evening.

It is important to establish what clause 18 does and does not do. Members who have not read the report from the European Scrutiny Committee will find the details well worth examining. According to paragraph 81:

“Clause 18 is a reaffirmation of the role of a sovereign Parliament in a dualist state, nothing more, nothing less.”

The suggestion in the explanatory notes that—as has already been said—clause 18 will put an end to the notion that these nasty Europeans will do things to us is not justified.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I did not intend to intervene, but my hon. Friend keeps talking about “nasty Europeans” as if this were an international issue. May I suggest to him that criticisms of the European Union, rather than of Europe, are strong among working people in Europe, including trade unionists? That is evidenced by the referendum defeats incurred by Europhiles who have tried to push through measures that are unacceptable.

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree. I am another of those who are willing to criticise European institutions on grounds of waste and the untransparent way in which some things are done. The fact is, however, that—as has been made clear today—some Conservative Back Benchers, along with mainstream Conservative associations, believe that Europe is a thoroughly bad thing. I am sorry, but I do not share that view.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the duty of every elected Member of the House of Commons is to defend and protect the sovereignty of this Parliament?

[Mr Jones]

I think that the duty of the elected House of Commons is not to try to hoodwink the public into believing—although the sovereignty and primacy of the House of Commons are self-evident—that the Bill will bolster our credentials, when that is clearly not the case.

Members who really want to change things, and to prevent the primacy of EU legislation, should try to amend the European Communities Act 1972. EU law is enacted by this Parliament, although anyone listening to some hon. Members today and some commentators outside might believe that it had no role in it whatsoever. The primacy of EU law over national law is clearly enshrined in the 1972 Act, which was passed by this Parliament. It can also be amended by this Parliament. I should be happy for those who obviously do not wish us to remain in Europe to table an amendment to that effect—that would be the proper thing for them to do—but clause 18 merely reiterates what is already there, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.

As the European Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 82 of its report states,

“Clause 18 does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law.”

The idea that passing the clause would somehow enshrine, or protect, the sovereignty of the House is complete and utter nonsense. Paragraph 82 continues:

“The evidence we received makes plain that these two spheres of law coexist, usually peacefully, clashing occasionally. When they do clash, neither side gives way. The Court of Justice of the EU maintains that EU law has primacy over national law, including national constitutional law.”

That is clear from the ruling in the case of Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council.

I find it disturbing that some Members appear to believe that the courts have no role in the interpretation of law. As one of my hon. Friends observed earlier, the laws that we pass in relation to Europe are interpreted over time, and that is the role of the courts. It would be completely wrong for Parliament to interfere directly in the interpretation of a law once it had been passed. European law is no different from other laws in the sense that there are various possible interpretations of it. The Thoburn case made it clear that European law could not direct what the House of Commons could do in terms of making its own laws.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in the Chamber, my hon. Friend has made a point about lawyers’ interpreting law and having scope to do so within statute. Parliament does not deliberately leave scope for lawyers to interpret the law—it tries to make its legislation fairly precise—but sometimes it is not precise enough, and at that point the lawyers intervene to interpret it. Parliament does not deliberately make laws open-ended so that lawyers can have a field day.

[Mr Jones]

No, but it has been suggested that the courts should have no role in the passing of laws, and I simply do not agree with that, although I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

There is a danger that amendment 41, and indeed new clause 1, will enable lawyers to interpret the meaning of “sovereignty”, and that the clearly defined roles and sovereignty of the House of Commons will be interpreted by judges, which would be wrong. Clause 18 has been tabled purely for political reasons, to placate people such as the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), but I doubt that it will placate them in any way, and I believe that it poses a grave danger

[Mr Bone]

I have had no information from the Prime Minister or the Minister for Europe that this was in any way brought in to placate me.

[Mr Jones]

Knowing the hon. Gentleman’s record, I would have thought the Prime Minister would have given up on him a long time ago. If he is waiting for the call for the red box and the car, I think he will be waiting a very long time.

[Mr MacShane]

No cars.

[Mr Jones]

Well yes, but funnily enough we still see many cars parked outside this building.

The important point about the Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council case is that the council attempted to assert the primacy of EU law and EU legislative and judicial institutions but that was rejected, and that is the case law that is now in place. Therefore, although Eurosceptics in this House and commentators outside suggest that somehow these laws are coming from Europe and they are imposed on us and we have no control over them, that is not the case, so I do not see why we need this point to be reinforced through clause 18. To be fair to the European Scrutiny Committee, it makes the good point that the Thoburn case sets out the law as it is currently interpreted.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he not agree that the European Court of Justice has been saying for decades that it believes it has been creating a new legal order—I cite the Van Gend en Loos judgment of 1963—and we entered into that through the European Communities Act 1972? Therefore, we have already impinged to some degree on our parliamentary sovereignty.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman needs to realise that it was this House that passed the 1972 Act that took us into that. If we want to amend it, we can do so by treaty. We could also have said at the time that we were not going to accept certain parts of the treaty negotiations. However, it is not the case that some far-off distant land is imposing things on this country. I know Conservative Members do not like the 1972 Act, but at least it was this Parliament that passed it. That is the important point.

This topic was covered by the European Scrutiny Committee, which says:

“If Parliament wills it may legislate to override the European Communities Act 1972 or the EU Treaties by repealing them”

or

“amending them”.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am slightly foxed. Does not sovereignty mean that if we do not like it, we do not do it, and if we cannot do it and we do not like it, we can change it? Is that not implied by the 1972 Act that was passed by this Parliament? Therefore, if we do not want to do it, this House is sovereign and will not do it. Is that not what we are talking about?

[Mr Jones]

There is a mechanism by which the House can do that. That mechanism is to amend the 1972 Act or the subsequent treaties. I know it might disappoint the hon. Gentleman to hear this—although perhaps his local association is one of the most pro-European—but we must explain to people how the system through which European law becomes national law in this country actually works. It is not the case that it arrives in an envelope on the Prime Minister’s desk one week, and then it is just adopted. Different countries interpret and combine European legislation and laws into their national legislation in different ways, and in the past our country has been accused of gold-plating certain regulations and other measures.

It is not the case that sovereignty is endangered by Europe. There are powers open to us to change the treaties or Acts if we wish to do so. It is strange that there is a later clause in this Bill on referendums. Strangely, it will bind future Governments and Parliaments to referendums on a range of issues. That is trying to look too far into the future, and many people might object to such a future referendum.

[Andrew Bridgen]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the clause on referendums and looking too far into the future, does he not agree that that measure is in place because we are in fact looking into the past as the last Government refused the people the referendum that they had promised?

[Mr Jones]

I do not want to go down that route, but I think that point has already been dealt with very well. We did not do what we are being accused of having done. [Interruption.] I do sometimes worry about some Conservative Members, as they must have to lie down in a darkened room and take sedatives after having got themselves so frothed up and excitable about the Lisbon treaty somehow being the end of the world as we know it. Unfortunately for them, the end of the world has not happened because of the implementation of the Lisbon treaty.

[Mr MacShane]

For the sake of some of our new distinguished colleagues, it might be worth while if we remind ourselves that a promise was made on a referendum on the constitutional treaty, but that was killed by the French and the Dutch. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is now Secretary of State for Defence, said at the Dispatch Box that he was a doctor and he knew death when he saw it. That constitutional treaty is dead, and we cannot have a referendum on a dead parrot.

[Mr Jones]

I am sure, however, that some Conservative Members would have such a referendum if they could—although I would not like to challenge some of them to do that. [Interruption.] No, I do not want to go down that route.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. I hold to the strong belief that if I wait long enough we shall return to clause 18.

[Mr Jones]

My mind has been set off with thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) doing various things with dead parrots, but I shall try to resist any temptation to go down that route.

The European Scrutiny Committee was clear about clause 18:

“Clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause in the manner claimed by the Government, and the whole premise on which it has been included in the Bill is, in our view, exaggerated. We are gravely concerned that for political reasons it has been portrayed by the Government as a sovereignty clause in correspondence and also in the Explanatory Notes”.

I would be concerned if, because of what has been said tonight, the explanatory notes are amended during the Bill’s passage, because that might mean we do not have proper explanatory notes, and it might have an impact on our being able to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly.

The Committee also states that the Foreign Secretary was so confident of this clause that he would not appear before the Committee. I think that is wrong. To ensure that the Executive are properly scrutinised, Cabinet Ministers should appear before any Select Committee or inquiry that invites them to do so, and I cannot understand why he chose not to do so on this occasion.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that clause 18 is a smokescreen to stop the real debate taking place both in this House and the country. Does he agree that we will not establish a real position to the satisfaction of the electorate until we either allow the electorate to have a referendum on some of the big issues to do with Europe and the European Union or one of the three main parties puts in their manifesto a genuinely more Eurosceptical position that is even more in line with the majority view in this country?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but interestingly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned, the Conservatives failed to do that. Obviously, they were trying to decontaminate the Conservative brand and thought that one of the elements of doing so was not saying nasty things about Europe. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that if any major constitutional changes in respect of Europe are made in future, referendums will be important. The hon. Member for Dover hinted that every so many years we should have a fundamental referendum on whether we are in or out of the European Community. That is completely wrong and does not help this country’s standing in Europe. We have a settled position in Europe and it would be best if we moved on to dealing with what is important for people on Europe. As my hon. Friend said, that is about what Europe delivers for this country and issues associated with accountability and transparency, which need to be addressed.

Amendment 41 states:

“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.”

If we are reaffirming this sovereignty, we are starting from the premise that it already exists. I am not sure, but the phrasing of the amendment may belie the fact that sovereignty is in no danger from Europe. The fudge in the Bill was included because of the coalition agreement or because once the Foreign Office lawyers got hold of the Conservative manifesto they realised that what was being promised in a sovereignty Bill was complete nonsense. It was obviously very useful for political purposes but was not needed or enforceable in terms of what is in place at the moment.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that when people reaffirm their marriage vows they are not actually married already?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have completely misunderstood the point that I was making. If someone is reaffirming something, be it marriage or, in this case, sovereignty, they recognise that it was there in the first place. So I cannot see the point of what he is trying to say.

Clearly, clause 18 has come about for political reasons. An honourable attempt is being made to get at least something out of the clause through the proposal for annual reporting. Amendment 52 states:

“The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report on the extent to which in the previous 12 months the provisions of subsection (1) have been challenged or questioned in the courts, including the European Court of Justice, identifying any challenge to the declaration contained in that subsection that the status of EU law is dependent on the continuing statutory basis provided by the European Communities Act 1972.”

That would at least ensure that we would be dealing with facts, rather than what we deal with on many occasions in the press and, increasingly, from Eurosceptic members of the Conservative party. They believe that if something is said enough times, people will believe it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I had moved on to dealing with a new point, but I am willing to go back. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I can now mention a couple of issues in response. First, any law passed in this country will be interpreted by the courts. If they do something that we do not agree with, this House has the power to change it. The danger with including the sovereignty argument in clause 18 is that courts would then have debates about sovereignty, and that would be strange. How would this House then be able to change the law or interpret a court’s interpretation of sovereignty?

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

I believe that what Lord Hope is saying is that this House could pass an Act that was not, in itself, lawful. What amendment 41 would achieve is a reassertion of the fact that this House could not do anything of the kind and that any act of this House is superior to any judgment of any court. If these arrangements are based on the rule of law, rather than the supremacy of Parliament, the judges could always overrule Parliament, and that is extraordinarily dangerous.

[Mr Jones]

Judges often do overrule Parliament on the interpretation of the law. The danger of going down the line that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that we might be saying that when we pass a law it could never be challenged or changed. Would we be saying that every law passed in this Parliament is perfect and will never be in need of amendment or interpretation? As has been said, the entire case law of this country and the way in which we have developed laws in this country has resulted from people challenging laws, including in terms of European legislation. The Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council case clarified the position. I am not a lawyer, but I have employed many lawyers over the years at great expense and so I know that they will argue different ways around things. Sometimes they will do so to make a point, but on other occasions they will do so to get their fees up. On laws such as this or on health and safety legislation, which was the area that I was involved in, case law precedents always develop. In the cases I was involved in, that went on to bring justice to many people who had been involved in the asbestos industry. The important question is: do we really want judges to start giving interpretations of sovereignty? That is the danger in what the hon. Member for Stone is proposing in his amendment.

May I return to what I was discussing before I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd)? I am always pleased to take interventions from him because, as he knows, I am a great fan. Amendment 52 would be useful, not only for the debate, but as a safeguard. If we were in a situation where we thought that European law was somehow infringing on not only the rights and liberties of our citizens, but the activities of this House, it would be important. This is not an ideal situation. The Government are always talking about unnecessary legislation and it is possible that this entire Bill is just that. Clause 18 certainly is unnecessary because it simply declares what is already the case. That is an important point. There is an idea that the Government have dressed this up and that they are going to make some great fundamental change or are going to protect against any changes in European law, but that is not the case at all. It is also important to make it clear that future Parliaments will interpret European law and will disagree with what is being put forward in this Bill. We cannot allow this Parliament to leave future Parliaments hamstrung in relation to freedoms.

In conclusion, clause 18 was introduced as a political fudge and I doubt whether it will placate the red-blooded, anti-Europe sceptics on the Tory Back Benches. Neither will it placate the commentators in the press who want us to withdraw from Europe. The clear option is to amend the 1972 Act, which would be more honest. This has exposed the Prime Minister not only in that the detoxification of the Conservative brand clearly has not taken place but because, judging by tonight’s attendance, it has put him on a collision course with large sections of his own Back Benchers. As this Parliament goes on, we will increasingly see the true nature of the new Conservative intake.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) mentioned marriage. That was a good point because renewing one’s marriage vows does not make one’s marriage any stronger. That is what we should talk about. It is what one does with and in one’s marriage that matters, and the same applies to this sovereignty issue. Renewing our commitment to sovereignty will not mean that we are more sovereign. That is the thrust of my speech.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

At least when people renew their marriage vows, they might have a party or celebration afterwards, but the measure would simply reiterate something that already exists, so there would be no party or feel-good factor afterwards. There might be a feel-good factor to some in the Conservative party, but that is about it.

[Neil Carmichael]

We in the Conservative party are always celebrating, especially with our coalition partners, the success of our Government, so we have lots to celebrate. The hon. Gentleman is right about the renewal of marriage vows being a cause for celebration, but I am not entirely sure that we will be drinking champagne when we have defeated this amendment and passed the Act.

The point is that if something exists, we do not need to keep reaffirming it. Funnily enough, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was absolutely right about the wording of the amendment: if one reaffirms something, one effectively admits that it is already there. Something I have noticed during the past three and half hours I have spent in this debate, except for the brief moment when I had a drink, is that clause 18, as drafted, is required because there is so much misunderstanding about what sovereignty is and what power Parliament has. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) spoke, we deviated into the 1600s in connection with the outcome and causes of the English civil war, but the real issue there was the relationship between the King and Parliament. We must remember that the monarchy is still part of Parliament, because an Act does not become an Act until it has received Royal Assent.

Another, much more interesting, dimension of this discussion is the transfer from kingdom to nation state. That has rather more to do with sovereignty than our involvement in the European Union. Suppose that we wanted to leave the European Union—we would simply repeal the European Communities Act 1972. We are not going to do that, but that is what we would have to do. But what if Essex wanted to leave England? How would that unfold? That would be a completely different situation and would bite at the issue of sovereignty. It is important to get right this issue of what sovereignty is. The shadow Minister started to speak about that and the very fact that we are debating it proves that we should not use the word sovereignty in the Bill because it will lead to a need for interpretation.

It is also important that instead of talking about sovereignty, as we have for the past three hours, we ought to discuss what Parliament should be doing to make a difference in the European Union, if that is what we really want. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham did not really answer the question he was asked about the common fisheries policy. The matter is very simple: if we did not want to be in the CFP, we would have to say so and pass appropriate legislation having made the necessary agreement with our European partners. It would no doubt be messy and would certainly be complicated, but it would not be prevented by our no longer being sovereign because we are. Parliament has the power to take the decisions necessary to bring about such an outcome.

It is important to focus on what Parliament does rather than on what we think it is. That is the difference. This discussion is about sovereignty, but we have to move away from that specific issue and focus instead on the power and role of Parliament and the way it can influence things. At the end of the day, if we decided to leave the European Union, we would have to repeal the 1972 Act, which some people might want to do. Others might want to reform or restructure it in some way—we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) that that would, to some extent, be his direction of travel—but the most important thing for us to do is define the national interest and pursue it relentlessly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) talked about the national interest and Disraeli’s description of the Conservative party as always being the national party. That is what we have to do, and that is what the Conservative party, with our Liberal Democrat partners, will continue to do—try to shape a role for Britain that is constructive but without allowing the European Union to be too intrusive on how we proceed. That is the best way that we can act as a Government.

Christopher Rochester

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be able to raise again the case of Christopher Rochester in the House. It is nine years since I first raised this case, and it saddens me that a conclusion has not yet been reached, and closure has not yet been brought for Christopher’s family.

Christopher Rochester was a young man of 24 from Chester-le-Street in my constituency. In June 2000 he travelled to Rhodes for a summer break, as thousands of young people do every year. Tragically, on 11 June he fell from a balcony in the apartment block where he was staying. Despite falling some 100 feet on to a concrete patio, he survived—and, having visited the site, I have to say that it is remarkable that he did so. Tragically, however, he died some hours later, because of the neglect of the medical staff at the Andreas Papandreou hospital on the island of Rhodes. This was a needless and avoidable death, because it was due, in the words of Professor Redmond, who gave expert evidence at the inquiry, to the

“appalling negligence of the staff on duty that night at the Andreas Papandreou Hospital.”

Christopher’s mother, Pam Cummings, was not one to let her son’s death go unchallenged. Since that tragic day in 2000, Pam and her family have fought to get answers and bring those responsible for Christopher’s death to book. Since first meeting Pam, I have been struck not only by her determination, but by her true spirit and her desire to ensure that what happened to her son will not happen to anyone else. I want to put on record my admiration for her and her family, who have supported her over the past 10 years. Many others would have given up, but for Pam’s will and her spirit in leading the campaign to get justice for Christopher. Last year Pam finally got the Greek Supreme Court to ensure that the individuals responsible were brought to book, and they were charged and found guilty of manslaughter through neglect. That was not an easy fight, nor was it financially inexpensive to reach that point, but it vindicated the family’s case that the authorities at the Andreas Papandreou hospital neglected and let down that young man.

However, that was not the conclusion to this tragic case, although it did bring some closure for Pam and her family. When Christopher’s body was returned from Greece, one of his kidneys had been removed and was missing. Devastated at the news, Mrs Cummings contacted my predecessor—Giles Radice, now Lord Radice—who, with the assistance of the British consulate in Rhodes, got the Andreas Papandreou hospital to send the kidney back to UK via the consulate. When the kidney arrived at the University hospital of North Durham, for some unexplained reason Mrs Cummings asked for it to be DNA tested. The test was carried out by a leading genetic service agency in the north-east called North Gene. To her horror, her suspicions were proved right: the kidney did not belong to her son Christopher. Rightly, Mrs Cummings and her family want to know what happened to Christopher’s kidney.

The first response of the Greek authorities would have been laughable if the subject were not so serious. They claimed that the staff at the British consulate on Rhodes had somehow mixed up the kidney when it was being transported—obviously because of the large numbers of kidneys that they have there. Frankly, that is ridiculous and unacceptable.

I assisted Mrs Cummings and her family and pursued the case with the help of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As a result, the Greek authorities have agreed to have the kidney residing in the University hospital of North Durham tested independently in a third country, in this case Belgium. The problem is that the Greek authorities have been slow in reacting to requests for information made by the family or the FCO. The family have become used to their slowness and inefficiency in dealing with the case, but now they need answers, and we need closure.

One gets the impression that the Greek authorities believe that Mrs Cummings and her family will somehow go away if they delay and put enough obstacles in her way. I want to put it on record that they will not go away—and neither, as their Member of Parliament, will I. I have raised the case directly with the Greek ambassador and with authorities in Greece. I can assure the House that I shall ensure that we do get answers, even if it takes another 10 years.

The Greek authorities have also tried to put cruel obstacles in the way of Mrs Cummings. For example, one matter that recently came to light is a request to have Christopher’s body exhumed after nearly 10 years. All the leading experts in the field say that it is not necessary to exhume his body to obtain a DNA match, as that could be obtained from his mother. I know that Professor Sir John Burns, the leading geneticist in the north-east of England, is appalled by the fact that Mrs Cummings could be put through the indignity and tragedy of having her son’s body exhumed. Despite that, Mrs Cummings is determined to get answers, and she has therefore agreed to the exhumation of Christopher’s body.

One would think that the case would be plain sailing now that that obstacle has been negotiated, but I am sorry to say that it is not. The Greek Ministry of Justice is aware that the Cummings have agreed to the exhumation, but the case is moving at a snail’s pace.

The Home Office wrote to request information from the Greek Ministry of Justice on 29 September 2009 and again on 26 February, but it received no reply. On 4 March, I received a letter from Lord West, the Minister who was then responsible for the case. He said that both the Home Office and the FCO were trying to press the Greek authorities as a matter of urgency for the information that had been requested, so that case could be moved on.

At this point, it is appropriate for me to put on record my thanks to the British embassy staff in Athens for their assistance. I should also like to name two people in the FCO, Jill Bayliss and Amber Adcock, who have been very helpful to me and to Christopher’s family. I hope that the Minister will pass on my personal thanks to those individuals for all the work that they have done in this case. I know that Jill wanted to conclude this case before she moved on to a new post, but unfortunately that was not possible.

The 10th anniversary of Christopher’s death is approaching, and it is time for closure. It is not acceptable that his family do not know what happened to his kidney, and it cannot be right that the kidney of a person who was possibly a Greek citizen now resides in a specimen jar in the University hospital of North Durham.

It is not right that a fellow EU country can simply dismiss these concerns as irrelevant and frustrate the requests for answers from the family. A clear wrong has been committed by individuals at the Andreas Papandreou hospital in removing Christopher’s kidney and, when challenged, replacing it with someone else’s in order to cover up the cause of the neglect that led to his death. Answers need to be given. I do not accept that such disregard for Christopher’s family and for the truth would have been allowed to take place in this country, and it is unacceptable that this approach should be allowed in a fellow EU country such as Greece.

This is a tragic case, and Mrs Cummings and her family have fought hard to get justice for Christopher. Their fight has not been made easy by the Greek authorities, some of whose actions have been nothing short of cruel, in the hope that Mrs Cummings and her family would simply go away. She has demonstrated that she will not go away, and I give the House my commitment tonight that I will not let this case rest until we get the answers that we need. Ten years is a long time, and Mrs Cummings and her family need closure. I thank the FCO again for its assistance in this case, but I also want to ask the Minister to do what he can to ensure that we can move the case on, so that Christopher’s family and Christopher can rest in peace.