European Union (Referendum) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie]

As I said, we are completely united as a party in wanting to give the British people a say. There are differences between us on timing, and I will come to that point in a moment.

It strikes me that, at a time when the majority of our constituents want a referendum before the next election, I have never known a period in British politics when the political establishment has been so disconnected from public opinion, and so remote from, opposed to and out of touch with it. Politicians have wilfully kicked the can further and further down the road, and we will be in danger of doing that again if neither my amendment 3 nor amendment 22 is supported.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

The right hon. Gentleman has massive pro-European credentials, as he puts it, so will he explain why he voted against the Maastricht treaty Bill on Third Reading?

[Mr Hain]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I am about to name-check him—and to answer his question.

The City must be properly consulted, as new schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide, and its concerns, like those of CBI members, need to be understood by the electorate well in advance of a short and compressed campaign so that voters are not bamboozled by newspapers and stampeded into a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I want to make some progress so that others have a chance to speak.

A consultation with the Institute of Directors, the CBI or the independent economic think-tanks would also endorse the notion that joining the EEA would cost Britain about £6 billion. Yes, that is about £1 billion —or 17% less than our membership of the EU—but it is still a large amount in comparison and assumes that our EU partners would, after our departure, be in an open frame of mind to accept us back into some kind of trading relationship. I am sure that the CBI and all the other business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce, would want to have a say on that.

As members of the European economic area, we would still be bound by the regulations that the anti-EU camp denounce. In return for access to the single market, Norway and all the other relevant countries, such as Switzerland and Iceland, must adopt nearly all European Union legislation relevant to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, together with laws in areas such as employment, consumer protection, environmental policy and competition.

There would, of course, be the chance properly to assess such a move. A report would be placed before Parliament and we would spend days debating on the Floor of the House whether to accept the report and the assessment. We would also be able to assess one point made by the CBI, which would also have a greater chance to have its say than it would during the compressed period of a short referendum campaign. That point is that we would also be bound by future European law in those areas, even though we were outside the European Union.

[Mr Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) about the date of 23 October 2014, which has not yet been debated? Does he agree that a referendum on that date would get totally entangled with the Scottish referendum, which will take place only a month before? Furthermore, it is dangerous to choose a specific date, as was the case in 2007 when we had to delay the local elections because of the foot and mouth outbreak. There are a whole stack of reasons for not having a specific date for a referendum.

[Mr Hain]

As in 1992 and 1993, when the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side of the argument on the Maastricht treaty, I completely agree with him. His logic on this point is absolutely faultless, even if it often is not on many other European matters.

I believe—perhaps I am wrong—that all the business organisations, if consulted, would take the view of the CBI report and dismiss a customs union as an alternative to European Union membership—the “Turkey option”—as the very worst of all the halfway alternatives, leaving the UK with very limited EU market access and zero influence over trade deals.

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I thank—and we should all thank—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for bringing such an important issue to the House in such a timely manner. In her three and a half years in the House, she has consistently worked hard to champion oppressed Christians. Many members of the all-party group on religious freedom or belief are present, and I pay tribute to all those who speak up against such oppression. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said that not everyone present in the Chamber is a Christian, and I looked around for humanists or others, but I think probably most of those here are Christian in one way or another; certainly they support religious freedom.

The Government believe that people of all religious faiths or none should be deeply concerned about this issue, which touches on the fundamental human right of the freedom to choose what to believe, how to practise one’s faith and whether to change one’s belief. Such a right should be a precious part of any society. That is why the Government utterly condemn all instances of violence and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their faith or belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asked me to ask the Department for International Development to recognise freedom of religion as a priority, and I shall pass her request on to the Secretary of State, about whom she rightly made some extremely nice points.

I should mention the work done by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a member of the high-level panel advising on the post-2015 millennium development goals. An excellent report has been produced, recognising rights and freedoms as a crucial part of the development debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will also recognise the work done by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, on the initiative on the prevention of sexual violence, which more than 134 countries have now signed up to and which addresses some of the issues my hon. Friend discussed in relation to rape.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Those of us who went to the Holy See the other day met the cardinals in charge of the matter. Would the Minister be good enough to speak to the ambassador to the Holy See? We had interesting discussions about that very question.

[Mr Swire]

I shall certainly take my hon. Friend’s point on board.

The Government base their position on article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his or her religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his or her religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Promoting human rights, including religious freedom, is an important part of British foreign policy. Ministers and officials at our embassies and high commissions regularly raise concerns with host Governments about violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. I shall ensure that our ambassador to the Vatican does that. For example, when they met at the UN General Assembly on 23 September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary urged his Egyptian counterpart to ensure that Egypt’s new constitution would include a protection for the rights of minorities. We also regularly meet leaders of religious communities and civil society organisations from around the world, with a view to understanding their concerns better. We actively work with them to promote a universal commitment to religious freedom and to promote tolerance and understanding for, between and within all faiths, in line with article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights.

I hope that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who urged Ministers to engage, will support the Prime Minister’s trip to Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the next few weeks. He will be the first western leader to go to the north of the country to engage with the minority Tamil community. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the right way to proceed, despite the alternative view taken by the Front Bench in his party, that the UK should not attend.

We continue to work with the international community to combat religious intolerance and protect human rights. In September, at the UN General Assembly, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi convened a group of Foreign Ministers and officials from international organisations for the second in a series of meetings to discuss international efforts to fight violence in the name of religion and to promote freedom of religion and belief for all. We intend that to be a continuing initiative to build up greater political will to tackle the issue in the countries where it matters most.

Some right hon. and hon. Members who spoke were tempted to go slightly further afield than the middle east in their remarks, but I shall confine my remarks to the middle east. Some interesting points were made about the middle east as the birthplace of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which makes the religious persecution there all the more poignant. My hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) mentioned Israel and Palestine. It is true that less than 2% of the population of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is Christian today, compared with 22% at the end of the British mandate in 1948. I heard what my hon. Friends said, but we continue to be concerned about access to holy sites for all, including Christians and Muslims. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy raised about the Syrians who came to his constituency surgery, if he would like to write to me, I shall respond and lay out our policy on asylum seekers.

The period since 2011 has indeed been a difficult one for various religious communities across the region. Many are suffering and, tragically, there is a risk in some countries of the disappearance of religious communities that have existed there peacefully for centuries. As right hon. and hon. Members—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate—have said, the great majority of communities that are suffering are Christian. It is right to continue to highlight that, but also to be concerned with all persecuted minorities. We want freedom of religion or belief for all: a universal human right.

The effects of the crisis in Syria are particularly on our minds. Life in Syria for Christians and other minorities continues to be extremely difficult. We have serious concerns about rising sectarian tension and believe that President Assad is deliberately attempting to stir up such tensions in his efforts to hold on to power. Non-Alawite minorities, including Christian communities, are in a vulnerable position, not only because of the relatively small size of their communities and their geographic dispersal, but because they are neither Sunni, like the majority of the opposition, nor Alawite, like the core of the regime. The largest Christian communities in the country were in Aleppo and Homs, where some of the most intense clashes between the regime and the opposition have happened. We are working hard, with the moderate Syrian National Coalition, to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict and to support the building of a Syria that respects the rights of all its citizens, whatever their race, religion or lack of religion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is right to point out that we have provided more than £500 million of humanitarian aid—the largest ever UK response to a single crisis. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced that her Department would support UNICEF’s Syrian children appeal by matching public donations pound for pound. We also support a number of projects designed to increase dialogue and reduce tensions between different communities to promote minority rights, including almost £520,000 to train Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Druze, Armenian and Kurdish community and religious leaders. We have also provided support to create a network of peace-building committees in Syria by training and providing guidance and mentorship to nearly 500 activists.

On 16 October, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for human rights policy, Baroness Warsi, met Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorius III, and they discussed the Geneva II process to establish peace negotiations, the plight of Christians in Syria and the humanitarian crisis affecting Syria and the region. The Minister underlined our commitment to speaking up on behalf of all those who are targeted for their religion or belief. We have made it clear that those responsible for human rights violations and abuses should be held to account. We believe that the International Criminal Court will have a role to play, and I confirm that we have condemned the kidnapping of the bishops and called for their release, as my hon. Friend asked.

In Egypt, the Coptic Church continues to experience many challenges. For example, we have just marked the second anniversary of the Maspero massacre, in which 28 Christians taking part in a demonstration were killed. Following the military intervention to remove Mohammad Morsi on 3 July this year, there has also been a rise in the number of violent sectarian attacks. Churches, homes, businesses and individuals have been attacked. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has publicly condemned the attacks and urged that there should be inclusive political dialogue. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), condemned the killing of four guests at a Coptic Christian wedding as recently as 20 October.

We are also concerned about the situation for religious minorities in other countries of the region. In Iran, the Baha’i are subject to mounting pressure. We are concerned by state efforts—

International Criminal Court (Kenya)

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is an interesting and important debate. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary groups on Kenya and on Uganda and, as chairman or secretary of various other all-party groups, I have been much involved in all matters relating to east Africa since the 1980s. I have a strong sense that that part of the world is extremely important both in its own right and in relation not only to the United Kingdom but to the world as a whole. Economically, it is one of the fastest-growing areas in the world and, as with all countries—and I exclude none—there is a process of evolution and a necessity to ensure that justice and fairness prevail.

At the heart of all this lies the question whether domestic matters should be adjudicated by a methodology applicable through international law when the better route could well be to have them dealt with in the country in question. That important issue is illustrated by the fact that in many, many countries in the world—I do not need to set them all out, but Vietnam is a case in point—terrible things happen. There are civil wars. We had a civil war, as did the United States, and there are times when innocent people get caught up. We have a vast range of civil wars going on all over the middle east; it is a very disturbing picture. Not unnaturally, people will attribute blame to individuals who have been involved in the process, but it is an unwise person who makes assumptions about who was responsible for any particular causal event or incident.

[Jim Shannon]

One concern is that if the ICC case collapses, and there is every possibility that it might, the credibility, security and safety of the witnesses who have been called come into question. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those independent witnesses who may feel under threat if the case collapses?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly do. There must be a significant review of the methodology that is applied in relation to the ICC process, which can be encapsulated in an expression from Maine’s “Ancient Law” that says that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. It sounds grandiloquent, but it is extremely important given the incredible number of events that are taking place. We have to look at not just what is happening in countries such as Syria, where people from both sides commit atrocities all the time, but the motivation for such atrocities and the extent to which they are politically driven. Some would argue that the use of atomic weapons or chemical weapons is a matter where distinctions need to be drawn. It could also be said that all weapons of mass destruction should automatically be regarded as of one kind, which they are not.

In relation to the terrible events that took place in Kenya some years ago, the methodology that was applied in the prosecution and indictment is a matter that requires very careful consideration. There are good grounds, I believe, for taking a step back and looking at the matter again, taking into consideration the evidence and who is responsible for the conduct of the prosecution and the manner in which it is being deployed. It is also extremely important to bear in mind that the most incredible sensitivities will arise, and have arisen, which may lead to the African Union and other individual countries, many of which I am familiar with, withdrawing from the ICC.

There are several issues to be considered. One relates to justice, fairness and the question of procedures and methodology. Another relates to the impact of what is being done in relation to the African Union and individual countries there, and the extent to which they are taking a position, which, to say the least, is radical. Then there is the question whether the matter should really be dealt with in domestic courts. Is there the political impetus to prosecute a Head of State or one or two people when the evidence could as well be addressed in a domestic arena?

I was shadow Attorney-General for several years, and have always had certain reservations, to say the least, about the assumptions that lie behind some human rights trials. I will not enlarge on that, but what I will say is that with the massive number of conflicts and potential conflicts in the middle east—in countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria and Tunisia—Somalia and elsewhere in Africa, a complete analysis of the whole matter is required. In addition, some of the most significant countries, not only numerically but in terms of power and influence, are not members of the ICC. How can we have a system of justice that is based on differentiation between those countries that are not involved in the process because they have not signed up, and others that are? There are so many interwoven complexities that it makes me seriously wonder about the whole question of justiciability and the methodology that lies at the heart not only of the procedures but of the underlying consequences of the ICC system.

I do not want to say any more, because I want everyone to stand back and ask themselves some central questions. The Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, has a very difficult task here. I have raised the matter with the Foreign Office, both after and in the run-up to elections, because I was concerned about the politicisation of what could be regarded as a matter of domestic legal process. Justice and fairness are key, and how we arrive at that, and whether the ICC can do so in this case and in many others, is a very big question. I will rest my argument there, but I shall continue to pursue such questions, because I believe that fundamental issues arise for not only us, but many other countries.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) for calling this debate, which has been very interesting. The speeches and interventions have added to our consideration and understanding of an intensely difficult issue. Although I will be seeking to find out the Minister’s position in due course, I do not envy his having to respond on so difficult an area, but such difficult questions are those faced in government. This reflective debate will assist us in analysing the difficult questions that international politics currently involves.

From what my hon. Friend said, he clearly understands about the security and the importance of Kenya. He has great respect for the Kenyan people, who are looking at the issue extremely closely. I know from communications I have received that the matter is of profound import. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has a particular role in the all-party group on Kenya.

Kenya always provokes interest because of our long-standing link with it and its people, and because of its significance in what, at the moment, is an important part of north Africa. Some of the biggest political issues on the planet are being played out in complex geographical areas across north Africa, with cultures, faiths and economies colliding and causing enormous issues. We must grapple with those issues if we are to make progress. Kenya, whose relationship with the UK is massively significant, is hugely important in that regard, for instance in addressing the difficulties in Somalia and the horn of Africa. That cause has been carried out at great cost to the people of Kenya over several years, most recently, of course, in Nairobi. The country is strategically important, and we all want it to be a strong international player.

Before I turn to Kenya’s membership of the ICC, I want to refer, as other Members have, to the dreadful recent attack in the Westgate shopping centre. Right across the world, the focus has been on Kenya because of what happened there. The confirmed death toll was 61 civilians and six security officers, and Britons were among those killed. Our thoughts are with all those affected by these tragic events. We must of course support the Kenyan Government in showing leadership in dealing with a problem that, as I have said, transcends the borders and boundaries of countries across the world, but is a specific issue across north Africa.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a massive dilemma in what he says? On the one hand, we want to support the Government of Kenya, but on the other hand, are we to encourage the prosecution of the Kenyan Head of State in the International Criminal Court? That is the simple dilemma, but it is not only a dilemma: the question is whether justice and fairness are at the root of the matter. In my opinion, that is as yet uncertain and, in fact, I am deeply worried about it.

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent intervention, and puts the difficult question very well. It is, however, important to remember that Kenya has chosen to be a member of the International Criminal Court. If it withdraws, it will leave an international institution that it chose to join. As we have already heard, several countries have refused to join the International Criminal Court. If we are a member of an institution, we have to accept that it has rules that it must apply to its members without fear or favour. The reason why we need to support the Kenyan Government is that they face the very difficult situation caused by the Westgate shopping centre attack, but equally, the fact is that Kenya chose to be a member of the International Criminal Court and, as a consequence of decisions made in Kenya, the court has been seized of the case and is proceeding with it.

To return to the Westgate shopping mall, rigorous inquiries are taking place, and must continue to do so, into the circumstances leading to the attacks. We need to support the Kenyan Government in their taking steps to bring those involved to justice and to ensure that such an incident does not recur. We must also, however, conduct rigorous inquiries into the perpetrators of the violence that followed the 2007 election, because we cannot take action in one area, but not in another, and I therefore turn to the Kenyan Government’s possible attempts to withdraw from the ICC.

We must reflect on the violence in 2007, when, as we have heard, more than 1,000 people were killed and 600,000 people were displaced. The investigations into the violence culminated in the ICC bringing charges, including against the Kenyan President, of crimes against humanity and of orchestrating ethnic violence. For that reason, charges have been brought against President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto.

[Ian Lucas]

That would be massively controversial, but we are a member of an international institution. We are discussing international problems, and the world has to deal with more and more internationally connected issues every day: events in Africa profoundly affect our constituencies in the UK. Far from this being a time for us to withdraw from international action, we should be more involved. If we submit ourselves as a nation to the authority of the International Criminal Court, we must accept that that court has jurisdiction. Such an issue would be difficult and many in the United Kingdom would not want to accept the court’s jurisdiction, but if we have submitted to the court through legislation, as has been mentioned, we must accept the consequences. We cannot duck out when it gets difficult; we must accept that such difficult issues need to be addressed, as they should be by the nations involved.

It is a difficult problem of that sort—nobody pretends that it is not difficult—that we now have to address. The Parliament of Kenya is dealing with the difficulty that, in the hypothetical case mentioned by my hon. Friend, might apply in the United Kingdom. The two politicians are not the only individuals facing charges. I understand that the ICC has also issued an arrest warrant for a journalist called Walter Barasa for offering bribes to prosecution witnesses in the trial of Deputy President William Ruto. However, I believe that this trial is the first time that sitting leaders have been tried before the court.

In September 2013—last month—Kenyan MPs, having tabled a motion, voted to pull out of the ICC, and a Bill is likely to be introduced. The withdrawal will still have to pass through Parliament and could take more than a year to come into effect. The ICC will in the meantime continue with the trials of the President and the Deputy President, but if Kenya does pull out, no charges will be able to be brought in this way in the future.

I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Falkirk and I am aware, of course, of the perception that exists in Africa, linked to the United Kingdom’s role on the continent—its “imperialist past”. Although I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, I cannot agree with him in this case. I have to say to him that this is about the creation of international institutions and dealing with the very difficult issues to which the hon. Member for Stone referred. We talk about what is happening in Syria, Egypt, Somalia, and Mali. All these matters have in some way involved international capacity and interventions, whether they be military or non-military interventions, in different places at different times. The process of dealing with the problems has been one of using international institutions, because these are international problems.

[Mr Cash]

I am getting slightly worried; in fact, I am getting very worried about the line of route of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I referred to civil wars and the total chaos that there is in the middle east and in parts of north Africa. Is he seriously suggesting that, ultimately, all these matters, because they have an international dimension, should, given the competing claims and counter-claims made by people who are engaged in political processes, be dealt with in an international court? We would spend all our time, and without any beneficial result, arguing about the legal questions, which are essentially political, tragic as they may be. I do ask the question.

[Ian Lucas]

I was not specifically, in the context in which I was speaking, talking about the International Criminal Court. I was talking about international problems being dealt with through international institutions. The United Nations and the Security Council of the United Nations are the most obvious example. I was making the general point that international institutions and countries, working together, need to deal with international problems, which manifest themselves within individual countries.

We know that in north Africa, for example, many of the things that have caused major problems in the region have involved groups of people crossing borders at different times. Those borders are often ill defined and not policed in any way. Mali would be one example, and Somalia and Kenya are another. I am talking about a collective approach, through organisations such as the United Nations, and a progression of that. I am saying that, in particular cases, the use of the International Criminal Court is appropriate. For that reason, when countries choose to join the ICC process, it is appropriate that we, as a country that has also submitted itself to that process, support the process.

I think that we need to respect the role of the ICC and international principles of justice and democracy and apply those principles in the future, so I would be extremely concerned about the implications of Kenya withdrawing from the ICC if Kenya were to withdraw, because that would be a step away from dealing with very difficult, shared problems in a collective way. It would be a step backwards, because it would be a step towards more isolation. Ultimately, that would bring about a lower level of capacity to solve the problems that we want to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

It is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship and guidance this morning, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing this important debate, and on his continued interest in and knowledge of Africa, and Kenya in particular. I thank him for referring to the importance of having a detailed knowledge and understanding of the significant bilateral relationship, historically and today, between the United Kingdom and Kenya. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has significant knowledge and experience of east Africa and Kenya, and who shows a continuing energetic commitment to improving the lives of those who live in Africa. My hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Falkirk, and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), powerfully articulated the complexities and sensitivities of the issue.

I will endeavour to address all the points that have been raised. First, I will take stock, as the hon. Member for Wrexham did, of our wider bilateral relationship, particularly in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack on the Westgate shopping centre in Nairobi on 21 September. I am sure that the whole House will join me in re-emphasising our deep sympathy and profound condolences to the Kenyan Government and people, and to the other countries affected by that abhorrent act. As the Prime Minister has said, it was a sickening and despicable act of appalling brutality.

Hon. Members may have spotted that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary laid before Parliament a written statement setting out the UK Government’s response to the crisis. On the day of the attack, the Prime Minister spoke to President Kenyatta, and I spoke to the Kenyan Foreign Minister, Amina Mohamed, to express the UK’s solidarity and to offer assistance. The UK has provided assistance at the scene in identifying victims and collecting forensic evidence. We have also provided medical supplies and rations to the Aga Khan university hospital, where many of the wounded were taken.

We are determined to work with Kenya on the shared challenge of addressing regional terrorism and building stability in Somalia. The close co-operation and understanding that underpin the UK response to the Westgate attack is a reminder that the UK and Kenya share many priorities and interests. The relationship between the countries today is one of partnership, shared mutual interests and shared concerns, through being members of the Commonwealth, through strong commercial security and through personal ties. The UK is the largest commercial investor in Kenya and the second-largest trading partner, with bilateral trade worth more than £1 billion a year. Thirty thousand British nationals reside in Kenya, and 180,000 British nationals visit Kenya every year. Kenya is also one of the largest bilateral recipients of DFID aid, with the UK contributing £135 million annually in support of Kenya Vision 2030. Our projects tackle conflict, increase stability and improve education and health care.

I have read what the hon. Member for Falkirk said in a similar debate that he secured in March. In that debate, he highlighted the fact that we have a strong defence and security relationship. The British Army trains 10,000 British soldiers in Kenya every year, which benefits not only the UK but the Kenyan defence forces and the wider economy. We want that co-operation to continue and develop for the mutual benefit of the UK and Kenya.

Before I move on to specifics about the International Criminal Court, I will address a couple of points that arose in interventions on the hon. Member for Falkirk. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) rightly raised the importance of trying to reduce, if not eradicate, corruption in Kenya. Department for International Development programmes are involved in supporting greater transparency and accountability at national and county level. The hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned the Mau Mau settlement. It is important to understand that that did not constitute reparation; it was a settlement of claims that recognised the pain and suffering experienced by people on all sides during those events many years ago.

At the heart of our relationship with Kenya is counter-terrorism engagement, through which we assist Kenya in defending itself and countering cross-border security threats, many of which stem from Kenya’s leading role in the African Union Mission in Somalia. Kenya made significant sacrifices during that mission in its attempts to secure peace and stability in Somalia, and we recognise and welcome the significant contributions that Kenya and others have made.

I turn to the issue at the heart of the debate, namely the International Criminal Court. I think it would be helpful if I briefly set out what the ICC is about and why it is so important before I address some of the complexities and sensitivities involved in the issue that we are talking about. The UK and Kenya are among the 122 countries that are signatories to the ICC’s founding Rome statute. Of those countries, 34 are African states; that is the biggest bloc anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out, we strongly support the ICC’s work around the world as an impartial, independent guardian of the rule of law. It is a court of last resort for the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It takes up cases only when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so. It provides no immunity for those in positions of power, even Heads of State—a point that has been made powerfully. That universality is one of its strengths. It plays a vital role in ending impunity, holding perpetrators to account and delivering justice for victims.

In July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary launched the Government’s ICC strategy, which sets out our thinking on how we can ensure that the ICC retains its independence—that is vital—delivers justice, increases its membership, builds more support for its decisions from states and the UN Security Council, gains wider regional support and completes its work more efficiently.

As I have said, the ICC will take on cases only where national authorities lack the capabilities or the will to undertake prosecutions, as was the case in Kenya. The UK is committed to helping to provide training and mentoring to national authorities to help them develop their own laws and systems.

The hon. Member for Falkirk powerfully highlighted the common perception that the ICC is anti-Africa, and I want to address that point. In Africa, the court is working tirelessly to deliver justice for millions of Africans who endured appalling treatment at the hands of fellow Africans. African states have been some of the most important supporters of the creation and effective functioning of the ICC. African states played an active role in the negotiations that led to the establishment of the court, and 22 African countries were among the founding ratifiers of the Rome statute. Interestingly, the first and most recent states to ratify the Rome statute, Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire, were African. The majority of African Union member states—34 African states—are now ICC state parties. It is important to recognise that Africans are among the highest level of ICC officials, and they serve as judges and prosecutors at the court.

The ICC investigates situations, not people, and only after situations have been investigated do prosecutions occur. Suggestions that the ICC focuses solely on Africa do not tell the full story. Preliminary investigations are already under way in cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia and Honduras. The majority of cases brought against Africans have been lodged with the ICC by Africans.

I turn to specifics that all hon. Members raised about the ICC and Kenya. Of course I accept that the topic is controversial and sensitive, and creates difficulties for the Kenyan Government, but after the appalling post-election violence in 2007-08, many believe that justice is essential for national reconciliation and healing, and that the trials must continue to give the victims and the accused access to justice. We should remind ourselves of the numbers involved. I underline the figures that hon. Members have mentioned: more than 1,000 people were killed; 3,000 people suffered serious sexual violence; and more than 600,000 people were displaced. We strongly welcome the Kenyan Government’s co-operation with the court and urge them to continue to co-operate, as they have pledged to do.

The UK Government recognise that President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto have constitutional obligations and important responsibilities at home, as the Westgate attack illustrated so graphically. We therefore believe that the court’s decision to alternate the trials of the President and Deputy President, to ensure conformity with the Kenyan constitution, and to agree a short delay to allow Deputy President Ruto to take part in the Kenyan Government’s response to Westgate, showed welcome pragmatism.

The hon. Member for Wrexham raised the issue of witness intimidation. We remain deeply concerned by reports of witness intimidation, and call on all state parties to assist the court in preventing it. That would mean Kenya responding to the arrest warrant the court issued last week.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Kenyan Parliament’s vote in support of a motion to withdraw from the Rome statute. We must be clear: it is for Kenya, as a sovereign country, to decide whether to withdraw. We, of course, very much hope that it does not. Withdrawing from the Rome statute would not remove Kenya’s obligation to co-operate with the court on the current investigation, as the hon. Members for Falkirk, and for Wrexham, pointed out. The UK Government support the process, but we are clear that it must be recognised that defendants remain innocent until proven guilty. It is for a competent court—in this case the ICC—not the UK or any Government or individual, to pass judgment. The strength of the court lies in its independence, and its processes are, rightly, independent of the UK. I do not share the analysis of the hon. Member for Falkirk that the court process is political, not judicial; it is very clearly a judicial process. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s support for international justice and the ICC does not jeopardise our wider bilateral relations with Kenya.

[Mr Cash]

Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the methodology and process adopted in respect of President Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have been followed in what one would objectively regard as the appropriate manner?

[Mark Simmonds]

As I said earlier, the ICC only takes up matters when the country in question does not put in place the requisite judicial process to allow relevant prosecutions or investigations to take place. Specifically, the Waki commission, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk referred, gave the Kenyan authorities time to put in place the necessary and appropriate structures to deal with the judicial process, as it relates to the terrible atrocities that occurred in 2007-08. It is only because the Kenyan authorities did not do that at the time that the matter was referred to the ICC.

There are seven cases before the ICC, including the Kenyan issue. Of the other six, four were referred to the court by Africans themselves, and two were referred by the UN Security Council. The hon. Member for Falkirk raised the issue of the speculation that the African Union summit could result in some states withdrawing from the Rome statute. He will not be surprised to hear that I will not engage in speculation, but I shall make two points. Although there is a perception that the ICC is focused only on Africa, there is a broad range of views, as there would be in the UK, across the African Union. Only a couple of days ago, 130 groups from across Africa called for not only sustained but greater co-operation with the ICC. He will not be surprised to hear that we urge African states to continue their support for the court, and encourage those African states not party to the Rome statue to consider ratification or accession and other ways that they can support the court’s work. African support and expertise continues to be vital to enable the court to fulfil its mandate of delivering justice for victims and tackling impunity.

I am the first to acknowledge that the court is a young institution. The UK is among those, not only in Africa, but elsewhere, who would like to see improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a powerful point about other countries around the world that are not signatories to the Rome statute, and the terrible atrocities in Syria, which we have seen on our television screens. I am sure that he is aware of the UK Government’s position: those who perpetrated those horrific crimes should face justice.

Before I conclude, I shall reflect for a moment on the Kenyan elections in March. The Kenyan people and politicians need to be congratulated on the peaceful nature of the elections, which was in stark contrast to the violence which marred the election in 2007-08. That demonstrated the determination of the Kenyan people to express their democratic right to elect a Government of their choosing in an environment free from violence and intimidation. Kenyans should be proud of that significant achievement. The UK played a role in supporting the democratic process, including by providing £16 million to support free and peaceful elections. The UK position has been consistent and clear: it is for the Kenyan people to elect their leaders and for the courts to resolve any disputes that stem from the election process.

[Mr Cash]

Is the Minister willing to continue this dialogue after the debate, in light of my remarks regarding my uncertainties about the manner in which the ICC goes about a lot of its business?

[Mark Simmonds]

As always, I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about his views. I will of course be pleased to hear how he thinks the ICC could work better.

The UK-Kenyan relationship is significant, and we want it to continue to develop. We want trade to grow. We want more UK companies to invest in Kenya and more Kenyan entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in the UK. We want to strengthen our partnership in a range of areas, from counter-terrorism co-operation to defence matters, as well as help, through Department for International Development programmes, to alleviate poverty, build capacity and assist those in Kenya who are less fortunate than all of us here today. However, the UK also supports the ICC. We acknowledge, respect and welcome President Kenyatta’s pledge to respect Kenya’s international commitments and to continue co-operation with the ICC.

National Parliaments and the EU

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stuart]

Indeed. Ten years ago, the British Parliament was seen as having some of the toughest and most extensive scrutiny functions. We were also the first Parliament to open an office in the European Parliament so that we had representation there. Ten years ago we were a model that other people looked towards, and now we have fallen behind. We are doing less than others.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Lady would not want to move on to another subject without noting that the European Scrutiny Committee has now set up an inquiry into European scrutiny, to which she has given some very good evidence. Furthermore, last night the European Scrutiny Committee and two other Committees worked together to ensure that we changed the Government’s approach to the whole business of opt-outs and opt-ins and that the Government accepted the amendment that had essentially been drafted by the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Ms Stuart]

I fear to tread on the subject of the European Scrutiny Committee in the hon. Gentleman’s presence, because I know I would get it wrong. I would also rather rely on his intervening to tell the Chamber about the Committee’s work. It is significant that last night it was agreed that the negotiating positions had to be brought back to Parliament, but we all know that we are still only talking to each other in Committee Rooms rather than on the Floor of the House.

What would really improve national Parliaments? I am caught between a rock and a hard place, because I do not want national Parliaments to become separate institutions within the architectural framework of the EU. The EU has the Commission and the Council, but national Parliaments provide the majorities to form the Governments that send Ministers to the Council. There is, however, a little-known organisation that is known only to those who have been to some of its meetings—COSAC, which is the conference of European scrutiny committees.

Ten years ago, I was trying to broker a deal in that working group between national Parliaments so that COSAC would be strengthened in the red and yellow card system, but for that the MEPs would have had to leave COSAC. It is difficult for COSAC to arrive at a decision, because there are, say, four representatives from each country, two from the Government and two from the Opposition. If there is a coalition Government, in our case the representatives could be a Tory, a Lib Dem and two Labour Members, so there are probably three views among the four representatives. Consensus then has to be reached across 27 or 28 countries within extremely tight time limits. What then happens is that MEPs are the only people who are sufficiently united in their view and who caucus—they are usually united in the view that the European Parliament is good and national Parliaments are bad. The card system will not work unless the national Parliaments that exercise the veto have a network to talk to each other. If that network has an in-built number of MEPs who can outvote the national parliamentarians, it simply will not work. I do not know whether it is possible to change the job that COSAC does in such a way, but we will see.

[Ms Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman has gone to the nub of the matter. We need to decide what we think the role of national Parliaments is. Is it only to scrutinise? If so, we need to widen the base so that more Members take part more regularly. Or is it to get Governments to change their decisions at times? I think that it needs to be the latter, but a number of things have to happen to allow that. Early information is key.

We also need information about how people actually act in the Council of Ministers. I have sat in the Council of Ministers, and I know that there is rarely a vote. If there is, it is seen as a failure by the civil servants that they have allowed the situation to arise. They do a head count to see whether they have a qualified majority, and if they do not think they will get the decision they want, they give in gracefully.

That takes me to what really needs to change. We need a proper Europe Minister. That is not to cast any aspersions on the current Europe Minister, but the position is a fallacy. Why are matters involving the European Union, which deals essentially with domestic legislation, placed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Numerous Governments have tried at times to get the Europe function out of the Foreign Office. From what I gather, the trade union of Foreign Office Ministers usually gets together and it does not happen, but there is a question to be addressed there.

If the Europe Minister is in the Foreign Office and makes decisions and strikes bargains regularly, they might say, “There’s an idea here that affects agriculture on which we want some compromise”, or it might be on cigarette advertising, the working hours of junior doctors or any number of issues on which we can get a deal. Such deals are struck across various Departments. At that level of political bargaining, the House has no ability to scrutinise, take a role or even know what happens. We are simply given the end results. A Europe Minister should have accountability for our permanent representative in Brussels, UKRep, which does all those dealings, and be answerable to the House of Commons for the bargains struck. There was a stage when a previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seriously envisaged such a role, but for whatever reason it did not happen.

I can hear the outcry: “You can’t politicise UKRep!” I am not saying that I would do it the way that the Finns do it, for example—they call their civil servant before them every Friday morning—but Select Committees can call civil servants. There could be a regular slot for UKRep representatives when they come on a Friday to brief Whitehall Departments about what they have done. They could stay until the Monday morning or come on the Thursday afternoon to give evidence. If we do not want to do it at the civil service level—actually, I would rather do it at the political level—there should be a Minister who is answerable to the House across Whitehall Departments for negotiations, compromises and deals struck in Brussels. It would be such a far-reaching brief that the Minister would almost function as a Deputy Prime Minister.

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely interested in what the hon. Lady is saying, and I have often thought along similar lines. However, does she acknowledge that due to the critical mass of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister and Downing street ultimately want to control all those matters? I suppose that that is understandable from their point of view. During the constitutional treaty discussions and the run-up to Lisbon, it was thought that the Foreign Secretary was out of the loop, because Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) were in discussions but the Foreign Secretary was scarcely involved at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) not only for securing the debate, but for the way in which she has deployed her arguments. She has been in the House for about 10 years, I suppose—

[Ms Stuart]

Seventeen years.

[Mr Cash]

Seventeen years! I am only getting close to 30 years. It is extremely refreshing to hear such cogent and well thought out concern about the whole European issue, which has dogged our political debates for the 30 years or so that I have been in the House—whether there is any connection, I cannot say. Today, the one thing that saddens me slightly and, I dare say, her, too, is that so few people are participating in a debate about what is at the heart of our democratic system. I regard this matter as being not “about Europe” but about Britain, and about democracy, which is not peculiar to any one country.

Our democratic systems have, in real terms, emerged since the 19th century, because of John Bright and others. I mention his name because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston represents part of his old constituency, before it was Birmingham Central. His fight for the working-class vote was in essence the beginnings of our democratic system. The Conservative party, under Disraeli, gave in to the pressures. There is no need to go into the detail, but it was incredibly important and was based on the assumption that when people went into the polling booth and cast their vote secretly in a ballot box—that was the system that was devised in the late 19th century to ensure that the people had their say—we had a democracy. Other countries have run parallel with that, so the issue is not exclusively British but applies elsewhere in the whole of the European continent and the rest of the world.

I fear that with the movement towards bigger regional systems, even those who claim that they want world government ignore national identity, traditions and democratic systems, and therefore in essence national Parliaments, at their peril. The European Union, which I voted for as the European Community in 1975—I said yes—has since moved inexorably along a trajectory towards more and more centralisation and less and less national involvement.

The Minister for Europe is here. He and I have engaged in debates and discussions on the matter since at least 1988 or 1989, when I was first elected chairman of the backbench committee on European affairs in hostile circumstances. It was interesting that the national parliamentarians who then represented the Conservative party elected me in a secret ballot because I had put out a note explaining why I was standing, which was all about national Parliaments. I had written a pamphlet for the Bow Group called “A Democratic Way to European Unity: Arguments against Federalism” and I followed that up the following year with another called “Against a Federal Europe—The Battle for Britain”. I think I can fairly say—I do so without presumption—that what I set out in those two documents has remained the central problem.

The difference is that the evidence now demonstrates the analysis of where we were going wrong, which was further and further integration, and that was in the 1988 to 1991 period. Since then, we have had Amsterdam, Nice and Maastricht, and we have had the constitutional and Lisbon treaties. Irrespective of the evidence, both economic and political, there is increasing distrust not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the whole of Europe. I need not give all the Eurobarometer’s figures, but 72% of those in countries such as Spain and Italy have now decided that they do not trust the European Union. I presume to say that riots, unemployment and the rise of the far right are all things that I said would happen when I wrote those pamphlets back in 1988-91 and since.

Despite all that, as well as the Bloomberg speech and the movement towards a referendum—I believe that there will be a money resolution this afternoon on the European Union (Referendum) Bill—if I am being completely objective, nothing has changed except public opinion. The facts demonstrate that those of us who have argued this case consistently over a long period have been proved right. I am not saying, “I told you so.” The matter is far too serious for that because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is about our democratic system.

National parliamentarians are elected by virtue of manifestos in general elections. We ultimately control taxation and spending. That is what determines the nature of our economy, and it also determines public services. If circumstances arise in which the economic and political situation in this country, let alone other countries, becomes dysfunctional and as a result we cannot deliver the prosperity that people want, not only will they become completely alienated from laws that are generated to exclude them from participation in a prosperous business and social environment, but the entire fabric of the European system will disintegrate.

The real problem is the treaties. The issue is no longer just a call for reform. I was anxious for reform, and I have called for renegotiation for as long as I can remember, because I thought the treaties would go wrong. Now that they have gone so wrong, there is no prospect of their improving the situation and, as I will explain, there is absolutely no sign that any Government in any European country are seriously grappling with the intrinsic problem at the heart of the treaties. Governments talk about renegotiation, but we are past that. The reality is that we must leave the existing treaties—I make this point in the context of our national Parliament and our own country—because unless other countries are prepared to face up to the fact that there has been a cataclysmic failure of the system, they will not be impelled to make the changes that are needed to achieve what I still believe in: co-operation on the European continent and in trade.

I need not go into the arguments about trading, because we are talking about national Parliaments, but one reason why the British Chambers of Commerce and others have become so deeply disillusioned by the European Union in business terms is precisely the legislation that has come about as a result of being passed under the aegis of the treaties. Those treaties, because of the concrete framework of the acquis communautaire, cannot be changed without unanimity among all member states, and there is absolutely no intention whatever to make fundamental changes to the treaties.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making a profound point about the inflexibility of the European Union structure. Does he agree that the reason why European Union countries, with the possible exception of Sweden, are unlikely to withdraw support from the current treaties is that they have a history of fascism, communism or of being defeated in wars and controlled by other nations? They do not have the same confidence in their national democracies that we have in this country.

[Mr Cash]

That is absolutely correct, and is not disrespectful or a criticism of those countries. In the past month I have been to Lithuania twice, and I have great affection for that country. One has only to look at the way in which it has been brutalised for 150 years by successive dictatorships—the Nazis, Russians and Soviet Union—to realise why it would want the security of working within the framework of something bigger. The same applies to Estonia, Latvia and many other countries in central and eastern Europe, so there is an understandable reason for their wanting to play safe, as it were. However, it is not playing safe that is the problem, because the price that people will pay for allowing that democratic system to be so much at risk will be another collapse of those countries if the democratic freedom that they fought for disintegrates as a result of the European Union’s failures.

The fact is that tinkering with the treaties is not the only thing required. It is about the very foundations of the EU, which brings me on to the question of ever-closer union. Certainly that was embedded in the early treaties, including in the treaty of Rome. However, it was not capable of being implemented, unless and until the genie was gradually eased out of the bottle as a result of successive treaty changes. People are cynical about the 1975 referendum, and I understand why. There is plenty of reason to believe that, in fact, it was done with some cynicism by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. However, the reality is that people such as Tony Benn and others, who were involved in arguments on the other side, challenged whether it would ultimately lead to political union.

Although I freely state that I voted yes in 1975, it was because, as far as I was aware, it was going to be a common market. It was not only that, however. It could only become more of an integrated, ever-closer union as a result of further treaties, which is why I most emphatically put my foot down on the Maastricht treaty—I tabled about 200 amendments, or whatever it was—and fought the arguments right the way through from beginning to end, because that was about the creation of European government. There is no disputing that, and I am very glad that the present Prime Minister stated in the House the other day that he thought that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. He was right.

We do not need to go into the past too much, but the Maastricht treaty remains at the epicentre of the Lisbon treaty, because the Lisbon treaty is simply a consolidation of all the others. Anyone who cares to get those treaties out can see that, although I have to say that there are not many people who would. Sometimes even I have a great disinclination to get out the consolidated treaties and plough through them, although I notice that the Minister has them on his desk, with lots of little yellow flashes so that he can immediately leap to one article or another. However, I do not think this is about individual articles, nor is it about the intricacies of bits and pieces. It is about the fundamental structure.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the Lisbon treaty to a point, but does he agree that there is a fundamental difference between the Lisbon treaty and all the treaties that went before it, inasmuch as the passerelle clauses provide the right to change treaties without going back to the sovereign Governments and Parliaments?

[Mr Cash]

One of the most offensive kinds of provision that appear in our domestic legislation is the Henry VIII clause, as we call it. The passerelle clause has all the same characteristics; it is a capacity to make changes without having to go back to the source of authority. However, we have to pin our main concerns to the source of authority, which is the European Communities Act 1972 itself. I allude to the White Paper, which was brought out, preceding that treaty, in 1971, and upon which, as a result of a huge amount of discussion in Parliament but not so much outside, the United Kingdom Parliament decided to pass the Act on an apparently—I say “apparently”—free vote. It happened, however, because certain Labour Members at that time decided that they would back Edward Heath’s proposals for what was to be enacted in the 1972 Act.

That White Paper is the foundation of our national parliamentary commitment to the whole panoply, the tens of thousands of lines—millions, I suspect; I have never counted them, thank God—the fabric, the labyrinth and the inexplicable and completely impossible complexities of the legislation, as was clearly demonstrated in yesterday’s debate on the opt-out. The fact is that all that ultimately turns on one piece of legislation, which we entered into voluntarily in Parliament—no doubt some, or perhaps most, did so for the best of motives. What it said was that we will accept all the decisions that are ultimately taken in the Council of Ministers as the legislation of the United Kingdom.

At the same time, we set up a scrutiny process, which I shall come on to in a moment. However, the fundamental issue is that the White Paper stated unequivocally—I do not have the quotation to hand, but I am sure that I will in no way fail to express it clearly—that we must retain the veto in our own national interest and to do otherwise would not only undermine our national interest, but endanger the very fabric of the European Community itself. That was a very wise remark, because as Members will note from what I said at the beginning, the whole of Europe is in convulsion. It is faced not only with a democratic deficit, but with a democratic crisis, and there is not only a eurozone crisis, but a European crisis. It affects the whole of Europe, which is being contaminated by a complete refusal to look at the essential ingredients of the treaties.

Those fundamental questions are now being completely ignored. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston referred to COSAC, which, as she rightly said, is not a well-known body. It is the meeting—periodically, but much more frequently these days—of the national chairmen of each of the European scrutiny committees in each of the member states. Believe it or not, its proceedings are recorded. They are even webcast—not, I suspect, that anyone knows that, but it is a fact.

In Dublin, only a month ago, I was invited by the EU presidency—then the Irish Government—to respond officially as the main respondent for the national Parliaments on the question of democratic legitimacy. Viviane Reding, who was meant to turn up, did not bother to. She sent a video, and I can assure Members that the Dublin parliamentarians were not at all amused. That is the manner in which we are being treated—that is all the member states. She said, unequivocally—I paraphrase her remarks—that we need a federation of nation states. It was completely and totally without any attempt to enter a dialogue or a debate. That was the line that she wanted to take; it had already been written. Viviane Reding is the vice-president of the European Commission and is responsible for justice and home affairs—the very matters on which we scored that notable result last night in upholding national scrutiny. However, they are not listening.

In Vilnius, the following month—only last week— Mr Sefcovic, the Commissioner responsible for relations with the national Parliaments and the European Parliament, made his position clear. I arrived in Vilnius at 1 o’clock in the morning, and I was back in London by 7 o’clock that evening. People said, “What on earth did you think you were doing going all the way to Vilnius for four hours?” I explained very simply that, as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—one of 28 national Chairmen—I had the right to be there and that, when I saw that the meeting was about the next steps towards political and economic union, I knew, in the light of what I know from other sources, that the EU has not the slightest interest in renegotiation; all it wants to do is to press on with the process of integration.

Leaving aside the scrutiny process, it was interesting that an increasing number of member state Parliaments are conscious of the impact that these issues are having on their populations, on which they rely for re-election, and of the fact that they must respond. A silent revolution is in the making. I am not going to exaggerate these things, but there is an issue when the Belgian representative gets up and starts talking about Belgium’s problems with democratic legitimacy. I cannot think of one of the 28 member states that does not, in the relevant chamber or outside, in the margins, over coffee, lunch or dinner, refer to the problem of democratic legitimacy.

The issue is terribly simple: if we do not get rid of the existing treaties and deal with the fundamental structure, there is no answer to the question of democratic legitimacy. We do our best in the European Scrutiny Committee. When I was first elected Chairman, at the end of 2010, the first thing I did was to set up an inquiry into the European Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, which is basically what we are discussing. I wanted to get expert evidence, and we did. Our report came out, and we made it clear that national Parliaments actually have the last say. We voluntarily introduced the 1972 Act; that is what the principle involved in the Factortame case is all about. It is not, as some people believe, that we are locked into a completely irreversible situation. Although the treaties say, as the Maastricht treaty did, that the euro, once entered into, is irrevocable, individual member states must voluntarily decide to accept that system.

At the moment, there is no recognition whatever that things are going wrong. There is not the slightest intention to change the foundations of the treaties, which is absolutely what is needed if we are to preserve democracy in each member state, including in the United Kingdom. Whether we are in the euro is by the bye; the fact is that all the other legislation that affects our economy every day must be subject not merely to a competence review, but to a clear decision. I look to the Minister, because the issue is his responsibility, although he will, quite understandably, take his instructions from No. 10.

I admired the fourth principle of the Bloomberg speech, which said that the fundamental principles of our national democracy depend on our national Parliaments. The Prime Minister was right; the question is whether we do anything about that. We are promising a referendum in 2017, but that is far too late. The fact is that it should be held before the general election, because we have profound reasons for getting on with it. In Dublin, when I had finished making my rather strong remarks about the state of the European Union and the role of national Parliaments, the chairman of the Bundestag’s European affairs committee said, “We must have a referendum in the United Kingdom as soon as possible, because people do not like the uncertainty,” and that is right.

We now have two Governments and two Parliaments, both dealing with the same subject matter. That inherent contradiction is completely unworkable. There are attempts at assimilation, but they just create a more complicated labyrinth, as a result of which the whole situation becomes increasingly dysfunctional. What is more, the creation of a two-tier, two-Government, two-Parliament Europe with no real connection to anything is happening before our very eyes, without any treaty changes. That is why a referendum is required.

The fundamental reason for holding a referendum is that a fundamental change is taking place now in the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. We are not talking about change in 2017; indeed, there may not be another treaty—I cannot say, although the Minister probably knows. However, whether or not there is another treaty, and whether or not there is renegotiation and some nibbling here and there—some of it may sound attractive to some people—that will not change the basic structure. That is what is wrong, and that is why national Parliaments must reassert themselves. They have the power to deal with their respective parties, particularly from the Back Benches, including by persuasion. I was extremely glad that the Government listened yesterday. It was partly a numbers question; we live in a civilised world, and we appreciate that there are times when Ministers recognise that they do not have the support that they need. Three Select Committee Chairmen got together—other members of the Liaison Committee were also involved—and that created a bit of a problem for the Government. None the less, we are grateful for what happened.

The hon. Lady mentioned consensus and the fact that there are rarely votes. I simply recommend that people read VoteWatch, which is produced by Simon Hix of the London School of Economics. It has demonstrated that where there could be different outcomes, all countries end up agreeing on 90% of the legislation, and I believe that the figure has increased since Simon Hix looked at that. Part of the problem is the qualified majority voting system and part of the problem is the co-decision system, but I shall park those issues. However, that is how the system overcomes the issue of what national Parliaments could decide for themselves if they regained the power that they should regain for themselves. I also recommend that people read Professor Damian Chalmers’s paper on democratic self-government, which will prove to be a seminal contribution to this debate. He will give evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee quite soon.

What worries me about the red card system is that it is a further indication of a refusal to grapple with the essential question—that we should end up as an association of nation states that have a veto where necessary, but that co-operate where possible. We should also be able to trade and to work in political co-operation with our neighbours, without being governed by them. The red card system is liable to increase federal arrangements. I do not see why, when this Parliament, as a national Parliament, says that it does not want a measure, we should then be obliged to say yes to it, just because we do not reach a certain threshold when other member states, for completely different reasons, say they want the measure or are not prepared to stand up and say that they do not want it.

That goes back to the fundamental question on which I will end. It is about the ballot box, freedom of choice and those questions that people fought and died for, and that should determine our attitude towards not merely nibbling at, revising or reforming the European Union, but dealing with the real problem: the foundations of the treaties themselves. It may be a big ask to expect the Minister to agree, but if we do not deal with that, just as those of us who found that what we said in the 1990s has not exactly been proved wrong, we will be in a similar place in 10 or 15 years’ time, and, regrettably, by then I fear it will be too late.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, in a debate that is of great interest to you. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate and on a characteristically thorough and forensic speech, which drew on not only 17 years in the House, but many weeks and months—I do not know how many—on the Convention on the Future of Europe. She is a real expert and it was a great pleasure to hear her this morning.

I agree in particular with my hon. Friend’s overall argument that national Parliaments need to play a much greater role in holding to account not only the European Union, but our own Government’s decisions on Europe and the formulation of European legislation and policy. She and many other right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom are here this morning, want parliamentary scrutiny of the EU and what our Government do in Europe to be enhanced and improved. That objective unites pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics, and hon. Members from different parties alike.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s specific point that it is regrettable that one of the first actions of the Government when they came into power in 2010 was to do away with pre-European Council debates. It is unsurprising that she, and others present and beyond our debate today, complained repeatedly about the decision, but unfortunately it was to no avail. While other member states are improving their scrutiny of their Governments’ decision-making and negotiating strategy ahead of European Councils, our Government have taken a retrograde step and have in effect decreased scrutiny. The Government have not simply done away with the pre-Council debates, but the post-Council debates are now combined with major issues of concern—whether Afghanistan or the horrific murder in Woolwich. Such subjects and the post-European Council report need to be separate. They are too important to be combined. Notwithstanding the scrutiny of the European Scrutiny Committee, it is vital that scrutiny also takes place on the Floor of the House, as she set out, so that all right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise how the Government represent the UK in the EU.

The starting point from which I approach the debate is perhaps different from that of some hon. Members who have spoken. I am a passionate believer in our membership of the EU. I am both pro-European and passionately in favour of reform. Just because I believe in our membership, that does not mean that I think the EU is perfect—far from it. I spent six years of my life working and living in Brussels; I have seen at first hand the many imperfections of the EU. A vital part of EU reform lies in the issue that we are focusing on today: strengthening the accountability that national Parliaments have over European decision-making.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), in a speech in January this year, set out proposals for a red card system. It took the Government five months to come to the same conclusion, but we were encouraged—better late than never. As hon. Members are acutely aware, the current yellow card system was introduced by the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government negotiated. It gives national Parliaments the ability to force the European Commission to reconsider its proposals if they believe that a proposal violates the subsidiarity principle.

[Mr Cash]

I do not think that anyone could honestly say that the yellow card system has been a stunning success, given the number of occasions we have reached the threshold. That is also a problem with respect to any possibility of a red card system, leaving aside the federalisation they both imply.

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not claim that the yellow card system has been a stunning success. As the hon. Gentleman set out, it has been used successfully on only one occasion —the so-called Monti II proposals, which were then withdrawn by the European Commission. Just because the yellow card system is not a success at the moment, that does not mean that it could not be made to work better. I will move on to that and better co-ordination of national parliamentarians in a moment.

The Labour party is committed to pushing for a red card system when in government. It would, in effect, turn the yellow card into a red card, by stating clearly that a third of national Parliaments being against a proposal is a veto. It would not force the European Commission to reconsider, but would say, “No. Stop. Stop that proposal. One-third of national Parliaments have great concerns, therefore withdraw it.”

Even within the current treaties, the yellow card system could be made to work better, which brings me to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform—a think-tank that is well reputed and thorough on such matters—has suggested creating a national parliamentary forum in Brussels of MPs from different member states. I would be interested to know whether the Minister for Europe has considered that proposal. I regret to hear that European Commissioner Viviane Reding did not turn up to the meeting when the hon. Gentleman was in Dublin. Perhaps a new forum, made up of MPs—not necessarily including Chairs of Scrutiny Committees—meeting in Brussels could better hold to account European Governments, who have permanent representations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston suggested, there should be better political oversight of such representations.

[Mr Cash]

Holding a gathering of MPs to talk about issues is not the same as holding people to account. Holding people to account means that there is a vote, within a constitutional structure that requires people to answer questions, and if the people who have the numbers on their side do not like a proposal, the Government’s position changes, as happened last night. The hon. Lady is suggesting a Parliament of fools.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman has not even allowed me to finish my point. If he considers the proposals from the Centre for European Reform, he will see that they are not about a talking shop. With great respect, I know that he sits on COSAC, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston mentioned, and that committee needs to be vastly improved from its current formulation and in its make-up. Mr Grant says that it does not give MPs a big enough stake, is only consultative and is often treated “disdainfully” by MEPs—his word, not mine.

There is clearly a great—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) at least give me the courtesy of listening to my response to his intervention? There is clearly a great problem with the current set-up, and having a presence in Brussels of national parliamentarians who could have a vote and scrutinise more closely the decisions taken by our and other Governments deserves closer consideration, rather than just saying that it would be a gathering of fools—a statement with which I profoundly disagree.

I recently met the Speaker of the Dutch House of Representatives, and she has an appetite, as do colleagues in other member states with whom I have discussed the matter, for Parliaments to work more closely together. The Government could give greater consideration to the successes in the Dutch, Danish and German Parliaments. For example, in the Netherlands, the standing committees—akin, I think, to our Select Committees—choose proposals from within the Commission work programme that they see as priorities and about which they might have concerns, and they refer them to their European affairs committee.

Our departmental Select Committees are not involved enough in proposals at an early stage, or even at later stages, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about what the Government could do to drive greater consideration and scrutiny on a policy-by-policy basis, given that, as has been said, a lot of European policy is not foreign policy—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is an anomaly that it is often treated as such. Our departmental Select Committees could learn from the experience of the Netherlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate, and on the presentation of her arguments. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that I have never had any intention of seeking to appear before his Committee via a video link. I have always much preferred that he and I look each other straight in the eye, person to person.

[Mr Cash]

It was not a video link—it was a video.

[Mr Lidington]

Well, that is something best avoided in any meeting with parliamentarians, if humanly possibly.

I will try to respond to the various points that were made, in particular by the hon. Lady. She posed a number of questions and challenges, some of which focused on how we do European business here in Westminster, and others that centred on what might be done in the broader European Union context, and how national Parliaments should fit into the legislative process and decisions taken at European level.

I shall start with the hon. Lady’s points about how we deal with European business here at Westminster. Her most important point was that it was vital to find a way to engage and involve a rather larger number of Members in European business. I have to confess that when I go in to the Chamber for a debate on Europe, or in to a Committee, I feel at times like a cut-price version of Henry V before Agincourt. It is a matter of:

“We few, we happy few”

that are gathered together, and it is very familiar faces, from both sides of the House, that tend to feature. It is, however, not a Government matter, but a problem for Parliament. Parliament must take more seriously its collective responsibility as an institution to see, rightly or wrongly—individual hon. Members will have their own views on this—that we live in a world in which European Union business should be treated as mainstream political business, and not as something that can be quietly shoved off to some annexe next door and left to specialists to get on with in peace and quiet. The decisions that British Ministers of any party take in the Council of Ministers have an impact on the lives of the constituents of every Member of this House and I agree, therefore, with the thrust of what the hon. Lady said.

I disagree with the hon. Lady, however, in that I feel that the focus should not be just on the Chamber. The Chamber is clearly important, but we need to consider the role of Committees, including departmental Select Committees. In various evidence sessions with the European Scrutiny Committee over the past couple of years, I have tried to emphasise my growing belief that part of the answer lies in persuading the departmental Select Committees to give greater priority to that aspect of their work that covers European Union business. That is a matter for Select Committees, and it would be wrong for the Government to get into the business of seeking to give them instructions—the powers are already there within the terms of resolutions. It is primarily for those Committees to take ownership of those agendas and drive them forward. They can by all means invite European Commissioners to give evidence and by all means go to Brussels every now and then to take evidence and meet informally with people in the European institutions who are involved in legislation.

I look forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee on the scrutiny process. I am sure that many of the matters that have been touched on this morning, such as whether we should move towards a mandate model of scrutiny along the lines of what the Scandinavian countries have, will be addressed in that report, and I obviously do not want to pre-empt the Government’s response to it. I say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that one of the characteristics of that mandate system—she rightly drew attention to some of its virtues—is that the sessions between the Minister and the committee to discuss a negotiating mandate take place in closed session. The public and press are not admitted and the report is not public, at least until after the negotiations are concluded.

[Mr Lidington]

That is a very good point. To my mind, it means that one needs to focus the collective memory of elected Members through the members of the Liaison Committee, which is composed of relatively senior Members of Parliament, and through the system of the Committee Clerks. If we look at our Parliament’s representation in Brussels, we have some very talented people representing the two Houses, but that amounts to three staff. The Bundestag and the Bundesrat have 18 or 19 people between them, and that is on top of the German federal representation and the representative offices from each of the German Länder that are present in Brussels. Again, Parliament should consider the question of whether our level of representation and the number of people we have on the ground in Brussels are sufficient, but the Government cannot, or should not, issue instructions on that.

The hon. Lady asked whether COSAC could be improved, and my answer is definitely yes. It is an imperfect organisation, and it could be strengthened through reforms to the secretariat or through a formal power to summon commissioners, rather than expecting commissioners by convention to come and give evidence. It is not just about the formal meetings of COSAC, because if any system of red or yellow cards is to be effective, there has to be a culture of talking and working together that means that different parliamentary representatives, and in particular the chairs of the relevant committees, are used to having contact with each other in networking and co-ordinating an approach to a particular Commission draft measure.

The hon. Lady asked about the role of the Europe Minister, and she was very fair in how she put it. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had in this country about where that office sits. Some argue that it should sit in the Foreign Office. Others argue that it should sit in the Cabinet Office and so be directly accountable to the Prime Minister. Some argue that it should be a self-standing Department or be located in Brussels, in effect performing the political office of the permanent representative. In France, Germany, Poland and Spain my counterparts sit in their respective Foreign Ministries. In Sweden, however, the Europe Minister sits in the Prime Minister’s office and reports directly to the Prime Minister, although she represents a different political party from the Prime Minister in the current coalition.

The key thing is not where the Europe Minister sits, but how the right level of co-ordination and accountability is achieved across Government. The Europe Minister could be put in the Cabinet Office, but that raises the question of how the work at Brussels, which is certainly cross-departmental in Whitehall terms, is co-ordinated with the bilateral diplomatic work that has to be done with 27 other member states, because European business cannot be done in Brussels alone. I would be worried about a gap opening between a Minister dealing with Brussels business and a Minister dealing with our diplomatic efforts on, for example, Germany. We try to co-ordinate our conversations with German Ministers across all relevant political dossiers. When I see German counterparts, I do not talk strictly about Foreign Office business; I talk about financial services, the European budget and whichever European issues are high on the agenda at that moment.

The key is to have effective co-ordination through a Cabinet system, which we do through the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet. I repeat the point I have made elsewhere: the permanent representative, who is a professional civil servant, follows the mandate set by the Cabinet. If he wishes to move from the mandate he has already been granted, he has to go back to Ministers and seek their agreement and authority to go beyond it.

On the question of yellow and red cards, under the current system national Parliaments or chambers of national Parliaments can submit a reasoned opinion that a draft directive or regulation fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity. They have to submit that within eight weeks of the formal communication from the Commission about a draft measure. One third of the voting weight of national Parliaments needs to be signed up for the Commission to be compelled to carry out a formal review, and the reasoned opinion may only be submitted on the grounds of subsidiarity. We could make more use of reasoned opinions than we do. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is meticulous in looking at the legal grounds of a directive and whether it meets the subsidiarity test.

The Westminster Parliament has so far submitted fewer reasoned opinions than some Parliaments in other member states, but we could look to reform the system. Is eight weeks long enough? Should we not give national Parliaments longer to consider their response? There is an obvious problem with recesses. Should we reduce the threshold below a third? Should we widen the grounds for challenge? If we have subsidiarity, why not have proportionality as well? Why not have some sort of test on excessive burdens on business, or on whether there is evidence that a draft measure would have a harmful impact on European growth? Why not make provision for the yellow card to become a red card under certain circumstances, with an outright veto that national Parliaments could impose? Could we give national Parliaments the power to impose an emergency brake in certain circumstances?

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have very little time left. Could we give national Parliaments an emergency brake to throw an issue to consideration by the European Council? Should we provide powers for a yellow or red card retrospectively, so that national Parliaments could, as a group, insist that the institutions consider repealing or amending a directive that was part of the acquis? Should we give national Parliaments the power to bring forward an own-initiative report? In the hands of the European Parliament, that instrument has been significant in helping to shape policy development.

I liked the idea from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston of some act of oblivion at the end of a Commission’s term. Under that idea, a measure that had not completed all stages would be deemed automatically to fall and would be reconsidered in the next Commission and the next European Parliament.

Ideas about a conference of national parliamentarians or a second chamber for the European Parliament are part of the discussion, although there are some serious practical issues to be considered. How would such an institution fit into the legislative process? How could it be made to work in practice, given the other parliamentary and constituency duties that Members of this House have to carry out?

I am conscious of the fact that giving a stronger voice to national Parliaments is only one aspect, though a significant one, of the reform that is necessary to make the European Union more accountable and more democratic than it is currently. It is in all our interests that a way is found to overcome the profound public disaffection that we see throughout the continent on European decisions. There is no European demos, and strengthening the voice of national Parliaments is the right way forward to restore greater democratic accountability to the EU.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The Prime Minister and I are in exactly the same position. Of course we will vote to stay in a successfully reformed European Union. Now perhaps the right hon. Lady will tell us how she will vote on this Bill—[Interruption.] No, Opposition Members still do not know how they will vote on this Bill.

When Ministers from other countries ask me why public opinion here is disillusioned with the European Union, I point out that there have been referendums on the EU in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg, Sweden and Ireland—often twice, of course, in Ireland—yet there has been no referendum for more than a generation in the United Kingdom. The efforts of those who wanted to build European integration without bringing the people with them have been utterly self-defeating. The EU now lacks democratic legitimacy because so many of those most enthusiastic about ever-closer union have been afraid of asking what the British people might think of it.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is completely right in what he just said. Furthermore, with respect to Maastricht, how far the Conservative party has come! The other day my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister actually stated that he believed there should have been a referendum on Maastricht—and he was right.

[Mr Hague]

As always we enjoy my hon. Friend’s robust support on these issues, and I am grateful for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, I want to put on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on a brilliant, deft and extremely well-conducted speech in which he dealt with complex interventions in a very, very mature fashion. I congratulate him not only on his speech but on its content.

I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, despite the fact that referendums were completely off the agenda for some time before the announcement was made in the Bloomberg speech, or in relation to the Bill, has said in the past, as I said in a short intervention, that he thought there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Of course he was right, and I shall explain why in a moment. In 1996 I introduced a Bill, for which I was given what could be considered a bit of a going-over by the then Chief Whip and the Whips, one of whom is now a Minister. It was an entertaining experience, and all I can say is that it made no difference whatsoever to my attitude to the need for a referendum, as I shall explain.

My right hon. Friend was right: the most important principle of the Bloomberg speech is the fourth principle, which overrides all the others, as they all depend on it. He said that the root of our national democracy is our national Parliament, but the essence of that democracy is when it is decided by Parliament that we shall give the people the right to make the decision, which is the ultimate test of trust in the electorate.

[Jim Dowd]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Cash]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

It is estimated that 35 million people—35 million voters—have effectively been disfranchised by the continuous evolution, since 1975, of giving away more and more powers as well as the right to determine the kind of policies and government that they want. That is completely unacceptable. I voted yes in 1975, because I believed then that there was a case for allowing a common market and that we should test whether or not it would work. I also voted for the Single European Act, but I tabled an amendment that nothing in that measure should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why, when it came to Maastricht, I was absolutely determined to fight it at all costs, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd).

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

My hon. Friend mentioned an important word: sovereignty. Is it not right that sovereignty belongs to the people? Even the greatest and wisest Members in the Chamber are merely here-today-and-gone-tomorrow politicians. Sovereignty belongs to the people and their heirs and successors. It is not ours to take away: we must have a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

I could not agree more. People have fought and died. The only reason we live in the United Kingdom in peace and prosperity is because, in the second and first world wars, we stood up for that freedom and democracy. Churchill galvanised the British people to stand up for the very principles that are now at stake.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I know that the whole House is delighted that my hon. Friend saw the light. Some of us not only campaigned in the referendum in 1975 but voted against the Single European Act—only three colleagues who did so remain in the House and, unfortunately, they are all Opposition Members. This is terribly important. My hon. Friend voted for the measure at the time because he thought that he was voting for a common market in goods and services. That is what the British people thought, and we tried to persuade them that it was going to be more than that: it was going to be a united states of Europe. That is the direction of travel, and there is no indication that the direction of travel has changed, which is why we need a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

Indeed; I note what my hon. Friend has said. This issue is about political union. If we strip away all the arguments about repatriation and renegotiation, there is no doubt whatsoever for anyone—I go to COSAC, which is the meeting of the chairmen of national scrutiny committees on European affairs throughout Europe; 27, now 28, chairmen joined together—that this is about political union. We should be under no illusion about that. It is not about anything else now. We had Mr Barroso telling us recently in the blueprint paper that the European Parliament is the only Parliament for the European Union. It is categorical, and I will challenge any Member of Parliament to get up and suggest that this is not embedded in the Maastricht treaty. That is what it was all about—creating a new European Government, and it has grown exponentially ever since.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right. We said that we wanted to have a referendum on several of those treaties. Indeed, the Conservative party was united in voting for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. However, we have now reached a different situation. That is why it is important for the House to bear in mind that it is not a question of what may happen between now and 2017; it is happening already. There is clear evidence of the development, endorsed by the other member states, of a two-tier Europe between the eurozone and the European Union itself. That is the fundamental change that is already taking place, without a treaty.

We know from the discussions that are going on in Europe that there is much talk of moving forward without another treaty. That is why we need to have a referendum. That is why the Government are right to promote the circumstances in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, who came first in the ballot, has the opportunity to introduce his Bill. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have taken part in the debate, and that is why it is so essential that we get it right. This is about political and economic freedom.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I think he is coming on to the point that there are not just political reasons, but clear-cut economic reasons why we need to have a referendum, not least of which are the fact that 70% of the regulations that are an unacceptable burden on our businesses and their employees emanate from Europe, and the fact that there is 55% youth unemployment in Spain and in Greece, which is blighting a generation. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are economic reasons for a referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I totally agree. My hon. Friend and I, with other Members, have debated this in complete unity, for the same reason: freedom is about freedom of choice. In parliamentary and constitutional terms, freedom of choice depends upon freedom of choice at the ballot box and in the marketplace. If we get the first, the political choice, wrong, as has been going on with this European Government, we will end up with austerity, small and medium-sized businesses not being able to work properly, and massive unemployment among young people, which I know Opposition Members are worried about, as are we on the Government Benches.

When 65% of the young people in several countries in Europe—Spain, Greece and so on—are unemployed, that is unacceptable and it is a direct result of the way in which the European Union has been centralised. Opposition Members have been saying recently, “We do not like the centralisation”—people who are completely in favour of the European Union, until they suddenly realise that the centralisation is creating austerity, unemployment and misery for those young people. It is unacceptable.

[Mr Binley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who perpetuate the myth of the single market, arguing that the UK will lose 3 million jobs if we come out, fail to take account of the fact that there is a £70 billion surplus, and no business in Europe will cease to trade with this country whether we are in the single market or not?

[Mr Cash]

Furthermore, with respect to our trade deficit, as I have said on a number of occasions, in 2012, according to the Office for National Statistics, we had a trade deficit of £70 billion with the other 27 member states. To give the point some substance, Germany, on the other hand—no wonder there are two Europes, which are increasingly becoming German-oriented—had a trade surplus with the other 27 member states in 2011 that has now gone up to £72 billion.

It is not really a European Union any more. It is so heavily dominated, wilfully or otherwise, by the circumstances that have created that imbalance, and that of course has its effect on the qualified majority voting. That is why we have to have a referendum, and we need to have it sooner rather than later, because the fundamental renegotiation itself is dependent on the fact that the circumstances have already arisen, and as I said just now, not necessarily with a new treaty.

[Wayne David]

So that we can be clear about the hon. Gentleman’s position, does he favour the United Kingdom having a relationship with the European Union similar to that of Norway and Switzerland, or does he think we should be entirely separate and have no relationship with the single market?

[Mr Cash]

I have made my position entirely clear on a number of occasions. We need to have something in the nature of a European Free Trade Association arrangement. We need an association of nation states. I am off to Lithuania the day after tomorrow to discuss these matters with the other 27 chairmen. The main topic of conversation now is democratic legitimacy, and it is not just in this country, it is not just in this Chamber, it is not just in the opinion polls, it is not just in the Eurobarometer, which has shown that trust in Europe has completely evaporated all over Europe. Wake up, I say. This is the fact, and it is happening. That is why we need to have a renegotiation. This is about trust. It is about allowing people to have government of a kind that responds to their own wishes, as expressed in general elections. That is why we cannot have two Governments and two Parliaments covering the same subject matter. It is complete, incoherent, absurd nonsense.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend has been tempted on numerous occasions by Opposition Members to debate the merits of in and out, but that is not what today is about. They will not say whether or not they will have a referendum. Today is about whether we will debate that with the public—not in here among ourselves, but take it out to the public. The Opposition want to turn today’s debate into a debate about the merits. I caution my hon. Friend about being seduced by Opposition Members. Make them answer whether they will vote for a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

I think my hon. Friend can be certain that I am not likely to be seduced, either by the Opposition or anybody else, for that matter. I simply say this: this is about the principle of a referendum.

I conclude with a simple statement: this is about trust. It is about trust in people. Because we are doing it through a Bill, as is required, we will give authority through Parliament to have a referendum. That is what this is all about. It is to give the British people their right to have their say. There is no question but that the Bill must pass, but it needs to be secured by a vote on both sides of the House. I am afraid that Opposition Members are neglecting their duty to their constituents if they continue to refuse to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have talked on more than one occasion in this House about the disconnect that now exists between the people and the political class in Parliament. People feel that their concerns are not being given high enough priority and that, with regard to the EU, promises have been broken. On the Lisbon treaty, for example, they believe that the Labour party promised a referendum on the European constitution. I remember before a previous election Tony Blair, with the encouragement of Lord Mandelson, bringing the referendum rabbit out of the hat, but he reneged on that pledge when he got into office, claiming then that there were red lines that they would negotiate and that it was therefore no longer a constitution. The people simply do not believe that.

We have talked about the Lib Dems going back on their promise of an in/out referendum. Reference has been made to the cast-iron guarantee the Prime Minister gave on the Lisbon treaty. I understand the reasons that have been advanced on why that did not happen—for example, the fact that it had already been implemented. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that very many people believe that if we had wanted to have a referendum on Lisbon, even after it had been introduced, we could have done if the political will had existed. However, it did not exist, and that was the problem.

[Mr Cash]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in fact fundamental change is going on already, and that that, even without a treaty, is the real reason for having a referendum?

[Mr Dodds]

Yes, I agree. That is why it is not enough merely to have it enshrined in law that there will be a referendum at some future point if there is some new treaty or whatever. There is a continuing erosion of sovereignty and it is therefore important that the matter is brought to a head sooner rather than later.

European Council

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he, on this occasion only, will make a statement on the European Council on 14 and 15 March, and its conclusions of 15 March.

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the European Council meeting held in Brussels—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

Given that there are 11 pages of European conclusions, who decided to report to the House on the European Council for the first time by way of written ministerial statement, and why? Why did the Prime Minister not make the statement on the EU Council, as announced by the Leader of the House last Thursday? Does the Minister agree that, as the Prime Minister negotiated at the European Council, he should also make the statement and answer all questions?

The conclusions astonishingly state that much has been accomplished in the EU in recent years. Given the dysfunctional nature of the EU, the eurozone crisis and low growth, and the state of affairs in Greece and Italy, and now in Cyprus and Spain, how can such a statement be justified?

What specific steps are being taken to help small and medium-sized businesses, given that, despite all the protestations and initiatives, and 20 summits in 20 months, there is zero growth in the EU? Why is that? How does the Minister believe the single market can be a key driver for the UK’s growth and jobs when our trade deficit with the 27 EU member states is £48 billion, whereas we have a surplus of £20 billion with the rest of the world? Given past hopeless performance, what reason is there to believe that the burden of European regulation on small and medium-sized businesses, and other businesses, will ever be reduced?

Finally, what are the specific legislative proposals for the single resolution mechanism, and how will the level playing field be achieved for the City of London given the current state of play?

[Mr Swire]

I sometimes hope that my hon. Friend will see something good in the EU, but that might take a lifetime. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he takes his responsibilities extremely seriously. Since he took office, he has given 15 oral statements and two written statements following European Councils. He issued a written ministerial statement this morning, and I understand that my hon. Friend had a discussion with him on this subject yesterday.

Had my hon. Friend been with us at the debate earlier today on UK Trade & Investment, he would have recognised the feeling across the House—in fact, not right across the House, because there was nobody there from the Opposition. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition spokesman was there, the Democratic Unionist party was there, but the Labour party was not there because it does not seem to be interested in small and medium-sized businesses. If my hon. Friend had been there this morning, he would have recognised the feeling that while SMEs are the way forward, they are over-regulated. Small and medium-sized enterprises provided 85% of new jobs in the EU in the past decade. As a result of the Council, we now have concrete measures to reduce regulations, including the top 10 most burdensome EU regulations, by June. The measures include rules on chemicals, product safety and customs. We believe the single market is the way forward and that EU trade agreements are vital. That is our vision of Europe, and one that I hope my hon. Friend shares.

Europe

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely agree about our central position in all those areas, and we want them all to succeed. Sometimes, we have to make the case for reform in each of those forums, and it is very important for Europe’s future that we make the case in the EU.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Right at the heart of the five principles, as my right hon. Friend knows, was the insistence that the national Parliaments lie at the heart of our democratic accountability. In that context, does he accept that the movement towards ever-closer union had to be rejected and, furthermore, that it is vital that we recognise that there cannot be two Governments and two Parliaments dealing with the questions that arise in the context of the future of Europe?

[Mr Hague]

I will come in a few moments, I hope, to the importance of national Parliaments playing an increased role in the decision making of the European Union. My hon. Friend knows from his close reading of the Prime Minister’s speech that he set out a vision of the EU as an explicit contrast to the vision of ever-closer union, so that is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I yield to no one in my admiration for the Foreign Secretary, but he is in a difficult position: he is trading on his past Euroscepticism. In order to maintain his position with his Back Benchers, he has to effect the same persona that suggested we had nine days left to save the pound about 4,000 days ago. He is an intelligent man, however, and he has learned in office that Britain’s interests are served by being part of the EU. He cannot be too explicit about the changes he wants to see, however, because it would compromise the support on his own Back Benches. Nevertheless, I fully endorse my hon. Friend’s point; the right hon. Gentleman has learned in office, and that is why his points about Britain standing taller in the world as part of the EU are probably heartfelt.

[Mr Cash]

Does the shadow Foreign Secretary agree with the Barroso blueprint that the European Parliament, and only that, is the Parliament of the European Union?

[Mr Alexander]

We were clear during the passage of the Lisbon treaty that there should be an enhanced role for national Parliaments—indeed, in my speech last week, I contemplated whether we could strengthen the yellow card procedure with a red card procedure. I see a greater role for national Parliaments being contemplated in the future, therefore; it is certainly one of the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary might be minded to articulate, if he felt able to be explicit, but alas he has taken a Trappist vow of silence.

The debate about Britain’s place in Europe, for all the importance of talking about the economy, stability and jobs and growth, is about more than economics and labour markets. Fundamentally, it is about the kind of country we are and the kind we aspire to be. In a century that many have taken to calling the Asian century, the Labour party is clear that the case for EU membership remains strong. Indeed, if the mechanisms for co-ordinating approaches at EU level did not exist, there would be significant calls for them to be created in today’s world.

Over the past 50 years, the case for Britain’s place in Europe has been based on its ability to deliver peace and prosperity. Today, the EU is also an indispensible vehicle and instrument for amplifying our power. That is certainly true economically, but it is also true in trade. We have discussed today the EU free trade agreement. Is it not ironic that the Prime Minister’s No. 1 ambition for his presidency of the G8 this year is an EU-US free trade area? What could more eloquently speak to the fact that, in any of these international organisations, we stand taller and speak with a louder voice as part of the EU than we would outside it?

Whether in economics, trade, defence, foreign policy or the global challenges around development and climate change, Britain’s interests are strengthened by being part of the EU. It gives us a weight collectively that on our own we would lack. It is not a matter of outdated sentiment or even of party ideology; it is a matter of simple arithmetic. In an age when countries are the size of continents, our membership gives us access to, and influence over, the world’s biggest trading bloc, prising open new frontiers that would otherwise be unreachable by the UK. In an age of common threats that permeate national borders, membership gives us the power of collective action and pooled resources.

For the past 50 years, Britain’s foreign policy has rested on two key pillars—a leading role in Europe and a powerful partnership with the US. Let us be honest: both those foundations are at risk, with a US Administration increasingly pivoting towards Asia, and an EU in which the UK could potentially marginalise its future role. It is a time when Britain must navigate a careful course, and the priority must be to make Britain a leading force within Europe as part of an increasingly multi-polar world. Rather than seeing power and decision making contracting to the G2, in a world where all the decisions are taken in Washington or Beijing, Europe, with Britain leading within it, can work to build a G3 world. Instead of focusing on a future agenda for Europe, the Prime Minister has sadly chosen to push a familiar but vague agenda: to bring back powers and roll back protections. At a time when the rest of Europe is preoccupied with future reforms on the big questions—about currency, continued pacification of the European neighbourhood and the projection of European power globally—the British Government have chosen to focus their efforts on looking back rather than looking ahead.

Even after the much delayed speech last week, the truth remains that—as we have seen again today—on the issue of Britain’s membership of the European Union, the gap between the minimum that Conservative Back Benchers will accept and the maximum that the EU can deliver remains unbridgeable. With a divided Government—and, indeed, a divided Conservative party —it therefore falls to Labour to make the hard-headed, patriotic case, founded on the national interest, both for Britain in Europe and for change in Europe, and that is what we will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The ultimate question that lies at the heart of the five principles that the Prime Minister set out in his speech is about our democracy, because everything ultimately depends on the fact that we agreed, in the European Communities Act 1972, on a voluntary basis, to accept the legislation that came out of the Council of Ministers when it made decisions. Those decisions are increasingly made by qualified majority vote now.

The 1971 White Paper—the basis on which the legislation went through, albeit by only six votes—categorically stated that there would be no erosion of British sovereignty in this House, and that it was vital that we retained the veto, not only in our national interest but in the interests of the European Community as a whole. That remains fundamental because, in a democratic nation faced with the pressures for federalism that people are seeking to impose from outside, it has to be right that the Prime Minister has taken the decision to challenge the nature of the structure of the European Union. He went to the heart of the issue when he rejected the notion of ever-closer union, and I commend him for that. I also believe profoundly that we must bring this programme forward rather than waiting until 2017. For reasons of uncertainty, of practicality and of principle, we should have a decision during this Parliament, not during the next one.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I will make one further point before I give way.

I have just come back from Dublin, where, in my capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I met the other 27 national chairmen. There was no doubt whatever in the statement made by the chairman of the Bundestag’s European affairs committee that, as far as he and Germany were concerned, delay was unacceptable. We also know, from listening to him and to the German ambassador, that there will be no cherry-picking and no negotiations of the kind that are being contemplated. The French take a similar view; I have had meetings with them, too. The reality is, therefore, that there is a serious requirement to make the decisions earlier rather than later.

[Mr Redwood]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend’s central point. Does he agree that the reason that we have this tragedy in Britain over our relationship with Europe is that more than 100 vetoes in important policy areas were given away at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, against the wishes of the loyal Opposition in this House and probably against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people, who were never consulted about the way in which their democracy was taken away and trashed?

[Mr Cash]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will add another point. The recent analysis by VoteWatch Europe, which has been through every decision taken by the Council of Ministers in the past three years, demonstrates that in 91.7% of votes taken in that forum, the UK Government—under the aegis of UKRep and through the Council of Ministers itself—have voted in favour of the proposals in question. That is effectively a forced consensus, because we have only 8% of the votes in the Council of Ministers. When I hear Ministers and others talking about the degree of influence that we exercise in relation to qualified majority voting, I say yes, we have to have alliances, but we know that if others are not going to be in alliance with us, we will not get the kind of result that the British people deserve.

Ultimately, this is about one fundamental question. It is not just about the word “democracy”; it is about democracy in action and its impact on the daily lives of the people of this country. The reality is that someone goes into the ballot station, votes in secret and casts his or her vote based on a manifesto in which they are told what the party in question is offering them in a general election; that is what democracy is all about. When they cast their vote, they expect the legislation to follow what they have been promised. The reality is that, under this system, the whole of Europe is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, with riots, unemployment and the rise of the far right. Let us face it: we have to get real. The fact is that it is not working. That is why our debate is so important.

[Michael Connarty]

I am grateful to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. I have always wanted to ask him this question, so that he can put his answer on the record rather than provide it in a private conversation with me. Is he likely to campaign to come out of the European Union and, if so, on what terms? I want to know, and I think the Foreign Secretary wants to know, on what basis the hon. Gentleman will campaign and vote to come out of the European Union.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful for that intervention for a very good reason. One of the reasons why I believe it is right for the Prime Minister to insist on the “in or out” question is that now, after all the agonising over all these years—including the Maastricht rebellion, for example, which I was able to participate in and lead at the time—all these things have culminated in this referendum. We have fought for a referendum. Precisely because the question is “in or out?”, it raises the question of the European Communities Act 1972 and whether the British people, having voted in the ballot box, should be expected to receive legislation that comes automatically into law when they might not in fact agree with it. That is the problem: that is why I believe we must have the right question, but it must also be at the right time. As far as I am concerned, if that democratic principle is not upheld, I will vote to come out, because the democratic principle is the fundamental issue for the British people, many of whom fought and died for this country.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) refer to the fact that he was born in May 1945. I was born on 10 May 1940. That was the day on which Churchill became Prime Minister, and it was over the question of whether or not Britain would be able to govern itself—and much more besides. I follow the line Churchill took about being “associated but not absorbed” with Europe. That is the fundamental question.

In addition, on the economic front, let me make this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and I wrote a pamphlet about a positive way forward for the single market. We believe that there is a positive way forward for Europe, but that what is happening at the moment is that Europe is creating instability by this concentration on a compression chamber when there are all these diverse countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, “one size fits all” does not work. We must have an association of nation states. I appreciate that that challenges the centralisation that has gone on for so long in Europe, and I appreciate that it challenges the democratic deficit. I appreciate, too, if I may say so, that this would increase trade, increase opportunities and help to liberalise the rest of the world in the global marketplace. All these things have to be examined, as we move forward in the debate that has now started.

Given the dysfunctionality of the European Union, the determination to repudiate the idea that we should have a referendum is astonishing. The French had two referendums—I took part in both of them in France—and we did incredibly well in Denmark, too, where there were several referendums. There was a referendum in Ireland and in Holland. Who on earth are these people to turn round to us in this country and say, “We can have referendums, but you can’t”? It is beyond belief.

[Wayne David]

Just so we can be absolutely clear, when would the hon. Gentleman like to see the referendum in this country being held?

[Mr Cash]

I would like to see it before the European elections. I believe that that is where the focus on the European question will be at its best. Then we can expose the position of the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Labour Opposition at the same time. The reality is that the British people deserve to have that vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a serious problem if the free trade arrangements that he and I, along with many others, want are in any way obstructed by the exclusive competence of the European Union overlaying the question of whether we could trade freely with, for example, all the members of the Commonwealth and emerging markets?

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is an EU competence to negotiate free trade agreements. If we had that competence back, as a sovereign Parliament and a sovereign nation, we would once again be free to forge those free trade agreements. I am struck by the fact that there is a multilingual central European country that is free of the European Union, but which has free trade agreements with the European Union—and, indeed, the rest of the world—and that is the nation of Switzerland. It is perfectly possible for us to maintain co-operation and free trading with Europe and to extend that to the rest of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Having listened to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), I have to say that I must have heard a different speech by the Prime Minister. I did not hear that rallying cry in the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe or in the Foreign Secretary’s speech today. It is a dream. It may be a good dream, and I am sure that it is one that the right hon. Member for Wokingham will take into his dotage, but it will never be realised on the basis of what is being offered by his Government. If he really believes that by speaking in that way he can change the route that his Government are taking, he is deluding himself.

The key question for me on the whole issue of Europe is whether, if the policies and procedures that currently exist in the UK’s relationship with the EU remain unamended, it is likely that the Foreign Secretary, given his speech today and his many contributions over his period in office, or the Prime Minister—or, indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition—would campaign for the UK to withdraw from membership of the EU. The answer is clearly no. I believe that that is the case for the majority of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and for the vast majority of Opposition Members. If there were no changes, I do not think that those people would go out and campaign for our withdrawal from the EU. I think that the people of the UK would reject that.

I ask the same question as I asked in the Scottish referendum debate: is the current relationship between the UK and the EU damaging or malevolent? I do not find it malevolent. I find it irritating, troublesome and tedious in its mechanistic way of working. I have seen that as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee since 1998. However, it is not malevolent and it is certainly not damaging to the UK. Every statistic shows that the UK benefits remarkably from its membership of the EU.

There is an issue with competence creep. There is no doubt about that. That is what gets me about this Government who put themselves forward as being reforming. I watch Ministers come forward every week, again and again, with explanatory memorandums saying that they have decided to go for a political agreement or a compromise that gives away power to the European Commission. I have always said that since Lisbon that has been much more difficult to resist. But it is not even resisted. That is not about the EU; it is about the failure of our Governments over a long period to stand up to the Commission when they could have done, to build the alliances that Opposition colleagues and some Government Members have talked about, and to deliver for the UK.

[Mr Cash]

To respond to the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me earlier, would he be good enough to tell me whether it is more important to implement the laws made by consensus in the European Council of Ministers or the laws that his constituents support through the ballot box?

[Michael Connarty]

In 20 years in this place, I have never found it inconsistent to support the European Union. I supported it when I voted in the first referendum, and I supported it when I was the chairman of the Mid Scotland and Fife European parliamentary constituency and convinced a Eurosceptic MEP to see the benefits of Europe. There is no inconsistency between my job as a Member of Parliament and my support for the EU.

The big questions that we should be discussing—the ones that were touched on by the shadow Foreign Secretary—are all included in the Irish presidency agenda. The budget, the next financial perspective, the multi-annual framework and the need to deal with debt in the eurozone are all on the agenda and are being discussed on a daily basis by the 27 countries and Ministers. We should be discussing low participation in the labour market, unemployment levels and the massive problem of youth unemployment. The only comment that was made by the UK Government on the proposal for a youth, education and sport initiative—interestingly, I am the chair of the Council of Europe’s sub-committee on education, youth and sport—was that it should not be called the youth, education and sport initiative because that spelled “YES”. That was the one contribution from a UK Minister about what is on the Irish presidency agenda on youth employment. The Government have rejected the proposal for a guaranteed job or training place for every youth in Europe after four months of unemployment because they did not want that to interfere with what they call apprenticeships. In fact, apprenticeships in this country are not apprenticeships, but merely in-work training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walter]

It is a warning from history, but if the hon. Gentleman listens to what else I have to say, I hope that he will accept that I will be campaigning to make sure that that does not happen. I had rather hoped that the question of Britain’s membership had been settled decisively back then—my view has not changed—but I believe that the prospect of a national vote would give our country an opportunity to have a serious national conversation about Britain’s relations with the European Union. I welcome that, because I think that for too long the debate has been dominated and, to an extent, distorted by mistrust and by a suspicion that more EU integration means less sovereignty for the United Kingdom.

We need to set the record straight. For those of us who support the European project, this will serve as an opportunity to explain what Parliament and politicians have done in the people’s name over the last 40 years. It will also give us a chance to expose the myths purveyed by those who would have us turn our backs on both our European history and our European future.

It is true that the Europe we joined in 1973 was created on the basis of a vision of a post-war Franco-German elite. It is also true that Schuman, Monnet and de Gaulle himself saw ever-closer union as meaning an eventual federal Europe. But that was another time, and another Europe. The EU of today is markedly different, and the EU of tomorrow will, I believe, be even more so. In the Commission and, to some extent, in the European Parliament, there are those who still see the EU as a centralising project, but in national Parliaments—including this one—and among the peoples of Europe there is no craving for that original centralised model.

Brussels is not Europe, and the people who work there have no monopoly on the European vision. Schuman’s plan was fundamentally about eliminating trouble, anxiety and distrust from a continent ravaged by centuries of conflict. Today, our focus is not on keeping the peace, but on consolidating prosperity. The treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 by just six countries with a combined population of 173 million. By the time the Lisbon treaty came into force, more than half a century later, the Union comprised 27 member states with a combined population of more than half a billion. With Croatia, we are soon to number 28. Enlargement, one of the EU’s greatest success stories, is set to continue, bringing more change to the character and direction of the European project.

As its membership has changed, the EU has embarked on a different path. If we reflect on the way in which European institutions have evolved since that original blueprint, if we look at the aspirations and stated aims of EU member states—all of which want to protect their identities and interests—and if we consider the actions that member states have taken independently, across a wide spectrum of policies, it is clear to us that there is no great craving for the centralising project envisaged by the founding fathers. The proof is all around us.

After 40 years of British membership, there is really no overarching bureaucracy or executive. The Commission and the Council are small in comparison with many national Government administrations. The Commission’s budget is barely 1% of Europe’s GDP. Countries retain sovereignty over many areas that might have been expected to be transferred in a federal system. Member states have their own foreign policies and their own armies, which they can deploy at will, and they do. Member states can choose to opt out of a raft of agreements that they oppose, and they have: that has been proved.

We should not forget, of course, that treaties require the consent of every member state, even if they are supported by the vast majority of the population of the EU. That is an important point. When consent is not given, Europe must go back to the drawing board, and that has been done. In 2005, France and the Netherlands rejected, by referendum, what was then the constitution. In 2008, Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty in the same way. Did those countries threaten to leave the European Union? No. Did the EU respond by trying to coerce those countries into accepting a treaty that was judged unacceptable by the people? No. What happened was that the countries returned to the negotiating table, and their Governments renegotiated the aspects of the treaties that conflicted with their national interest. They made the case for their concerns to be addressed, and they were.

I think that there is a lesson here. We in the UK have our concerns and suspicions, and the EU has many shortcomings. We are therefore right to push for reform, but these examples show us that the EU is not heading inevitably and inexorably towards some sort of federal superstate, even if some people within the Commission and the European Parliament still harbour that goal. Every country has its own corner to fight, and it has the power to do so. We are far too reluctant to admit this, but the UK has time and again proven itself to be an influential leader in the EU.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Walter]

Sadly, I only have a couple of minutes left.

[Mr Cash]

I can give you an extra minute.

[Mr Walter]

No, you cannot.

Thanks to our positive engagement across a swathe of policy areas, from economic reform and deregulation to environment and trade, we have consistently set the agenda. In the debates ahead, we need to strip away the rhetoric and clarify what Europe represents. Europe is the solution, not the problem. Our history is in Europe, and I believe that our future is, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

We have heard some excellent contributions to this debate.

Former French President Charles de Gaulle famously asked how it was possible to govern a country with 246 types of cheese. The same could be said of the Conservative party on the EU. As my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) stressed, the timing and the content of the Prime Minister’s speech last week were clearly motivated by an attempt to manage his party, rather than to serve the national interest. His speech was both a delaying tactic and a diversionary tactic designed to kick the can of a Tory split over Europe down the road and to divert attention from the Government’s ongoing economic failure.

When the Prime Minister set the original date for his much delayed EU speech, there was a failure to notice the clash with the anniversary of the Élysée treaty, but it was clear that the speech was deliberately timed to divert attention from last Friday’s GDP figures, which were, as expected, disappointing. [Interruption.] Government Members may laugh, but the situation is serious in my constituency and throughout the country. We were told last week that our economy contracted in the last quarter of 2012, but today, instead of discussing the possibility of the economy slipping into a triple-dip recession, we are talking about Europe.

The Prime Minister’s policy last week was to buy himself some time, keep his party quiet and stem the tide of rumours of leadership challenges. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it would appear that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and several other Back Benchers did not get the memo. This week’s leadership rumours show that behind the paper-thin veneer of unity afforded by last week’s speech, the Conservatives remain a deeply divided party. Today’s debate has shown that, too.

There are many factions in the Conservative party over the EU. There are those who want us to leave no matter what, although I am slightly confused by the position of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—I would have put him in that group, but now I do not know whether he is a Camembert or a Roquefort. Another faction is led by the Fresh Starters.

[Mr Cash]

Would the hon. Lady recognise that some of us seek to address this question in the context of the national interest? When she speaks about GDP, does she recognise that the challenges to GDP in this country are largely driven by the lack of growth in the eurozone? We run a deficit with the EU member states of £47 billion a year.

[Emma Reynolds]

Germany’s EU membership has not prevented its economy from growing more than 4% in the past two years, nor has France’s membership prevented its economy from growing by more than 1.5%.

I return to the divisions in the Conservative party. There are different factions with different shopping lists. There is an interesting faction that actually quite likes the status quo, but will not admit it, and various Members—not least the Minister for Europe—who are pro-Europeans, but would never call themselves that. I will not name any others, because I might get them in trouble with their local Conservative associations, but it is clear that the gap between what the Prime Minister’s party is demanding and what he can renegotiate with our European partners is unbridgeable.

The Prime Minister’s announcement of an in/out referendum in four years—on an arbitrary time scale, an unknown set of demands and an unknown outcome—will create economic uncertainty. Many of my hon. Friends have made that point. Many business leaders are concerned about the UK drifting towards an exit. A leading group of business leaders warned that to call for a wholesale renegotiation would

“put our membership of the EU at risk”

and cause

“damaging uncertainty for British business”.

Interestingly, back in November 2011, the Chancellor, when talking about a slightly different referendum, said:

“The instability and the uncertainty that hangs over the Scottish economy”

is the result of the First Minister

“raising the prospects of independence without actually providing any detail of when he wants to have his referendum or what the question will be.”

It seems curious that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor cannot see that there is a direct parallel with their commitment to a referendum on Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply, only briefly, to the 37 right hon. and hon. Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House who have spoken, in addition to the two Front Benchers. Beneath all the knockabout and the genuinely strong views that we have heard on the different sides of the debate, there has been a common recognition that the European Union is changing already and is likely to have to change further, as a consequence of three inexorable trends that are affecting how it operates.

My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) emphasised how the dynamic inherent in the single currency union is pushing its members towards closer fiscal and economic integration and that, over time, that will require further political integration to make those fiscal and economic decisions democratically accountable. They suggested that that, in turn, would mean that at some stage in the next few years, all members of the European Union would have to sit down and have what my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) called a grown-up conversation about how we can get right the political and institutional architecture to make the European Union work with different levels of integration, with some countries having committed themselves to much closer, deeper integration on some aspects of policy than others, but with those others still remaining full participants in the EU.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Macclesfield (David Rutley) pointed out, Europe is having to contend with the dramatic rise of the emerging economies. Therefore, Europe as a whole—as well as the individual countries—needs to raise its game quickly. Otherwise, the blunt truth is that none of us will be able to afford either the material standards of living or the social protection that current generations in Europe have come to take for granted. That does not mean sweeping away all social protection, however.

If the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and other hon. Members who raised that scare story look at European debates on the working time directive, the pregnant workers directive or the posted workers directive, they will find that the United Kingdom is far from being the only member state that questions whether we need a one-size-fits-all policy, or whether the Commission or the Parliament need to be quite so prescriptive in trying to harmonise different systems that are based on national traditions, laws and practices in relation to employment protection and social benefits.

Given the need to respond to the global economic challenge, Europe as a whole needs to focus on the further deepening of the single market. We have already accomplished a great deal in terms of goods, but the single market in services is woefully underdeveloped. It is profoundly in the interest of the United Kingdom and of Europe as a whole that we should be successful in promoting those reforms further.

It is also essential that the United Kingdom should work energetically within the European Union, as the Government are doing, to promote greater free trade between Europe and other countries around the world. During the lifetime of this Government, we have achieved free trade agreements with Singapore and South Korea, and there is now an ambition to obtain an historic free trade agreement with the United States that would in effect set global regulatory standards, as well as sweeping away tariffs and non-tariff barriers. That objective is among the top priorities of our Prime Minister and of the German Chancellor, as well as of other leaders around the European Union.

We need a practice and a culture of legislation and regulation at European level, as at national level, that seek always to reduce the burden that such law and regulation impose on the flexibility of our businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. In answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), I would say that the plan to extend the deregulatory exemption for the smallest business is not some plot dreamt up in the nether recesses of Conservative central office. It is a policy objective that has been endorsed by the European Council on more than one occasion and that is supported by the Heads of State and Heads of Government of all 27 member states—conservative, liberal and socialist alike. I hope that, on reflection, she will welcome what is happening in that regard.

The third driver for change is the need to strengthen democratic accountability. As I would have expected, much has been said in the debate today about the United Kingdom’s desire for a greater role for national Parliaments in how decisions are taken at European level. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out that discontent with the current state of Europe manifested itself in the voting in the French presidential election. If we look at countries such as Hungary and Greece, we can see manifestations of an ugly strand of European politics that we hoped had been defeated for good at the end of the second world war. Those undemocratic populist movements are exploiting genuine grievances against, among other things, the way in which decisions appear to be taken over the heads of ordinary people. It would be to the disadvantage of the European Union as a whole and of democratic traditions and values in Europe if they were not dealt with.

[Mr Cash]

Would my right hon. Friend care to take this opportunity to repudiate the statement in the Barroso blueprint that the EU Parliament and only the European Parliament is the Parliament for the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not agree with that statement. The European Parliament has a role that is set down in the treaties, but if giving extra powers to the European Parliament were the answer to discontent over the democratic deficit, the transfer of those additional powers in successive treaties over the past 15 or 20 years would have remedied the problem. It clearly has not, and it is not just in the United Kingdom where politicians are starting to think about how to involve national Parliaments more in European business than they have been in the past. Europe is changing and needs to change further.

Commission Work Programme 2013

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I have always taken the view that if the United Kingdom were to walk away from the table, the most ardent and most influential champion for free trade and open markets would be removing itself. I am quite clear in my mind, particularly with the pressures that we can observe globally for protection rather than free trade, that it is important that we continue to bring our influence to bear within the European Union and within other multilateral organisations to promote greater freedom of trade across the world.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend, in line with many other members of our party, is deeply committed to the idea of free trade, but given that the European Union has exclusive competence in relation to trade, and with the qualified majority vote and with our having only 8% now, and only 12% even when the Lisbon treaty proposals are introduced in a few months, how will we be able to exercise the degree of influence that he claims, and how will we maintain bilateral trading relations, which will be the answer to all these problems?

[Mr Lidington]

I have more confidence than does my hon. Friend in our ability to form alliances with other countries to achieve the objectives that he and I share. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already discussed at length with Chancellor Merkel their shared objective of an ambitious free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. The leaders of our country and of Germany recognise that the prize at stake is not only the phasing out of tariff barriers but the elimination of non-tariff barriers, thereby establishing, in effect, global regulatory standards agreed on a Euro-Atlantic basis, which would have to become the model for the rest of the world and which other parts of the world would find it difficult to challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

My right hon. Friend will know that the European Scrutiny Committee is currently holding an inquiry into European Scrutiny Committee matters. Does he accept that timing is very important? What my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has just said is, of course, extremely welcome, but does the Minister not accept that unless the Government are prepared to release the information they have early enough, it could turn out to be far less valuable? Therefore, could not the Government ensure that we all get the information as early as they do?

[Mr Lidington]

I am always willing to explore how the Government can help to make information available to Parliament, particularly its Committees, in a way that enables a better informed debate and allows Parliament an input at the earliest stage in proceedings. As my hon. Friend will be the first to understand, there is always a balance to be struck between our wish on the one hand to do that and our concern on the other hand not to divulge ahead of negotiations all the details of our negotiating position, including on those areas that are the highest priority objectives and those on which we might be prepared to make concessions. However, I am always happy to look at concrete ideas for improving how we do business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I suggest that the Minister uses the word “ambitious” because annexe 2 of the programme refers to “simplification” and “administration burden reduction initiatives”. There are three of those, two of which are legislative and one non-legislative. If one turns to the rest of the work programme and goes through the entire list, one finds that 48 of the 58 are new legislation. I am afraid to have to say to my right hon. Friend that ambition is one thing and vanity is another.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend displays his usual prescience in these matters, because I was about to refer to the list that he recited. The Government welcome the inclusion in the work programme of a list of simplification measures, but we need to be vigilant to ensure that they deliver genuine savings for business. The list of 14 withdrawn proposals that the Commission has published is disappointing, because those measures are obsolete already or are due to be replaced by further proposals. The Commission needs to do much better than that to remove unnecessary or excessive legislation from the statute book, and not only the Government of the United Kingdom but the Governments of a significant number of other like-minded member states are committed to achieving that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the European Commission’s work programme for 2013. In opening, I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the House for missing the first couple of minutes of the Europe Minister’s speech, but I promise him that I listened attentively to the rest of it.

As set out in the European Scrutiny Committee report, the work programme follows on from the Commission President’s annual speech last September and serves as a blueprint for the Commission’s activities over the next 12 months. I agree with the Committee’s assessment that the work programme is a useful tool for the departmental Select Committees. The Liaison Committee has underlined that examining Commission proposals is one of the core tasks of the departmental Select Committees, and as such the proposals in the work programme will, I hope, be a useful starting point for further scrutiny.

I echo the Europe Minister’s welcome for the 2013 work programme’s improved coherence and greater strategic focus compared with previous years. Last year there were 129 policy initiatives; this year there are 58. It is right that the Commission focuses on the areas in which it can be most effective. The initiatives are largely grouped into seven strategic areas and I will start by considering the first and most important of those areas, namely the establishment of a genuine economic and monetary union.

The eurozone crisis will rightly continue to dominate the EU’s thinking and activities in 2013. Last year ended with some positive steps towards banking union being taken at the December summit, and the measures set out in the work programme will build on those positive steps. Putting the single currency on a stable long-term footing is in the interests not only of eurozone countries, but of non-eurozone countries such as the UK. It is therefore right that that is a priority.

The eurozone crisis was triggered by a crisis in the global financial sector. Concerns remain about the solvency of some of the larger medium-sized European banks, so it is necessary to establish the means to separate the link between weak and undercapitalised banking systems and sovereign debt. Such an agreement will help to build confidence in the eurozone and bring about greater long-term stability. We therefore support the progress towards building a genuine economic and monetary union in the proposals contained in the work programme for 2013. Within that process, it is crucial that the interests and rights of non-eurozone member states such as the UK are respected, and that the integrity of the single market is protected. We welcome the Commission’s commitment in the same section to

“take action to fight tax fraud and evasion, including an initiative on tax havens”.

I turn to the Commission’s proposals on deepening the single market. The European Union’s single market is a great success story. In a world dominated by economic giants such as the US, China and India, countries around the world are co-operating more closely with their neighbours. Increased regionalisation has become a defining force. For example, south America has Mercosur and south-east Asia has the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The European single market is often a model from which others take inspiration.

The European Commission is right that to remain competitive in the global economy, the single market must continue to adapt and develop. Without reform, the potential of the single market will not be realised. That is why we continue to support the completion of the single market, particularly with regard to the digital economy and the services sector. It is our view that the progress in those areas is often too slow.

[Mr Cash]

I imagine that the hon. Lady does not recall the White Paper published by the European Commission in June 1985—a huge great thing about an inch deep—on completing the internal market by 1992. Here we are in 2012, some 30 years later. Does she believe that there has been progress?

[Emma Reynolds]

I was alive during that year, but I know that the hon. Gentleman was already reading documents and making speeches on these issues then. We must consider the complexities of the markets in question and the number of member states—as a country, we pushed for a European Union of 27 member states. No other regional co-operation in the world has produced a more successful single market. As I have said, many bodies around the world that want to co-operate more closely and to form similar internal markets are looking to the EU as a source of inspiration. I hope we can now get back to 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year.

I can be brief, for the simple reason that we have before us a list of initiatives, and although there may be fewer than 129, there are still 58, while the number of proposals to reduce regulation of a legislative nature amount to no more than two. The second thing to say is that the Commission work programme is crucial, in that it gives us the route map for where the European Commission is going.

The European Union is dysfunctional: it is not working as it was claimed it would work. Indeed, as I pointed out, referring to the White Paper that the European Commission produced in 1985, here we are, 20 years on from 1992 and nearly 30 years on from 1986, with a provision that simply does not match up to either the aspirations or the promises made. If the single market had worked as I hoped it would when I voted for it in 1986, we would perhaps be better placed than we are now. Unfortunately, it simply has not worked in that way.

The suggestion is that the strategic focus of the work programme is to

“Help business thrive and become more competitive in the global market, by reducing the costs of EU law,”

but I am afraid that is simply not substantiated by the facts. Furthermore, there is also a proposal—the Government welcome all of them—to

“Prioritise action to boost growth through improving the single market in services and digital, and ambitious free trade agreements.”

It gives me great pleasure to recall that it was Monsieur Jacques Delors, no less, who only last week proposed in Handelsblatt that it was about time that the United Kingdom got its act together and decided what it was going to do. I hope the Prime Minister will do that when he makes his much anticipated big speech on Europe, by following Monsieur Delors’ advice and going for either the equivalent of an enhanced economic area or alternatively—as he himself put it in stark terms—a free trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I say that because we have another provision:

“Help develop the single market in financial services, as the basis for a strong and sustainable financial sector.”

Tell it to the marines: ask the City of London whether it believes that is the direction in which things are going. The House should look at the problems of qualified majority voting. Despite the attempts to change the voting arrangements, the problems remain. The manner in which jurisdiction over the City’s regulatory system was transferred to Europe by the previous Government—endorsed and acquiesced in by those in the present Government—has been a catastrophe and will remain so.

The document also mentions—the Government welcome this, too—measures to

“Support an environment that encourages innovation, including helping drive the transition to a green economy.”

There are many aspects of the green economy that may or may not turn out to be sustainable, but I shall mention just one, in deference to my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). [Interruption.] Whichever constituency she represents, I know she does a great job for it. The question of wind farms is part and parcel of this, and they are growing exponentially.

The Government also applaud the work programme for helping member states

“to work together more effectively to strengthen the external border and protect citizens from terrorism and serious or organised border crime.”

Again, these are important aspirations; the question is whether that is actually happening. Indeed, I would say the same about increasing

“the EU’s influence on external policy issues”.

Over and over again, we get the aspirations and we are given the promises, but the question asked repeatedly in this dysfunctional European Union is: where is it going and to what extent is it delivering the kind of things that the people in this country vote for in general elections? They put their votes into the ballot box, then find that things are implemented through the Commission’s work programme, which goes to the Council of Ministers, and in almost every area, and driven by qualified majority vote or consensus, we end up with legislation that was not sought, called for, or promised in manifestos in our general elections.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman criticises the Commission for trying to do something about cross-border crime. He was against the introduction of the European arrest warrant, but it is working well and providing tangible results. Why is he critical of it?

[Mr Cash]

For the simple reason that we would have achieved the same results had we put in place our own operation through our own legislative system. Furthermore, there are many examples of the European arrest warrant being used to convict innocent people in absentia, including someone in Staffordshire who was recently convicted of a murder that they could not have committed because they were serving in a restaurant in Leek at the time. There might be some advantages to aspects of the co-operative arrangements, of which I am in favour, but that does not mean that the panoply of powers associated with the European arrest warrant is justified.

The Government have expressed reservations about certain proposals, but the key question is: what are they actually able to do about this? We can express reservations and argue against the proposals, but the qualified majority voting system operates in such a way as to prevent us from exercising our much-vaunted influence. I have to say to the Minister and the Government—and through them, I hope, to the Prime Minister in relation to the speech that he is about to make—that if that influence cannot be effective, it is worthless.

I have considered the evidence that has accumulated over the past 40 years since we came into the European Union. I wished you a happy new year earlier, Mr Speaker, but we must also remember that it is the 40th anniversary of our accession to the European Union, through the European Communities Act 1972. This is a time for serious reflection. It is a time not only for mere reform but for a fundamental change in the relationship. There is a disconnect between the legislation that is going through the House, in relation to the implementation of sections 2 and 3 of the Act, and what is being offered to the British people in manifestos.

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a new relationship and mentions a free trade arrangement. Does he accept that, if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union and simply have a free trade relationship with what would be the remaining 27 states after Croatia had joined, we would be in a similar position to Norway, in that we would have integration without representation? We would have to pay in and comply with the EU rules without having any say on how they were being formulated.

[Mr Cash]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has been vociferous on European matters for a long time, albeit on the other side of the agenda from me. He might be interested to know that the Norwegians are now getting restless and using their arrangements within the European economic area to challenge directives. I heard only a few hours ago that that was happening.

[Mike Gapes]

That is just one instance.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, but that one instance demonstrates a principle. For 15 years, I have been advocating that we use the “notwithstanding” formula, and when my party was in opposition, we agreed that we would do so. If we were to use it just once now we are in government, it would send out an appropriate signal. Unfortunately, however, that is not happening. We hear about aspirations and reservations, and that it would be a good idea to change the relationship and to repatriate powers, but I have very little confidence that we will achieve anything when it comes down to it. Even more dangerous is the raising of expectations only to have them dashed by reality. As Churchill said, offering something to the British people but not fulfilling that promise is the best way to ensure that they will no longer trust us.

There are many aspects to this work programme—including a proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office, which I was glad to hear the Minister say we will not accept—but I shall not go into other matters this afternoon because they are so numerous and because others wish to speak. Let me simply make the point that we are now at a threshold and that there is no turning back. Messrs Barroso and van Rompuy, unelected as they are, have thrown down the gauntlet to the British people. They have said, “We are going to have a federal system,” yet it is unthinkable that this country would get involved in federal arrangements, be they in the eurozone or indeed in the European Union as a whole. We must have a clear strategy; we must have a fundamental change in our relationship. What goes with that has to be a return to the British people of the right to determine the legislation that they voted for in general elections. That is the principle on which this House was founded, and that is the principle on which we have to stand.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

All 27 EU Heads of State and Government said in the conclusions to the October European Council that, in the arrangements for a banking union, there needed to be a “level playing field” between the ins and the outs, as well as safeguards

“in full respect of the integrity of the single market in financial services.”

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the blueprint published over the weekend by Mr Barroso, which contains 50 pages of detailed proposals for a full banking, fiscal and, ultimately, political union? Does he think that any of the proposals that this country has made have the remotest chance of being listened to in the context of that document, and of what Mr Noyer said the other day? Lastly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee receives an early explanatory memorandum from the Government on those proposals?

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the legendary intellectual agility of the Minister of State will enable him to provide one pithy reply to the three questions that have just been posed.

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am fascinated by the line that has just been taken with respect to the situation of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union. There are many of us who believe that the time has come not only to have a referendum, but to leave the existing treaties. The reality is that 56% of the British people have recently indicated that that is what they would like, and that raises very interesting and very important questions. It is also highly relevant to what is going on here in this debate today with respect to Scotland. Of course, there is also the question of Northern Ireland and of Wales, neither of which has even been touched on so far in the debate. One thing that we have to remember is that the—

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, having listened to the very eloquent disquisition on the place of Scotland at the top table, and given this week’s announcement about the G8 coming to Northern Ireland, we can look forward, in the halcyon days in the future of Scotland’s independence, to a G9 coming to Northern Ireland, with Scotland at the top table?

[Mr Cash]

That is an extremely apposite remark, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for it.

One thing that needs to be considered is the implications that would arise for the European Communities Act 1972, which has not yet been mentioned, because of course if we have a referendum and if the vote is yes—at the moment, that seems extremely unlikely, but I will not presume to say that it will not happen—the reality is that that in itself will not create the legal and constitutional consequences that would flow from that political decision. The reality is that we then have to look at the 1972 Act. All the obligations under section 2, through our own enactment here, of which Scotland is currently a part, would have to be dealt with. It will be an extremely complex business to deal with the issues between the United Kingdom and Scotland, let alone between Scotland and the European Union or the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I would like to refer on the record to the extremely good—extremely well written—note from the House of Commons Library. I mention that on the record because I think that many people who will want to consider this question will do well to look at that note if they can get access to it. It draws together a lot of the complications that arise in international law and constitutional law. It includes a lot of discussion about the allegations made against the First Minister; I will not enter that debate, but simply say that there are complex questions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, there is no provision in the European treaties for the secession of states. He mentioned article 4.2 and the unanimity of all 27 member states. The European Commission made some comments on that in response to an MEP, but that was on the basis of the thinking then. If I may say, having read all the papers, I do not think that there is a settled view about what would happen.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) is right to say that there would be massive uncertainty. For example, in respect of financial regulation, the jurisdiction has been already transferred, extremely unwisely, to the European institutions, but the consequences are that it is already being done in relation to the City of London with serious consequences, of an unlawful nature, for voting rights between ourselves and member states in the eurozone. There are so many uncertainties that the issue will have to be given much more consideration. There is also the question of the repeal of the Act of Union. None of the legal consequences of the referendum, even if there was a yes vote, are capable of being unravelled until we have got to grips with the constitutional implications of the matters I mention.

Despite the fact that we have one and a half hours, going into all the questions today would be far too complicated, so that is all I want to say. I put down a marker that a yes vote will be monumentally bad for the UK, monumentally bad for Scotland and monumentally bad for the people governed under the Act of Union. I and many others take that view, and I think it will prevail.

There are implications for the European Scrutiny Committee, in that it must look at all the legislation as it applies to the UK, in respect of those matters that apply to it under the Standing Orders. I will leave my contribution at that. The complications regarding Scotland have not been thought through. It is not only an emotional question or even a purely political question, but a question of grave uncertainty. The more the vote tends towards no—the direction that public opinion seems to be going—the better.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

To accommodate all Members who wish to speak, it would be appreciated if Members kept their remarks to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The four nations of the United Kingdom are a member of the European Union, by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom. I will quote another European Commission President, Romano Prodi, who was a very respected President. He confirmed that

“a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the European Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more in its territory.”

Beyond the pronouncements of European Commission Presidents current and past, there is the brutal truth that the SNP must face up to—that this decision about a separate Scotland’s membership of the European Union would be a political decision and one taken by all of the other 27 member states, who are soon to be 28.

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—he should listen to this carefully—that, as has already been stressed in this debate, the pronouncements by the Spanish Foreign Minister are not encouraging. That is hardly surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has already pointed out that the context in which we find ourselves in the European Union is one in which we are going through the most challenging and volatile period in European history. In September, 1.5 million Catalans took to the streets in Barcelona in an independence rally.

[Mr Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

I will give way, in a minute.

It is therefore unsurprising that the Spanish Government are concerned about any precedent being set and it is equally unsurprising that the Spanish Foreign Minister recently told the Spanish Senate that an independent Scotland would need to “join the queue” and negotiate its accession as a new member state. In addition, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) set out in his very eloquent speech, there are other EU member states that would also have great concerns about any precedent being set by Scotland; Belgium is one of them. Furthermore, the EU member states that do not wish to recognise the independence of Kosovo—namely Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain—would be concerned about a precedent being set by Scotland. It is within that context that the framework of any hypothetical case in which an independent Scotland—if there were one—applied to join the European Union must be seen.

Unfortunately—I say this with regret—there is enlargement fatigue in the European Union. For example, France has said that for any future accession beyond that of Croatia there will be a referendum in France. Two weeks ago, we discussed the case of Croatia and we know that for a period of 10 years there has been negotiation about Croatia’s accession, and the last member state to join the EU in less than five years was Finland, which joined in 1995.

Consequently, it is absolutely clear that the SNP and the Scottish Government have no basis on which to make the claim that Scotland’s membership of the European Union would be automatic. They also have no basis on which to make the claim—made by the First Minister in the interview with Andrew Neil earlier this year—that a separate Scotland would also inherit the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the single currency and Schengen. The facts fly in the face of that assertion. There has been no member state since 1973 that has negotiated an opt-out, since the agreement in Maastricht, from the single currency. With regard to Schengen, an opt-out from that agreement would have to be negotiated.

It is also clear that Scotland would have to negotiate its own contribution to the European Union budget, and according to the House of Commons Library—[Interruption.] Maybe the SNP Members want to listen to the objective facts, as set out by the Library. According to the House of Commons Library, without a rebate Scotland’s contribution to the European Union is likely to rise from £16 a head to £92 a head.

Leaving the United Kingdom would leave a separate Scotland in limbo in Europe. There would be no automatic accession and no automatic opt-outs. Instead, there would be a sensitive and difficult negotiation with the 27—soon to be 28—other member states of the European Union.