European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

This Parliament can of course pass any legislation it wishes to. In that sense, what my hon. Friend says is constitutionally correct, although I in no way want to mislead him into thinking that the Government intend to introduce such an amendment to the 1972 Act.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I know that I will have disappointed my hon. Friend grievously.

[Mr Cash]

My right hon. Friend, far from disappointing me, has enlivened me to rise, and I do so for this very good reason: this is the first time, as far as I am aware, that any Minister has conceded from the Dispatch Box that the constitutional principle of the “notwithstanding” formula is valid. I was delighted to hear what he had to say.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is tempting me dangerously far from the scope of the debate, but I simply refer him to the happy day we spent in Parliament debating the sovereignty clause of what became the European Union Act 2011. If he looks at Hansard, I think he will find that I stated very clearly that if Parliament wanted to amend the 1972 Act at any stage, it is open for it to do so but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Cash]

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

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

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

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

ensure

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I repeat: I understand that people who have been supportive of the EU process over many years are now expressing great concerns. Those concerns have been expressed in the European Parliament, and they are certainly expressed at great length in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on the basis of human rights, as some of the issues in Hungary are a challenge in that respect. The question for us today is not what the EU should do about Hungary, however, but what we should do in relation to Croatia’s application to join the European Union.

As hon. Members know, I work on behalf of this Parliament as a member of the Labour delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In fact, I work in the committee on culture, science, education and media, which is chaired by Mr Gvozden—I believe that is the correct pronunciation—Flego, who is a professor from Croatia. He is very dedicated to human rights; in fact, a number of his colleagues are leading the way in challenging their Government to come up to the standards we require in the European Union and to support the application. The problem—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) alluded to this—is that this treaty is one of the ones that, when the Government introduced the European Union Act 2011 and said that they would renegotiate the terms and relationship with the EU in this Parliament, was listed as not requiring a referendum because it is an accession treaty. That is a great pity, because the accession treaty not only allows Croatia to enter, but allows protocols to be added to the Lisbon treaty—that is, to amend it.

It is a great regret for many people in this country that we did not take the Lisbon treaty to a referendum, as we would have had to do if it were a constitutional treaty. Hon. Members will recall that when I chaired the European Scrutiny Committee and we reported on this matter, we came to the conclusion that the Lisbon treaty was not much different from the constitution, apart from a few flags, bunting and anthems. Really, it maybe should have been decided then whether a referendum was required. It will always be a great point of contention with the British people—and, I think people in this Chamber—that we did not get that clarified at the time.

[Mr Cash]

I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party voted en masse for a referendum on that treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I very much endorse the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), and I agree, too, with many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

The real question is whether Croatia should become part of the European Union. I think it is a matter for Croatia. If it wants to apply, as far as I am concerned, it is that country’s affair. It also affects us, and the comments in our European Scrutiny Committee report stand on the record, so nothing further needs to be said that has not been said already. I believe, however, that if Europe enlarges and includes Croatia, it will simply be yet another example of the manner in which—as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset have said—the whole of the European Union is enlarged without regard to the impact it will have.

I take a simple view about this issue. I believe that the European Union is, as I have said in many previous debates, at a crossroads. I think that a fundamental change is taking place within the EU, and I believe, as the vote on the EU budget indicated, that this is increasingly recognised on both sides of the House. I have also picked this up from other member states, when I go to meetings of COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union—as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Croatia will have become a member of the European Union as it now is and, no doubt, even if there were to be a fundamental shift in the relationship between ourselves and other member states, it would continue to remain a member in some shape or form of the new European Union, which I am absolutely certain is being created in people’s minds, although it has not yet got into the formalities of the arrangements.

I do not really need to say any more at this time. I wish the people of Croatia well; actually, I wish the European Union well, too, but the truth is that the current arrangements are in need of very substantial change. I think that change is going to come and I do not think that anything can stop it. As I said to the Prime Minister the other day, the tectonic plates have moved—they are not merely moving—so the question is: what is the tsunami that will follow? The Croatian accession is something I can live with, but I believe that it will be caught up in the fundamental changes that I am certain are in the process of being achieved even as we speak.

Antarctic Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Cash]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps he could, but the hon. Gentleman cannot. I know that he is desperate to return to the Second Reading debate, although he has given us a great history lesson and we welcome that. I just hope that we do not spend too much time on global warming, given the amount of his speech that he has already used up.

[Mr Cash]

I simply say that it is important to put on record that all the work that is being done in Cambridge and is being talked of now refers back to those amazing people, who were, as Ernest Shackleton wrote subsequently, “the life and soul” of the party. The archives include the “South Polar Times”, and I think that people should take a look at that. In his letter to Mrs Kennar, Shackleton wrote that

“the Prince of Wales read the South Polar Times with great pleasure.”

The importance of the archiving, and the historical context of all this, need to be reaffirmed by all of us who are fascinated by the Antarctic expedition. We should recognise the work that is being done now, the work that will be done under the Bill, and the tremendous courage and determination of those who started all this. That deserves to be recalled. At the same time, we should to do all that we can to ensure that the existing organisation that was referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for Romford is maintained, and that the finances are in the right shape to enable it to continue in the manner that was intended by those on the original expedition. It is quite right that the Government are supporting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I think we are all grateful for that clarification. My hon. Friend may be disappointed that the EU is not involved in some way, however, as I know his views on Europe are somewhat different from mine. It is a great pleasure to me and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that the EU has not got its grubby little hands all over this Bill.

Before discussing the details of the Bill, it is important to look at where we are now and how we got there. The Antarctic treaty was ratified on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC and came into force on 23 June 1961. It established international co-operation to protect and preserve Antarctica. The UK enacted its obligations through the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967. There were 12 original signatories of the 1959 treaty, including the Governments of the UK, Australia, Belgium, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union—as it was then—and the USA. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made clear, the other signatories were Argentina and Chile.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just reminded me that last week in the European Scrutiny Committee we had a document before us that confers observer status on the European Union—no doubt to complement the Soviet Union, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just referred to as being a party to these international bodies. It is extraordinary, and I hope we can find out exactly why it is, that the EU should be given that status. We are primarily dealing here with the British Antarctic, but perhaps as the Bill goes through Committee we will find out.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that; he is as vigilant as ever on these matters. I understand why the mention of the Soviet Union drew his immediate thoughts to the European Union, as there is very little to choose between the two.

Antarctic Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I have already noted that the Antarctic is demilitarised as a result of British action. It is recognised as a demilitarised zone by us and every other country and, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, it will clearly remain so. That should not stop us from addressing the broader issues and mentioning the Falklands, however.

The second anniversary is, of course, that of Robert Scott’s expedition. I wish to emphasise the reputation he has garnered for scientific work—for discovery and real interest in the Antarctic—and why it matters. I remind the House that the discovery of the first hole in the ozone layer was made in 1985 from the Antarctic. That scientific linkage involving issues that are connected with the environment but that are also central to our work on the Antarctic draws substantially from Robert Scott’s expeditions and his emphasis on scientific work.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the first expedition, in 1901 to 1904, was based very much on science as well as exploration? Its scientists, including Mr Ferrar, Mr Hodgson, Louis Bernacchi and Edward Wilson, set a course that has now resulted in this extremely important Bill, because the science was so relevant to their expeditionary endeavours?

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he is absolutely right about the science. We should salute and celebrate it, because the linkage between that earlier expedition and everything that has happened thereafter, including what is still happening today through the good work of the British Antarctic Survey, is a fundamental reminder of why it is so important. The history to which he refers is an important narrative in respect of my point, and I am immensely grateful to him for his support.

Let me now deal with the Bill itself. First, I must emphasise that it builds on existing treaties, which have already been amended. We have to go back to 1951 to find the first effective treaty, which was ratified in 1961, the year of my birth. That was a significant piece of legislation at the time I was arriving on the scene—although obviously not in the Antarctic itself! Twelve nations signed that treaty, and 50 nations are now involved in the Antarctic. That underlines the point I was making about China and other countries in response to my helpful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

I should also pay tribute to the previous Government for the work they did in preparing the way for this Bill, which is similar but not the same as their Bill. They did some good work on that legislation, which emphasises the cross-party nature of the support on this matter, and I am grateful for that. A lot of consultation has taken place, both back in 2005 by those interested in the earlier Bill and more recently. I have also had meetings with a large number of organisations, and I want to list them all: the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust, whose tie I am wearing in a salute to it; the Antarctic Ocean Alliance; the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in Slimbridge; the Scott Polar Research Institute; the British Mountaineering Council; the International Polar Foundation UK; Poles Apart Ltd; and above all, of course, the British Antarctic Survey.

I am conscious that members, scientists, supporters, managers and leaders of the BAS will be listening to this speech and watching this debate, because it is of immediate and direct interest to them. I want to thank everybody in the BAS for doing everything they have done over the years, because their efforts, the sacrifices they have sometimes made, and their extraordinary commitment, courage and tenacity in pursuing scientific endeavour are incredibly impressive, and this House should be grateful to them. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for being so helpful on this whole issue of the BAS, which is based in his constituency. I hope to visit Cambridge from time to time to see how well the BAS is getting on, because it certainly deserves support from this House and I shall be happy to give it.

The shadow Minister referred to the work of the Science and Technology Committee. I agreed with its conclusions, as did the Environmental Audit Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for the work he did in driving through that report to underpin the overall strong support for the BAS. It was great that in the debate in the House of Lords the Senior Minister of State, Baroness Warsi, underlined the Government’s support for the British Antarctic Survey. It is interesting that there is a Senior Minister of State in the Foreign Office, and of course the Foreign Secretary is the First Secretary of State, so that Department contains a lot of powerful Ministers. The Minister here today is equally powerful, and I am pleased to see him in his place supporting the Bill. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is also involved in this because it relates to the future of the BAS. The Natural Environment Research Council made the right decision not to proceed with the merger, which was mentioned earlier, and instead to make sure that the BAS is properly independent and appropriately resourced. From this moment on, I pledge to support every one of its endeavours and make sure that it can undertake the work that it so necessarily does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on securing Second Reading for his Bill and commend all hon. Members who have spoken with such passion about this important subject. My hon. Friend has engaged in excellent work to champion the vital cause of protecting the Antarctic. As chairman of the all-party group on the polar regions, which was established last year and focuses on both the Arctic and the Antarctic, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to support what I consider to be a significant Bill that will strengthen, enhance and protect the environment of the Antarctic region.

Antarctica is a truly unique region of the world and Britain has always maintained a very close attachment to it since it first rose to prominence over a century ago. One can only imagine what the explorations were like at the turn of the 20th century, when the courage of those heroic British men spread far and wide until most of the western world had heard the names of Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton. It is, indeed, fitting that we are debating this subject in the centenary year of the fateful Terra Nova expedition, in which Captain Scott and his colleagues tragically lost their lives.

Fortunately, polar expertise has come a long way since those first dangerous pioneering expeditions and now, thankfully, it is much safer for modern explorers. Antarctica, like no other continent, is a region of our planet that remains almost untouched by mankind.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend has paid an undoubtedly deserved tribute to those who went on the Terra Nova expedition, which ended in tragic circumstances. Captain Scott also went to the Antarctic beforehand, from 1901 to 1904, and the people who went on that particular expedition were going there for the first time—certainly in that era—which was an astonishing feat in itself. Does my hon. Friend agree that attention should be given to that first expedition, as well as to the second one?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree. We should pay tribute to all those who pioneered those early expeditions. We now benefit from the progress made by those brave men, so we should acknowledge all involved.

It is our responsibility to protect Antarctica from those who might cause it damage. Indeed, we have a moral duty to ensure that it is adequately protected, which is why the Bill is so important. It is surely right that Her Majesty’s Government should take preventative measures to shield the environment and enhance the conservation of the Antarctic. The Bill will, I believe, enshrine that protection in law so that those who fail to respect the environment when travelling to Antarctica as part of a British operation can be properly held to account in the British courts for any irresponsible behaviour or damage that they may cause. There will be stronger regulations, fines and penalties for operators who break that code. With an increasing number of expeditions to Antarctica from around the globe, now is the time to introduce provisions that would enhance the protection of this amazing region of planet Earth.

There is another reason why we in the United Kingdom should take the lead in the protection of Antarctica. I urge hon. Members to take a look at Parliament square today. They will see displayed opposite the Houses of Parliament the flag of the British Antarctic Territory flying proudly alongside those of the other 15 British overseas territories and the five Crown dependencies. This is the first time that those flags have been displayed in Parliament square, and that, I believe, is a clear indication that Her Majesty’s Government value the contribution that our territories and dependencies make to the overall success of the Great British family. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place, but I would like to pay tribute to the previous Minister with responsibility for the British overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who championed the territories’ cause to ensure that they were recognised, as they are today in Parliament square, with your support, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The British Antarctic territory is our responsibility, so we must not only protect the environment, but uphold the territory’s security at all times. We are all too aware of the claims by Argentina to all three British overseas territories in that region, namely the British Antarctic Territory—which is also claimed by Chile—and South Georgia and, of course, the Falkland Islands. Defence of our national interests in the Antarctic and south Atlantic region is vital. I strongly urge Her Majesty’s Government to remember the importance of maintaining our presence in the seas around the region and to be vigilant to any potential threat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on introducing this excellent Bill. He has done a huge amount of work on this matter. I congratulate him also on wearing Antarctic tartan—it looks very good on him, and I hope that other Members will wear it in future.

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), with his track record of legislation in this area, and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who chairs the all-party polar regions group. I have the pleasure to serve as the vice-chair, and it is a great pleasure to be his vice.

The Bill, which I am delighted to co-sponsor, has the potential to provide lasting safeguards for an entire continent whose outstanding natural beauty is matched only by its scientific importance. The original Antarctic treaty, signed in 1959, has long upheld peaceful and demilitarised international ownership of the continent. Its original 12 signatories have expanded to 50, and together we remain committed to co-operation and joint scientific endeavour. Although every country is committed through those treaties to the protection of the Antarctic, few have been as committed to scientific work in the area as Britain, particularly through the British Antarctic Survey, of which so much has been said, which is based in my constituency of Cambridge.

I have, I believe, the pleasure of representing more Antarctic workers than any other Member of the House, and I have a number of friends and colleagues who have worked and overwintered in the Antarctic. Indeed, the house next to where I used to live was used frequently by returning BAS members for getting used to a climate in which they could stroll outside or ride a bike, without having to deal with snow and ice. From talking to them, and to non-governmental organisations based around Cambridge—particularly those involved in conservation—and to a huge range of companies involved in this field and elsewhere, I have heard the huge concerns about the proposed merger with the Natural Environment Research Council. The topic has been raised many times in many places, and it is having a huge effect on the morale of people in BAS. They are extremely concerned about their future, and nervous that the merger will see an end to the wonderful independence of BAS and the research it does.

People are quite rightly concerned about the effect on the international reputation of BAS and British science in the area, and concerns about the merger have been expressed from as far afield as former Vice-President Al Gore. I am therefore delighted that yesterday NERC took the correct decision to abandon the merger. That was definitely the right decision, and ultimately it is right for research councils to decide how research funding should be allocated. I pay tribute to the Science and Technology Committee and to its report, in relation to which I submitted evidence, for helping to advise NERC on the correct decision, to the Minister who gave evidence to that Committee, and to others such as Phil Willis, who was formerly a Member of this place but is now in another place. He serves on NERC and has been robust in his opinions about how we can achieve a good future for polar research.

We must look at the future and at what will now happen to BAS, rather than at the past. BAS is clearly a vital national asset, and it has a dual mission that involves both the Foreign Office and pure research. It is fundamentally wrong that for eight months, BAS has been left with an interim director who has another responsibility and no polar experience. Real questions must be asked about how NERC allowed so much of BAS’s leadership to leave in somewhat questionable circumstances—I do not want to air those points in this place, but questions should be asked about how it happened. It is essential to appoint a new full-time director of BAS as soon as possible, with responsibility for delivering that dual mission, including UK commitments under the treaty. It is also important that terms of reference for the director’s post are agreed in advance by the Government—not just the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—and ideally by Parliament, to show how seriously we take the role of the BAS director.

There will also be discussions about funding for BAS. BAS works in a uniquely difficult place; it will always be expensive to work in the Antarctic. Capital funding is essential, and the Minister for Universities and Science has managed to secure capital funding for seven of the research council’s eight key requests. The eighth request concerns the funding needed for BAS, and I hope that the Minister will persuade the Treasury to support it.

We need support for capital investment on the Cambridge site, and hon. Members who have managed to visit the site will know that further work is required to bring it up to the standard we would expect. Concerns have been raised about BAS’s revenue budget. Even as I speak, redundancies are taking place in BAS. That is causing great concern to many staff, even though they are relived that the merger will not take place.

BAS has done a fantastic job. For more than 60 years it has been responsible for the majority of Britain’s research on the continent, collaborating with international scientists on a diverse and important array of topics. That independent work must remain high-quality, separate, and guided by scientific principles. If we are to continue leading the world on high-impact issues addressed in the polar regions, that autonomy is essential. The survey maintains two ships, five aircraft, eight research stations in and around Antarctica, which are all monitored from BAS headquarters in Cambridge. The work done by BAS’s 400 staff is crucial to our understanding of planetary environmental science.

[Mr Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will briefly although there is a statement at 11 am and I am keen to make progress.

[Mr Cash]

Despite my reservations about some aspects of the hon. Gentleman’s party and its policies on other matters, may I strongly commend the speech he is making and the interest that he takes in this issue as the Member of Parliament for Cambridge? I understand that he has also been nominated as the only scientist in the House of Commons. I do not know whether that is true, but I am glad to commend him on his speech.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention; it is nice to know that we agree on some things. Although it has been said that I am the only scientist in the House, that is sadly not true. I am one of two Members with a science PhD and I went on to do research, but there are other scientists in the House and it always a great pleasure to have them here. However, that is not relevant to the Bill.

BAS does a fantastic amount of work, and the Bill will help with that. It will give scientists in a hostile and at times dangerous environment the additional support they need, and secure the protected status of the unique place in which they work and often live.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the knowledge that the Government are about to make a statement on the ghastly tragedy in Northern Ireland, I begin by saying that I very much welcome the Bill, which is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He and I differ in our views on another continent, but we are clearly strongly united in our views on Antarctica, which is a very good step in the right direction. The environmental protection of the Antarctic and other aspects—my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) referred to the relationship with the Falklands and other matters—are immensely important.

I should like to pay tribute to—

Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am delighted that he will be getting involved with the Fresh Start project himself. He is absolutely right. Is it not interesting that it is since this Government came into office that exports to China, Brazil and India have radically increased in percentage terms from the incredibly low level under the Labour Government, who preferred to create non-jobs in the public sector rather than real jobs in the private sector?

I want to run through a few ideas that have come out of the Fresh Start project and suggest them to the Government for serious consideration. There is no doubt that we have not only the opportunity, but the absolute need to get in there and make British interests very clear, long before the next European parliamentary elections in 2014.

Let me quickly run through some of the green options, which are things that we could be doing ourselves but are not doing at the moment. The UK is a significant member of the EU—one of the big three—and has worked with a number of allies to develop its vision of a free-trading, economically liberal EU. The UK has been enormously successful in achieving its strategic aims of enlargement and deepening of the single market. At the time of crisis in the eurozone, it is key that the UK sets out the vision of the EU that it wants and develops alliances in that direction. It is essential to set out a vision for a free-trade area that is globally competitive and determined to advance in the markets outside the EU and not just within it.

We could improve the scrutiny of EU legislation, including pre-legislative scrutiny. I welcome the European Scrutiny Committee’s inquiry into that and the work of the Hansard Society in looking at much more parliamentary scrutiny, including having specific EU questions, not just FCO questions, and having a Europe Department rather than just a Europe Minister in the FCO.

We should certainly look at pre-legislative scrutiny where, as in Denmark, Parliament gives authority to Ministers before they go to negotiate on our behalf, instead of them coming back to us with something that is almost done that we just need to rubber-stamp at the eleventh hour. There are good examples of where good pre-legislative scrutiny has made a big difference, such as the proposed ban on the short selling of equities. Owing to the excellent work of Members of the European Parliament, that was reduced to a ban on the short selling of sovereign debt only. That was a massive saving grace to liquidity and free financial markets.

Better Brits in Brussels is an important issue. We have 12% of the EU’s population, but now only 4% of Commission staff. That has been allowed to slide abysmally. We have not done enough to allow our brightest and best young people to obtain the language skills they need to pass the European Commission test. I am delighted that the Government have restarted the European fast stream. That is an important move on which we should absolutely spend our time. When we visit MEPs and Commissioners in Brussels, we find that they have all gone native; they even speak with a sort of weird part French, part German, part English accent—if there is such a thing. They lose track of whom they represent. What we need is British people in the Commission representing British interests.

We want to remove gold-plating in social and employment laws as soon as possible. We have interpreted some EU directives in a hard and fast way, not least on the opt-out for doctors. As I understand it, in all too many cases, we offer doctors a contract for up to 48 hours a week, and then invite them to opt out of working only 48 hours a week. That is not exactly a terribly tempting offer. We need to look seriously at gold-plating.

We support deregulation at the EU level. The EU has agreed in principle to subsidiarisation for micro-businesses. It is not an EU competence to delve into micro-businesses if they are British-only businesses. They should not be subject to EU regulation, and we should be pressing as hard as we can to exempt British micro-businesses from any EU intervention whatsoever.

Finally, Britain could be using the European Court of Justice to our own ends far more than we are to challenge EU proposals. An example of a good decision by this Government to challenge the European Union is our challenge of the European Central Bank’s proposal that clearing houses with more than 5% of turnover in euros should be based in the eurozone. That is blatantly stealing Britain’s business in a lucrative area, and we are absolutely right to be challenging that decision at the ECJ. We ought to take those opportunities more often.

Those are just some of the green options for reform that Britain could be doing much more on. Other areas require us to get far more sleeves rolled up and people wading in, and I want to cover two. I recognise that a lot of hon. Members want to speak, so I will hurry up. The greatest of those areas is to achieve a rolling opt-in and opt-out of EU policies. There is no doubt that there will be a fiscal union—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh. They are not even prepared to listen, which I find astonishing. They should care that the British public have had enough of their ever closer part in the European Union. It is absolutely astonishing.

We should look at whether, for those who are not part of the fiscal union, we could have some sort of rolling opt-in and opt-out of EU policies. The logistics could be incredibly complicated, but when Governments change, policies are often completely changed. It is ridiculous to have an EU where something decided 35 years ago has never changed and a member cannot opt out of it. It would be far better for the countries that do not intend to be part of a federal Europe if they could opt out. When Governments change, they could have a window of opportunity to decide on which policies they want to remain a part of, and which areas of EU jurisdiction they want to remove themselves from. That is entirely possible. That would give the European Commission something else to do, so it can pay itself even more and employ even more staff, so it should be delighted at the prospect.

Perhaps the most logical major reform of all is to repatriate structural funds. We are in the middle of negotiations for the next multi-annual financial framework, which will determine the EU’s budget strategy from 2014 to 2021. The negotiations are subject to national veto, and so offer a huge opportunity to the UK to seek restraint and sensible reform that will better serve the British taxpayer. Perhaps the best example of that is to repatriate the local bit of EU structural funds.

From 2007 to 2013, provision for EU spending on the structural funds amounts to some €280 billion, which is about 30% of the total EU budget. During that period, the UK will make a net contribution to the structural funds of some £21 billion; that is the UK’s contribution after taking into account the money it receives from the structural funds. We pay £30 billion, and we get £9 billion back after the money is converted into euros, administered and 140,000 full-time equivalent European staff have decided which UK regions should benefit. In fact, under the European definition of UK regions, only two, west Wales and Cornwall, are net recipients of structural funds. All the other regions are paying significantly more for every £1 they get back in structural funds, which is a completely ridiculous state of affairs. Additionally, the European Union determines the allocation, not the British Government.

Spending plans are based on EU regions that simply do not fit economic and political realities. There is a top-down structure in which all spending plans require the approval of the European Commission and must comply with EU guidelines. So structural spending completely frustrates local innovation,

No rigorous performance criteria link disbursement of funds to clear results. The think-tank Open Europe finds no conclusive evidence that structural funds have had a positive overall impact on growth, jobs and regional convergence in the EU. The rules on the administration of the funds are excessively bureaucratic. For wealthier member states, including Britain, the funds completely irrationally recycle large amounts of money, via Brussels, not only within the same country, but within the same regions. The UK could negotiate the repatriation of regional spending to richer member states, focusing the structural funds solely on poorer EU countries, which would reduce the total EU budget for the next multi-annual financial framework by some 15%.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. So far, she has not mentioned Mr Barroso’s speech of a couple of days ago. I wonder whether she appreciates that, however sensible her ideas may be on lists of functions and attitudes, the European Union does not have the slightest intention of entering any negotiations in that direction. That is the problem. I agree with most of what she says as a matter of aspiration, but the problem is we are not dealing with a European Union that is remotely on the same page.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he contradicts what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, which is that the EU will not allow us just to walk away, because the EU needs us more than we need it.

There is an opportunity for reform. There is no doubt that, as a non-eurozone member, we will not be subject to the calls for ever greater union. The absolute burden is for us to define what we want that renegotiation to look like. If we do nothing because we are afraid the EU will not listen to us, we will get nothing. We would then end up in a position in which we are either in or out. Having a good go at reform is the way forward, whether we succeed or fail; doing nothing would not be in Britain’s best interest.

Richer member states are perfectly capable of funding their own regional policy and determining which regions should benefit from structural funds. If we were to repatriate those local structural funds to richer member states, we would end up with a 15% headline cut in the multi-annual financial framework for the next period and every one of those richer member states, bar five, would receive a significant reduction in contributions, which is a win-win and something we ought to look to other member states to support.

There are so many areas of reform that would be in Britain’s better interest. I could go on and on, because the opportunities are widespread and the need for reform is urgent. The Prime Minister has prioritised seeking safeguards for financial services, which is Britain’s most important industry, employing more than 1 million people and generating more than 10% of our tax take every year.

Another key area is the social and working time directive. Do we want our 1 million young people currently not in employment, education or training to get jobs, or de we want to prioritise rights for existing workers? Those are the choices that we have to make, and the social and working time directive is undoubtedly hampering the opportunities for young people to get work.

Do we want more and more EU regulation that affects small and micro-businesses? Do we want to see the training of young doctors in the NHS hampered by EU regulation of on-call hours? The Fresh Start project has raised, researched and sought to answer those questions. By Christmas, we will have produced a short and punchy manifesto for change that will be a shopping list of reforms across all EU policy areas, including business, immigration, justice, agriculture, energy and many others. I know Front Benchers are keen to see reform, and I sincerely hope they will accept and adopt as Government policy the work of such a large group of Conservative colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My appeal is for all the Eurosceptic movements—the Euro-realists—to join together. The situation has now become critical. The Barroso speech sets out an agenda of more integration and a federal Europe, and we are now confronted by the reality that they are not listening to us. They did not listen to us on Maastricht—it was our own Government who did not listen to us then. Fortunately, the Prime Minister himself has now said that he thought there should have been a referendum on that treaty, and that that would have sorted the matter out there and then. However, we are where we are. I am not seeking confrontation; I am seeking solutions. The situation is far too grave for us to be in a state of difficulty due to personalities or whatever else: we have to unite around certain central principles.

I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She knows that I believe—I said so in an intervention—that time has run out. In the Liaison Committee the other day, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he agreed with me that the situation in Europe was now unacceptable. I used the word “untenable”, but we came to an agreement. I suggested that we should have a convention so that we could get ahead of the curve and provide our basis, based on the principle of consent—on the fact that the people of this country, and for that matter the people of other countries, should decide, not the Euro elite and not the Governments who created this failed project, this undemocratic situation that has been allowed to develop. We need to get together. He said that that was a perfectly reasonable suggestion and that conversations were taking place in Europe. Unfortunately, the reality is that they have now been overtaken by the Barroso agenda. I fear that my right hon. Friend is, if I may say bluntly, in a contradiction: on the one hand, he says that it is unacceptable, but on the other hand he says we will not leave the European Union.

This kind of negotiation, or renegotiation, involves asking such fundamental questions about our relationship that other member states will not accept them. When they do not, our option will be clear: however much we might not want to, we will have to leave the European Union if that is the position that we have arrived at. The Barroso speech indicates that we are on a different page, so I call for urgency. We should have a referendum before the next general election. We should create the circumstances in which we are able to ask the British people, “What kind of Europe do you want?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman seems to understand me better than the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). Our position is that a referendum at this time would be a distraction from the Government’s priority of getting the economy back on track. The question about what our relationship with the EU will become is open now, given the nature of Mr Barroso’s speech last week, mentioned by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We will see how that relationship develops in terms of what kind of political and fiscal union the eurozone states want to form.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the timetable has been accelerated by that speech and those who thought that it might be better to keep the matter open, including the Prime Minister, are now effectively finding that time has overtaken them—or soon will.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is not yet clear at what point the European Commission, the German Government or other Governments will want to put treaty change on the table.

[Mr Cash]

It is. He said so.

[Emma Reynolds]

In his speech, Mr Barroso mentions putting that treaty change on the table before the 2014 European parliamentary elections—I have read his speech closely—but it is still unclear whether that will happen in time for those elections. There will be a report by Herman Van Rompuy to the Council in December, which will be an important time for our Government to start to have a policy on the European Union. I shall come on to that.

Many of the hon. Members present who argue for withdrawal offer a false choice between trade with emerging markets and EU membership. They say, “Remain in the EU, or trade with the likes of China, India, Brazil and Russia.” We must of course improve our export performance to the rest of the world, but we will not build real export success if we start by cutting ourselves off from our largest existing market and our largest collective negotiating tool. The EU provides the collective political weight that we need to maximise our influence in negotiations. Hon. Members need not take that from me, they can take it from the Europe Minister, as set out in written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee as recently as May of this year, when he said:

“On trade, one voice representing half a billion consumers is heard more loudly in Beijing, Delhi and Moscow, than 27 separate ones.”

British businesses, workers and consumers will see the benefit of EU free trade agreements, such as the recent FTA with South Korea, which is worth £500 million to UK exporters, or the potential future agreements with the US, Canada, Singapore and India.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am delighted to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Hollobone. I am sorry that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), could not be present this morning. He very much wanted to participate in this important debate, but I was enthused to understand that I would be responding within my first 10 days in my new ministerial role.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate and on the articulate, intelligent and comprehensive way in which she introduced it. I thank all colleagues who have participated, many of whom fall into the category of what I call distinguished and principled colleagues. In the time available, I am afraid that I will not be able to answer all the specific questions.

I also want to put on the record the Government’s thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire, for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who deserve enormous credit for the valuable, significant and serious work of the Fresh Start group. I hope that my hon. Friends and others will continue to engage with such a vital issue, in particular as we analyse the balance of competences in a process that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced just before the summer recess and about which I intend to say more later.

[Mr Cash]

One fundamental competence that I hope my hon. Friend agrees needs to be reviewed is whether the British people are able to govern themselves by their own consent in general elections. Does he not agree that that is the most fundamental democratic question that needs to be addressed on the European issue?

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will not answer that question directly this morning. I urge him and others, however, to engage positively and constructively with the forensic analysis of the balance of competences, which will feed into a national debate about the relationship that we should have with the European Union.

I want to be up front in ensuring that all hon. Members understand that the Government have been absolutely clear that there should be no further transfer of competence or powers from the UK to the EU over the course of the Parliament. That is in stark contrast with the Labour Government’s record. They were clearly wrong to sign the Lisbon treaty without consulting British voters in any way. They were quite wrong to give away £7 billion of our rebate and to get nothing in return, and they were quite wrong to drop out of our opt-out from the social chapter, which means that employment laws are decided in Brussels, not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I confirm that the Prime Minister met my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on 9 July to discuss the contents of the letter, and I understand that a formal reply will be sent to him shortly.

We have pressed for an open trading agenda that presents real opportunities and allows us to benefit from investment in the UK. Our commitment to free trade is why the UK is still the leading destination for foreign investment into Europe.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me. I am coming to a conclusion, but I will be happy to discuss with him afterwards the point he wants to make. I am running out of time, and I want to make a couple of key points.

The UK has been leading the way in trying to facilitate free trade negotiations and agreements, and it has done so successfully with South Korea. It is leading the drive for such agreements with Japan, Singapore, the USA and Canada.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to the Barroso speech. I confirm that we are looking closely at its contents. We agree with some of the President’s analysis of the EU’s financial problems, such as the unsustainable levels of debt, the lack of competitiveness and some irresponsible behaviour in financial institutions, but the direction of travel is not always one that the UK wishes to take.

In conclusion, the immediate priority must be to restore market confidence, to drive growth, to negotiate more trade agreements, to open up new markets, and to create wealth and jobs through competitiveness, innovation and liberalisation.

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

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

As the House will know, the reason for the treaty change that the Bill approves is the crisis in the eurozone. That crisis was predictable and, in fact, predicted by some present in the House. The existence of monetary union without fiscal or economic union has led to severe economic strains in a number of eurozone countries and permitted the build-up of excessive debts by some members to an unsustainable level.

I have always opposed Britain’s membership of the euro, as Opposition Members will no doubt recall, not only because of the single currency’s flawed design, but because of the limitations that it would impose on our national democracy. I think that there is now near-national consensus that we are better off with our own currency; I say “near” because the Leader of the Opposition has said that Britain could join the euro if he were Prime Minister for long enough—a pretty good reason for not allowing him to become Prime Minister at all.

None the less, there are solid majorities in every national Parliament in the eurozone that wish to retain their membership of the single currency and see it restored to stability. They have their reasons for that, and we should respect them. Obviously, it is also crucially in our interests for the eurozone crisis to be resolved. As the—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

It is a little early, even for my hon. Friend. In a few paragraphs, I will of course give way to him—probably more than once, I should imagine.

The Governor of the Bank of England has said that the crisis is casting a black cloud of uncertainty over our economy. Eurozone countries could take a number of measures to bring about a resolution, and the decision about which are the right ones is for them. One measure that has been decided is the European stability mechanism, a permanent financial assistance mechanism established by the eurozone for the eurozone, to help eurozone countries that get into difficulties. The amendment to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union confirms the ability of the eurozone countries to do that. The simple purpose of the Bill is to approve that decision.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I shall now give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Cash]

I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary. Why in his own judgment and opinion is he prepared to invoke the exemption arrangements, the effect of which is to say that the matter does not really affect United Kingdom businesses, as was set out in the explanatory notes to the European Union Act 2011? Plainly, the implosion in Europe does affect us, and this failed attempt to put a sticking plaster on an increasingly impossible situation is simply making the position worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

As the Foreign Secretary has set out, the context for this debate is the continuing crisis in the eurozone: the troika has yet to decide whether Greece has met its bail-out commitments; Spain appears to be on the brink of making a formal request for assistance; forecasters predict that the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Belgium will all miss the European Union deficit target next year; and there are serious doubts about whether Ireland and Portugal will be able to comply fully, with certainty, with the existing terms of their EU bail-out programmes. The need for decisive action by the eurozone is beyond doubt, and we believe that it is overwhelmingly in the British national interest that such action is taken.

Today’s debate, as we have already heard, relates specifically to the content of the European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, member states agreed, following a meeting of the European Council in March 2011, to the amendment of article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, specifically to enable the creation of a permanent eurozone-only bail-out fund, the European stability mechanism.

We should recognise this as a major institutional development for the EU. It sets up an International Monetary Fund-type body for the eurozone on a permanent basis, replacing the separate intergovernmental European financial stability facility, which was agreed when the Greek emergency first broke. As this is a treaty within the EU-27 framework, any amendments or changes must be approved by the established procedures for treaty ratification in each and every member state, even though the ESM will apply only to those member states that are members of the euro. It is, therefore, unlike the fiscal compact, which, despite the Prime Minister’s so-called veto last December, Britain was unable to block, and over which this Parliament has had no say.

Indeed, the fiscal compact negotiated outside the EU framework by 25 members of the EU, without Britain or the Czech Republic in the room, establishes a completely new principle in European treaty ratification. It will enter into force when it is ratified by 12 of the 17 eurozone member states—a principle that, in our view, could work to Britain’s disadvantage in other contexts, and which is a direct consequence of not being in the room when such decisions are reached. The Bill, however, will lead to enabling legislation giving parliamentary approval to the European Council decision to establish a permanent eurozone-only bail-out fund.

Let me make clear the Labour party’s position on the Bill. We are legislating today not on the substance of the ESM, but only on the enabling treaty change to allow it to be set up. Labour recognises the need for that enabling measure, so we will support the Bill. A more stable eurozone is important for the UK’s long-term growth and prosperity. Indeed, as the eurozone accounts for more than 40% of our external trade, prospects for business investment and export growth depend on it.

[Mr Cash]

On the claimed virtues of the single market, does the shadow Foreign Secretary accept that we have in fact run up the most monumental deficit with the other 26 member states of the EU, to an extent that it is now damaging our economy and thereby preventing this country from achieving growth?

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I were to draw up a list of what is damaging the economy of the United Kingdom at the moment, many items would stand above a recognition that the single market has provided British businesses with European markets constituting 500 million consumers. It would be perverse logic to suggest, at a time when we are struggling to secure growth in the British economy, that it would be to the advantage of British exporters or British businesses more generally to shrink the UK’s home single market from 500 million consumers to just 60 million.

A mechanism with sufficient firepower to restructure and recapitalise weak banks, and to bail out Governments who can temporarily no longer access the bond markets to finance their borrowing and debt, is a necessary part of bringing stability back to the eurozone, and a permanent bail-out fund is one key part of making that happen. However, the burden of responsibility for delivering that growth and prosperity must be taken by eurozone members themselves. In the establishment of the ESM, the European Council is making it clear that ultimate responsibility for ensuring the overall stability of the euro area rests with eurozone members. It will be a fund by the eurozone for the eurozone. That is clearly in the UK’s national interest, and we will not vote against a Bill that will allow the ESM to be established.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

It is hardly a revelation that I strongly supported the five economic tests back in the years immediately following 1997, whether in relation to the convergence criteria or more broadly. In that sense, the Opposition’s position has not changed. It was an intriguing interpretation of history by the Foreign Secretary to attribute to his own conduct out of office so much credit for what the Labour Government did in office in keeping Britain outside the euro. However, he is right to recognise that there is broad consensus, which extends even to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), that there is no immediate prospect of British entry to the euro, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friend describes.

Let me be clear about some of the Opposition’s specific concerns, in a spirit of genuine concern about and mutual interest in the eurozone. First, we believe that the eurozone firewall needs to be bigger in scale and more flexible in operation than the ESM alone currently allows. Although the ESM is a key part of that broader firewall, an effective European Central Bank should also be used to enhance, and contribute to the establishment of, an effective firewall. Since the House last debated the matter, the ECB has announced its intention to begin buying bonds if member states comply with the relevant conditions regarding the management of their fiscal budgets. That is a welcome development, and we look forward to the ECB president Mario Draghi’s announcement this Thursday of how that new programme will work. The ECB must now deliver on its promise if it is to function properly as a lender of last resort and provide the necessary firepower to support the eurozone economies effectively under bond market pressure.

[Mr Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little progress, but I will endeavour to give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Secondly, stability in the banking system is vital, and where that requires action it should take place swiftly and with urgency. That is why we welcome the recent announcements about the ESM, which represent steps towards recapitalising weak eurozone banks. If responsibility for recapitalising national banks rests with national Governments, the problems of countries such as Spain risk getting worse, because state support for the banks will further worsen those countries’ fiscal outlook. We therefore agree that within the eurozone it makes sense for the ESM to be able to play a leading role in bank restructuring and recapitalisation. Although there is agreement in principle about that, it is vital that the eurozone begins taking action on it more urgently than it has to date. We cannot afford to wait for full agreement on a banking union before the process of recapitalising Europe’s banks begins. It needs to take place over the coming months.

The failure of eurozone members to accept fully the logic of a single currency must be addressed, and alongside a banking union some form of debt mutualisation may have to be considered. Simply put, creditor countries must be willing to shore up debtor countries in the short term if they are to guarantee their own stability in the long run. That may be a bitter pill for countries such as Germany to swallow, but it is the only cure for the eurozone as a whole.

[Mr Cash]

On the role of the ECB, Mr Draghi and the proposals on bail-outs, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the president of the Bundesbank, Mr Weidmann, or with Angela Merkel?

[Mr Alexander]

I would not wish to intrude on the constitutional differences between the Chancellor of Germany and the governor of the Bundesbank. President Draghi bears a heavy burden of responsibility on Thursday to add detail to the terms of the guarantees that he was judged to have offered on the basis of his rhetoric at the previous press conference in the summer.

There is clearly a divide between those who, despite the economic facts, remain wedded throughout Europe to an austerity-only approach and those who recognise the need for a growth-led recovery alongside genuine efforts at medium-term deficit reduction. It is regrettable that our Government appear to be firmly on the wrong side of the divide. However, I welcome the fact that, at the last EU summit, a useful but modest growth package was agreed, although I regret that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom remained bound to the last to the old Merkozy-style approach.

As part of the new focus on growth across Europe, we support a significant increase in the capital of the European Investment Bank and the concept of infrastructure bonds to finance major capital investment projects. The European Union must also learn to use existing resources better without spending more. A genuine plan for growth must start with reform of the EU’s 2014-20 budget, which, at more than €1 trillion, has the potential to make a real impact on the European economy’s recovery by spending less on agriculture, more on infrastructure, small business growth and research and development, and better using the money currently spent through existing EU structural funds.

Alongside those targeted measures to stimulate growth, the Government should call for the completion of the single market and the digital and energy markets. Completely removing existing obstacles could translate into a 7% increase in incomes per head in the UK, according to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Further integration could therefore provide a genuine and much-needed boost to growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Bill is living proof of the Alice in Wonderland Euro-fantasy that permeates every nook and cranny of the failed European project.

Decisions, which were taken as long ago as 25 March 2011, when we last debated the issue—shortly afterwards, several of us voted against the proposals on a deferred Division—cannot and do not work. It is as simple as that. There is simply not the money to go round, as I said when I had the opportunity of cross-examining the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee well over a year ago.

It may be very fine to provide a quack remedy to make the Euro-integrationists feel that something is being done, but the proposal, which Mr Van Rompuy and the European Council described as

“ensuring the stability of the euro area”

is as effective as taking a dose of snake oil to hold off the consequences of an economic earthquake.

A Harris opinion poll this week on whether the measures will deal with the debt crisis in the eurozone showed that only 15% in the United Kingdom were confident that they would have any effect. That applied to only 25% in France, 33% in Italy, 20% in Spain and 24% in Germany. That is the most recent opinion poll on the effect of the proposals in the eyes of the voters, not the Governments, élite or establishment in each of those countries, let alone many others.

Of course, we all know that Germany holds the key to the eurozone. As I said in interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, Jens Weidmann, the increasingly realistic and sceptical president of the Bundesbank, stated only a few days ago that, as I have often said, intervening in the bond market is effectively breaking the no bail-out rule, which was set up under Maastricht—I foretold that it would not work—and prohibits the ECB from financing Governments and states. He said that if the Governments of the eurozone become dependent on the power of the ECB, they will never do anything for themselves, that it would be like pouring money into a black hole and that it

“can become addictive like a drug”.

The use of article 122, which the Foreign Secretary attempted to argue around—somewhat disingenuously, I say with respect—breaks the law. The European Scrutiny Committee said that, to all intents and purposes, its use was illegal—not that it was not needed, but that it was illegal. It is there for dealing with natural disasters and earthquakes, not economic problems.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making his usual case that the use of article 122 was illegal. That may be his view, but it was clearly being used for the European financial stabilisation mechanism and therefore posed a liability for this country. Surely he must welcome a Bill mechanism that allows a treaty that reduces our liability. The new ESM will not include Britain, and we will not have that same liability. As a good Europhobe, he should support the Bill.

[Mr Cash]

As a Euro-realist, I am glad we will no longer be liable under the European financial stabilisation mechanism, but that does not exonerate the arrangements that were made by the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the current Chancellor, not to mention the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary. In May 2010, as the former Chancellor makes clear in his book, they were all involved in endorsing the decision on the transitional arrangements between the outgoing Government and the current one. The illegality is shared by all members of the previous and current Governments.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend ascribes responsibility to a number of politicians, but what about the role of Sir Jon Cunliffe, our permanent representative in Brussels at that time? He had a key role in the matter, and since that time has been promoted.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend and others have pursued that relentlessly and still have no real answers. The truth of the matter is that a number of things were done at or around that time that many people now rather regret—let us put it that way. The fact that the EFSM is now described as “not needed” is disingenuous because people know perfectly well that it was illegal. That is not just my opinion—I make this comment to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood)—but the one reached by members of the European Scrutiny Committee as a whole in the light of what we heard.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

May I make a plea to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)? It is one thing to criticise Ministers or Government policy on the European Union, but will they please not direct criticism directly at named officials, who serve Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers loyally and to the best of their ability in the impartial tradition of the British civil service?

[Mr Cash]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend makes that point and I endorse it as a general principle, but instances occur periodically that require a certain amount of investigation and analysis. I did not entirely endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) in as many words, but I agree with him—and with others—that, at the time in question, decisions were taken that people now regret. I am glad that we have moved on from article 122 to the present European stability mechanism.

[Mr Douglas Alexander]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I would rather get on with my speech than continue to dwell on the outrageous decision taken, but I will certainly give way to the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Alexander]

First, may I identify myself with both the spirit and substance of the remarks offered by the Minister for Europe? Secondly, before the hon. Gentleman proceeds with his speech, does he accept that, notwithstanding his demand for continued investigations, one of his colleagues has perhaps fallen into error in suggesting that the named individual was the permanent representative in Brussels at that time? I think, in fact, that his predecessor was in post at the time when the decisions that are being discussed were reached.

[Mr Cash]

I cannot possibly comment, as they say, on that particular point because I am not aware of all the circumstances. Although mistakes were made, the point regarding the ESM is far more important. I accept that the EFSM is now in the past, but it was an unfortunate incident and all parties involved were culpable of allowing it to be endorsed as a proposal—it remained effective for far too long, with obligations on the United Kingdom and its taxpayers.

[Mark Reckless]

The individual concerned was a senior official in the Treasury at the time—I was referring to his current position. The Europe Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary have supported what their senior officials in a number of positions say, but if the House had had the chance to scrutinise the individual concerned, and if either the European Scrutiny Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee had been able to determine his appointment, we might be in a different position.

[Mr Cash]

We have probably gone through that in as much detail as is required or necessary on this occasion. My point is that it is not the case, as the Foreign Secretary and the papers to which he is religiously sticking state, that article 122 arrangements for the EFSM are no longer needed. That is not only disingenuous, but verging on something much worse. It is not just a question of them not being needed, but I will leave it at that for the time being.

The real question is on the problems that will emerge in practice from the continuous stream of payments and bailouts, putting heads in the sand and the complete abnegation of reality. It is clear—the most recent edition of The Economist indicates as much—that the euro will turn into a soft currency with high inflation. The general secretary of the CSU, the Bavarian party that makes up part of the coalition in Germany, accuses the European Central Bank—this is a far worse accusation than any regarding the EFSM—of becoming

“the currency forger of Europe”.

There are profound reasons for that accusation, which is made by one of the most senior members of the German coalition. I could spend a fair amount of time going through technical and legal points on the European Act 2011, the exemption conditions and the opinion of the Foreign Secretary, but the issue is much more serious than treading through the maze of legalities created by the Act. This is about the substance of the manner in which the European Union functions and fails.

I shall come to the attitudes of German voters later, but it is important that people throughout Europe recall, as Germans do, what happened in the 1930s and subsequently. The economy’s implosion and high inflation—evidence that the economy was completely out of kilter with reality—ultimately led to disaster and the emergence of Hitler from the Weimar republic. Those things are brought to mind by the CSU general secretary’s accusation that the ECB is becoming

“the currency forger of Europe”

to provide the scale of bailouts contemplated under the Bill and the treaty. Massively high inflation is caused by printing money when a country does not have it on the basis of how it runs its economy. No wonder only 24% of more than 1,000 German voters polled had confidence in the short-termism that such measures represent.

Angela Merkel is certainly bidding for a new European treaty—it has not been received with enthusiasm, but the treaty issue has not gone away. In December, there is a fair chance that she will come back for a new treaty that will effectively create yet another step towards political union. We know perfectly well—it is no longer taboo, although I have been saying it for the best part of 25 years and it is now reality—that Germany is now moving further and further towards political union, which it will largely dominate, although more and more Germans are against the bail-outs, even to the point at which, as The Economist suggested last week, Mr Weidmann is now seen increasingly as Angela Merkel’s Thomas à Becket, having been one of her most loyal supporters. This is a very serious matter, but the shadow Foreign Secretary simply does not see it. I asked him whether he agrees with Angela Merkel or with Mr Weidmann because that is what is at the heart of this Bill.

The worst of it is that in fact it is not going to work anyway. Mrs Angela Merkel knows that Mr Weidmann is right on economics, but she has her own agenda of political union as the centrepiece for the destiny of Germany, as she has repeatedly argued. It is not just Germany. Spain is rapidly following Greece over the euro cliff, with Italy not far behind, not to mention the continuing problems in Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus and a stack of other countries. It is even now becoming a problem in respect of the individual provinces in Spain—Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia and other regions are lining up while Spain dives into a double-dip recession. There simply is not the money to pay for the catastrophe that the European economic system has created.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it odd that we should lecture the eurozone about double-dip recessions when we are in one ourselves, created by the Government whom he purports to support?

[Mr Cash]

That is a very nice little intervention, because the reason we are in a double-dip recession—in so far as we are—is, first, the massive deficit that the hon. Gentleman’s Government left us with. Secondly, for reasons that I will explain, it is because of the massive deficit—as I said to both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary—that the European Union has with us. We are in such incredible deficit with the other 26 member states that it will be impossible for us to gain out of the 50% of our trade with them the growth that is needed to enable us to come out of recession and grow our economy.

I was disappointed, to say the least, that the problems with the eurozone were not even touched on in the exchanges between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Andrew Marr yesterday, when everybody knows that the failure of the UK economy is partly because of the deficit we inherited, but also because we cannot grow with a bankrupt European Union, with the exception of Germany. Indeed, half of our deficit with the other 26 member states is our deficit with Germany alone. So we have to be conscious that this is a real problem that needs to be resolved, and this Bill will do almost nothing except damage our economy.

Greece is currently in the throes of an EU-IMF economic investigation. One can almost hear the words of endorsement from the EU and the IMF before they have reported. I will be very surprised if they do not try to find some way to muddle through. As with the Bill and, I am afraid to say, the Government’s policy on Europe, real EU reform is off the agenda, as is a referendum.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is very free in his criticism of the IMF—

[Martin Horwood]

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to do better.

The hon. Gentleman is free with his criticism of the IMF and the EU and everyone else, but may I ask him a basic economic question? If not this, what? Does he advocate the chaotic disintegration of the eurozone? Does he ask the Germans not to seek guarantees for the finance they are providing for other European economies? Does he suggest that there should be no legal framework behind the necessary steps to tackle structural deficits in the eurozone countries? I can think of nothing that would more surely damn the whole European economy, including ours, than a chaotic disintegration of the eurozone.

[Mr Cash]

Again, I am grateful for the intervention because back in the 1990s during the passage of the Maastricht treaty—and I say this without any sense of self-satisfaction—I predicted that this is where we would end up. Massively high unemployment, riots in the streets, the rise of the far right and the implosion of the European economic system were all predicted in the Maastricht treaty debates. It is there in black and white. It is no good now saying that because those of us who took that position and made those predictions then were right that, somehow or other, we should say, “Well, that is just the past. Let us not worry about the present.” We are looking towards the future and we need to have an association of nation states based on the principle of consent by the voters, who have already expressed their views in repeated opinion polls and are denied referendums.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that almost exactly the same lines of argument and descriptions were applied back in 1990 to the same prophecies about the UK exit from the exchange rate mechanism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend is right. Those of us who argued that we should come out of the ERM were laughed at. But on that famous date, 15 September—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Golden Wednesday.

[Mr Cash]

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

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

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

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

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

I repeat “merely”—

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Cash]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I would simply say to my hon. Friend that Britain is not bound by the ESM; it is very clear that only eurozone member states will be affected. Is it proportionate for us to stand in the way of those countries that are wrestling with and trying to decide what is going to happen with the euro? Is it proportionate for us to block that particular tweak to that treaty? I just do not feel that it is. I agree with him in that I want renegotiation and I want it, at some future point, to be put to a referendum. However, we need to pick our battles and pick our moments, and I think it is wrong to nit-pick over what I would regard as a small change.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend was kind enough to say that he agreed with my general analysis of the problems that have led, through the treaties, to the difficulties that the European Union as a whole now represents. That explains why giving more money to this particular fund and doing it in this manner is likely to exacerbate the deep black hole that has already been created. It affects us because we trade so much with the European Union.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I was going to deal with. I simply return to what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, as I do not think that by blocking this Bill we are going to stop the ESM. Other countries will continue, because they have decided that they need to do so to try to save the euro.

We also need to give the Government and the Prime Minister credit when they achieve things and make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and I would like to see faster progress made and a renegotiation sooner rather than later, but we should give the Government credit where they safeguard British interests and improve on the situation we inherited. We should not blame our own Government for the mistakes the previous Labour Government made. They engaged in sloppy negotiation, and, as a result, we ended up with the former arrangements in the EFSM. The situation has now been improved with the ESM and we should support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I might have agreed with my hon. Friend that the general sense of direction would lead to the conclusions he has drawn, but is he not conscious of the fact that Angela Merkel is now proposing a new union treaty—full political union and all the panoply that goes with that—which is likely to come forward in December?

[George Eustice]

It may come forward, but there will be better opportunities than this Bill to pick the moment to have that negotiation. This is not the Bill or the issue on which to say to other European countries, “Unless you give us a full-scale renegotiation, we are going to veto the proposal.” It is disproportionate to take that approach in this instance.

So much for the areas on which we disagree. I want to come on to some of the areas on which we are probably in agreement and to echo some of the points made. There is a big question about whether the ESM will be a solution to the crisis, or even part of one, and there is also doubt about whether there is any solution to the crisis gripping the eurozone. Although, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier, the polls in all the countries in the euro consistently show their wanting to stay in the currency, in reality they do not want to take the decisions or accept what the euro inevitably entails. That is where the real problem lies.

Let us consider Germany, for example. It is undoubtedly benefiting at the moment, almost freeloading on the other member states and enjoying a lower exchange rate than it would have if it had its own independent currency. The Germans have kidded themselves into believing that it is all down to German ingenuity and marvellous engineering, and granted they have made some improvements in their labour market and sorted out some of the structural problems in their economy in the past decade, but German industry is undoubtedly benefiting significantly from having a lower exchange rate than it would otherwise have. Meanwhile, countries such as Greece and Spain do not want to do what the euro entails in terms of fiscal discipline and so on. They have spent, borrowed a fortune and shown a complete lack of prudence over the past 10 years. Although such countries say that they want the euro, they do not want what the euro means, which is a real problem.

We should not stop member states trying to save the euro. If they want to save it and want to make that attempt, let us let them do it. I think the most likely scenario, however, is that the euro will be partially broken up and some member states will be allowed to leave it. Although I can understand that the Government would not want to entertain any such talk or to spook the markets by commenting on that idea—I do not expect the Minister will do so when he wraps up the debate—I hope that they are developing some serious contingency plans for handling a break-up of the euro, whether it is orderly or disorderly. Despite all the rhetoric when the euro was introduced about its ending volatility and being all about stability and stable growth, we might find that the conditions for stability and stable growth are best created by floating exchange rates, which can help countries adapt to shocks to their economies and changes in the world economy as well as to transition when things go wrong.

I was in the anti-euro no campaign and worked for it for four years, and I remember that a decade ago, when that debate was going on, many people who are now on the Opposition Benches—the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who is no longer in his seat, was one of them—accused us Eurosceptics of putting our heads in the sand and of saying, “Stop the world, I want to get off.” Who are the people who have their heads in the sand today? Who is in denial about the realities, particularly the financial realities, of the world in which we live? The fact is that the euro was an incredibly stupid idea. It was introduced only through a triumph of political belligerence on the part of people such as Chancellor Kohl and François Mitterrand over economic reasoning.

Economists at the time pointed out all of the problems that have come home to roost. They warned that there was a lack of convergence and that that was not just about the cyclical convergence of one’s economy and the levels of growth but, more fundamentally, about structural convergence, the make-up of one’s industries and the differences between economies. They were ignored. They warned that we would get asymmetric shocks to the world economy that would hit some countries worse than others, which would cause tensions in the euro, but they were ignored. They warned that to work properly the euro would require fiscal union and fiscal integration, that it would require very painful long-term adjustments in the absence of an exchange rate that could help people through those adjustments, that countries on the periphery would face prolonged periods of high unemployment and would be forced to cut wages, and that we would have to accept large migrations of people within the European Union from deprived areas to areas that were succeeding under the euro. Those warnings have all come true, but they were all dismissed at the time.

The final thing that everybody pointed out when the euro was debated was that we needed political union to make the euro a success, so that there was clarity in decision making. That has been proved right, too, because despite the warning from those on the pro-euro side that we would not have a seat at the table, all we have at the moment is 17 member states around a table squabbling and unable to reach a clear and coherent decision. That is one reason the euro continues to limp forward.

We need to learn the lessons. Why were all those economists ignored? Why was there so much mindless, blind faith in the idea that the euro was somehow historically inevitable? We still see that from some Members on the pro-euro side. The lesson we must learn is that nothing is inevitable. It is not inevitable that the euro will survive, but nor is it inevitable that it will collapse. The idea of ever closer union is certainly not inevitable any more and it is not inevitable that Britain will always be alone as the only country on the outside talking sense. I think it is quite likely that we will gain allies and that our ideas will start to gain traction.

There was a failure under the previous Labour Government and the truth about new Labour is that an unquestioning pro-Europeanism was almost an article of faith. Anti-Europeanism was blamed for the fact that they were not elected during the 1980s and that association was targeted at people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), with whom I have campaigned on this issue many times. That perspective on Europe was very unquestioning and unprincipled. It was simply a political line to take, with no intellectual rigour, and it led to Tony Blair and the previous Labour Government simply going with the flow on whatever emerged on the European agenda.

This Government have made a very good start. The European Union Act 2011 was much more significant than many people on the Government Benches give it credit for, but we need to develop it and to build on what has been achieved to forge a new doctrine for the future of the European Union. That doctrine must end the dogma of ever closer union and encourage the idea of a multi-tier Europe—a pick-and-choose Europe where countries are able to adopt the policies they want and withdraw from those that they do not like and do not work for them. Too often in the past, we faced the problem of people saying that we would not have enough allies to make a point because there were not enough countries to support us. We need to leave such attitudes behind, because unless we begin the debate now we will never end up in the right place. We should be articulating a proactive vision of an alternative European Union, which does not require deeper integration in one direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I start by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. To the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) I say that I will be happy to send her a copy of an article that I published in The Sun on Sunday earlier this year, which set out in good, plain English the case that I have consistently made for a constructive, critical and engaged approach by the United Kingdom in the European Union.

As several hon. Members have said—especially my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—it is important to note that we are debating this initiative to change the European Union treaties in the context of a debate on primary legislation. In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) questioned whether the European Union Act 2011 had made any difference. He was correct to state that in the case of treaty changes that were agreed before 2008, treaty amendments could be approved here only through primary legislation, but in 2008 the law was changed. At the same time as the Lisbon treaty was being taken through by the then Government, they provided in section 6(1)(a) of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 that all that would be needed henceforward to approve the use of the simplified revision procedure would be for each House of Parliament to approve a Government motion without amendment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset pointed out with characteristic acuity, there is a considerable difference between the kind of detailed examination and debate that takes place on the Floor of the House during the various stages of proceedings on primary legislation and the brief 90-minute or two-hour debate on a motion tabled under the provisions of the 2008 legislation. I would hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, whatever our differences on one or two other matters to do with the EU, would acknowledge that the 2011 Act has made an important and significant difference in restoring the central role of Parliament and, in particular, the Chamber of the House of Commons, as the place where things as important and significant as European treaty amendments can be considered in full. The disgrace is that the 2008 legislation sought to take those powers away from Parliament in the first place.

Before moving to the content of the Bill, I want briefly to respond to some of the points made by hon. Members during the debate. I turn first, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East said that she had returned from the summer break feeling invigorated and ready for the European fray once again. I have descended from the mountains of Snowdonia full of enthusiasm and relish to debate with my hon. Friend once again. I agreed with a fair measure of his analysis, and I think that most of those who contributed to this debate, from whatever party, agreed that the euro was created without sufficient thought being given to ensuring the stability of the single currency area, given that there was not the degree of fiscal, economic and political integration normally expected in a currency area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone warned in stark terms that the current eurozone crisis contained not only profound economic risks but significant—he would probably say dangerous—political challenges, and he has been consistent in arguing those points. I am one of those survivors on the Government Benches who has vivid memories of his contributions at 5 o’clock in the morning during proceedings on the Maastricht legislation in 1992-93. I agree that the crisis facing the euro presents the eurozone countries with important political as well as economic challenges. If it is agreed to centralise or co-ordinate decisions on some of the fundamentals of economic policy, it also has to be decided how those decisions, which are so important to the citizens of the countries concerned, are to be made democratically accountable. There is, then, a political, as well as an economic challenge, for our friends and neighbours in the eurozone.

It would be foolish, however, for British politicians to assume that the leaders and voters in other EU member states will necessarily respond to those political challenges in the same way as the UK electorate might be expected to do. Each European country has its own historical experience and economic and geographical particularities to take into account.

Let me take, for example, the conversations I had with members of the Governments of the three Baltic republics during my visits there. One of the things that they were keen to make clear to me was that although they certainly valued and cherished their hard won independence—the reclamation of their freedom—they also saw the integration of the European Union not as a threat, but as a way to entrench their European and democratic identity, so that never again could they be pulled back towards an eastern alignment or towards Russian influence, which they still feared, for understandable historical reasons.

Let us take Germany, which is a very different case. Where I parted company with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was when he spoke of Germany. I do not think it was his intention, but some of the phrases he used came across in such a way as to present Germany as somehow having sinister intentions towards the rest of Europe. However, whenever one speaks to German politicians, from whichever political party they come, what one finds striking is that they see support for European integration as a means of providing reassurance to their neighbours that Germany is not going to go off on some nationalist course again; that France, the Netherlands and other countries that were occupied by Germany in the mid-20th century would see Germany’s commitment to European institutions and European methods of governance as a reassurance to them, not a threat.

[Mr Cash]

If I may make just a short observation about my right hon. Friend’s remarks, it is, fundamentally, that in my judgment Germany is very concerned about government by rule, whereas we in the United Kingdom are much more concerned about government by consent. The fundamental problem is one of democracy, as illustrated by the fact that about 99% of the Bundestag agreed to all the arrangements, yet we know from opinion polls what percentage of the German people take a different view. It is that dichotomy which causes concern, and there are other factors in relation to Angela Merkel’s agenda.

[Mr Lidington]

I do not want to get drawn into a detailed debate about a comparative political analysis between the British and German approaches. Let me say briefly to my hon. Friend, first, that when Germany looks at her history, she has good reasons for looking to firm rules and strong institutions, such as the constitutional court. Secondly, it is not completely unknown for the House of Commons to vote by a large majority in favour of something that every opinion poll tells it the majority of the British public opposes, so I do not think we should get too hung up on there being some vast difference in democratic interpretation between the two nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Ultimately, it has to be for the electorate in each country to decide on the extent to which they want to take part in integration. My experience over the past two years of talking to Government leaders and other politicians in the other 26 countries, as well as following—as far as one can—the movement of opinion among the public in those countries, tells me that there is a greater level of support or toleration for Europe’s political and economic integration than there tends to be in the UK. I am generalising, of course, and there are significant differences among the 26 countries, but the historical experience of the United Kingdom in the 20th century differs from that of much of continental Europe, which helps to explain the difference in political attitudes towards European integration.

Various hon. Friends have raised a number of points during the debate, to which I wish to respond. My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Rochester and Strood both asked why the measure that we are debating today should be exempt from the requirement in the European Union Act 2011 for a referendum. The Act requires a referendum to be held when European Union treaties are changed in such a way as to create a transfer of competence or power from the United Kingdom to the European Union. The plain fact is that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for North East Somerset pointed out, this measure does not transfer any such power or competence from this country to the institutions of the European Union. It does not even apply to the United Kingdom.

The amendment that we are debating is an amendment to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which is the first article under chapter 4 of that treaty. That chapter is entitled “Provisions specific to Member States whose currency is the euro”. So, in that important legal treaty sense, this measure does not apply to the United Kingdom, although our ratification is needed to bring it into effect. Because it does not apply to us and does not transfer power or competence, there is no requirement for a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

My two hon. Friends have made other related comments, to which I would like to reply first. If they then wish to intervene on me, I will give way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) said that the referendum pledge in the 2011 Act was meaningless because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary could, in effect, decide on a whim whether a referendum was needed or not. They made reference to the requirement in the Act for the Secretary of State to make and publish a decision on whether a referendum was required. Those fears are wide of the mark, however. The Secretary of State is not permitted to act on a whim; he has to act in accordance with the law, and it is the 2011 Act that sets out in some detail precisely when a referendum is required. In making the statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State must say whether the referendum is or is not required under the terms of the Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, in asking why no referendum was required in this case, pointed to what he saw as a contradiction in the Government’s approach. I need to divide my response to him into two parts. Paragraph 3 of the recitals or preamble to the decision of 25 March 2011 formally recalls the previous decision by the European Council that article 122(2) would no longer be needed and “should not be used”. The text of the decision comes after paragraph 6 of the recitals and is introduced by the words “has adopted this decision:”. The text of the amendment to the treaties is what is being ratified by this Bill. So the 2011 Act bites on the amendment to the treaties, which is the narrow addition to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This measure would attract a referendum if it included one or more of the elements listed in sections 4(1) to 4(3) of the 2011 Act. Those subsections, which provide quite a long list, define what we mean by a transfer of competence or powers. This treaty amendment does not include any of those elements that require a referendum, so we do not require a referendum in this case.

[Mr Cash]

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is in a labyrinth and that it will take more than the minotaur to get him out of it. The problem is that, as the Bill’s explanatory notes clearly state, the exemption condition, which is what we are talking about,

“is met if the Act”—

the Bill, as enacted—

“providing for the approval of the decision states that the decision does not fall within section 4 of the Act.”

The bottom line is that the Government’s ultimate defence that they have got the process right is that under the Act the very decision that is taken is endorsed by Parliament when it passes the Bill; it is not about whether or not the provisions have been complied with. Clause 1(3) states that the

“decision does not fall within section 4 of the European Union Act 2011”.

In other words, we are being told, “Do not argue with me Back Benchers, because in this Act, when it goes through, that is final.” That is the bottom line of this provision.

[Mr Lidington]

That part of the Bill is included because it is a requirement of the 2011 Act that we bring this to Parliament to ask it to ratify formally the Government’s judgment as to whether or not a referendum is required. However, that judgment by the Government—that opinion embodied in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—followed a very careful analysis of the treaty amendment in the light of the provisions of the 2011 Act. Obviously I regret bitterly that I have clearly been unsuccessful in playing the role of Ariadne to guide my hon. Friend out of a labyrinth, but I somewhat suspect that he is not that keen to extract himself from it. The one thing he has not challenged me on is whether the treaty amendment contains any of the transfers of power or competence to the European Union from the United Kingdom specified in sections 4(1) to 4(3) of the 2011 Act. I am sure that we will have the delightful opportunity of pursuing those points further in Committee.

Cyprus

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on Cyprus under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I welcome the Minister, who is not the Minister for Europe, but his portfolio includes responsibility for human rights. The issue of human rights transcends the boundaries of Cyprus and should be a matter of concern to us all. Indeed, some years ago, the Minister was on the campaign trail in Enfield, Southgate and may know about the issue of Cyprus. It is certainly of great concern to my constituents and others.

In the past 40 years there have been many debates about Cyprus in this House. Over the seven years that I have been in Parliament, and particularly given my constituency interest, I have inevitably been involved in speaking on Cyprus and securing many such debates. This time it is a particular pleasure to have secured a debate, because this month Cyprus has assumed the presidency of the European Union. It is a great historic achievement of a small but important island in Europe. It is a cause for celebration of the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus. Its leadership comes at a crucial time, given the travails in Europe. I am sure that the House will wish the Cyprus presidency well over the next six months.

But—sadly, with Cyprus politics there is usually a “but”—the reason why there have been so many debates over nearly four decades is that Cyprus remains divided, with the north occupied by Turkish troops. Ministers—and perhaps the Minister here today—will visit Nicosia during the next six months. That city is the only divided capital in Europe; part of the island in the north remains occupied by troops from a foreign country—Turkey—leading to the north being one of the most militarised places in the world.

During this six-month period, pressure needs to be put on Turkey to properly recognise the Republic of Cyprus. The threats made by Turkish leaders to freeze relations with the European Union while Cyprus has the presidency should not wash with the United Kingdom or the Government. If—as many want—Turkey wants in time to be a member of the European club, it needs to play by the rules, which include respecting the rotating presidency and also respecting European agreements, not least the customs union. It is extraordinary that, although a key aim of the presidency is developing European Union maritime policy, Turkey refuses to fulfil the Ankara protocol and to accept Cyprus ships at its ports. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that during the next six months the Government will do all they can to put pressure on Turkey to recognise Cyprus and not let it off the hook during a period that can be seen too easily as a vacuum period.

The subject of the debate is Cyprus, but I have already spent time talking about Turkey. When I spoke in a debate two weeks ago about UK relations with Turkey, I spoke about Cyprus. Sadly, Turkey’s influence and involvement in Cyprus are significant. We and no doubt the Minister will want to reaffirm that the future of Cyprus must be properly determined by Cypriots, but Turkey calls the shots in the north. It is therefore incumbent on Britain to help to ensure that Cypriots— Greek and Turkish Cypriots—have the freedom and capacity to determine their future as a reunited island based on the principles of the United Nations framework of the bizonal, bicommunal federal solution.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having been to Cyprus on two separate occasions in the past six weeks as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I very much endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. We are conscious of the problem that he has identified, and it would be extremely helpful if the present Cypriot Government addressed the problem of fraudulent titles, which is a problem for some 2,000 people in the UK who have interests in the land. A Minister in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Cyprus told me that they would try to sort it out. Does my hon. Friend agree that, just as we have to sort out the Turkish question, the Cypriots have a responsibility to sort out the problem of fraudulent titles?

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention on the issues of fraudulent titles and illegal occupation of land. The Foreign Office website advises UK citizens to be clear about property ownership in the north. It advises against exploiting the situation and highlights the illegality in the north. It is a huge problem that needs to be resolved.

I imagine the Minister who took up the brief today may have approached the debate with some weariness given the stalemate in the talks between the Cypriot leaders. The House is familiar with the debate. The main purpose of the debate today is to seek to break new ground and to urge the Government not to sit on the sidelines or just cheer or cajole from the terraces, but to take seriously our historical responsibilities and our responsibilities as a guarantor power. We have responsibilities to many of those represented here. I see my hon. Friends here. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), has a significant number of Cypriot constituents, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It is clear that many Members are concerned that we do not simply let the next six months pass.

One of the areas of new ground is curiously an old one: religious and cultural heritage. Last May, I led an all-party group delegation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North and for Hendon and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), to clean up some cemeteries and churches in Cyprus. Some of the cemeteries had been neglected, but most had been desecrated. Having visited the north last November, I witnessed for myself the desecration and damage. I resolved that the next time I returned we would do something practical about it.

Our delegation did not visit national political leaders, which is what usually happens. We wanted to focus on the local communities and villages to try not only physically to restore respect to trashed cemeteries and pillaged churches, but to restore the link between the village associations—both Greek and Turkish Cypriot—which, through the conflict, has sadly been lost.

Our visit’s aim was not to try to change the world or to solve the Cyprus problem—or indeed to restore all religious and cultural heritage—in a few days. The aim was to take some small but practical steps through cleaning a cemetery or a church to rebuild confidence and to make the point that, as British Members of Parliament with responsibilities, along with the Cypriots who were with us, we would not tolerate the desecration of religious heritage.

We will not accept the status quo. We made the point loud and clear that the situation cannot just be accepted and allowed to carry on. The memories of loved ones and the places of worship that people want to go to matter. Such respect transcends faiths, backgrounds and countries. It is about respect for common shared values. In building those small steps of confidence, the aim was to lead to a better future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

We agreed to go across the whole island, so we visited Limassol, Larnaca, Dromolaxia, Kivisili and Kalo Choiro, as well as Afania, Assia, Genagra, Pigi, Peristerona and Nicosia. That was important. For example, we went to the Limassol mosque which, not long before we visited, had been partially burned by vandals. We were able to visit the mosque with Bishop Porfyrios and Imam Shakir, who were affirming their united support for a greater respect for religious and cultural heritage. The problem is not one of division or religious division—that is not a problem at all. They were saying that we can look at the issue of religious cultural heritage as one where we can respect religion, which can be a uniting, not dividing, force, to build confidence and trust for all Cypriots. I ask the Minister to support such confidence-building measures in areas of religious cultural heritage. Citizens from this country will be going to Cyprus to carry out such visits in the future.

This is a current issue, and there is a concern that it is not all positive. There are reports this week that the cemetery in the village of Trachoni in the north has been completely destroyed to make way for the building of a new police station. That does not help at all when we want to build a common future for Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and I ask the Minister to condemn that approach.

[Mr Cash]

Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to take another question which relates, as I understand it, to the refusal of the Turkish Government to recognise the law of the sea and the exclusive economic zone in relation to gas? That is a huge issue that raises massive questions about good faith.

[Mr Burrowes]

I was going to come on to that. The discovery of hydrocarbon reserves is a wonderful opportunity—a natural resource for the whole of the island of Cyprus—to help resource a reunited island. There are struggles in the region both with energy and finance, and that provides hope for a brighter future. That is why it is depressing that, at this time, Turkey is being provocative in bringing ships around to show an aggressive approach, and not fully recognising that this is a resource for Cyprus. Outside powers should not be trying to get their hands on it. As a guarantor power, Britain has responsibility for the independence of the island. This is a threat to that independence. I understand that the Minister for Europe has been vigorous in making representations, and I ask the Minister present to reaffirm that respect for the integrity of that resource for the benefit of the island, which offers real hope for the future—a dynamic that can happen now and can be assured.

This period could lapse into a vacuum period of six months where the talks are stalled, but we can make practical progress. In Famagusta, the fenced-off Varosha area has been looted, uninhabited and decaying for nearly 40 years. Will the Minister reaffirm what the Prime Minister has said—I am sure that he will want to do so—in response to my reference to this on behalf of other hon. Members? The Prime Minister said:

“We fully support all the relevant Security Council resolutions, including UNSCR550 and UNSCR789. We have raised this with the Turkish authorities”.

I urge the Government to continue to do that. The Prime Minister recognises

“that measures to build confidence between the communities in Cyprus can have great value in facilitating efforts towards a comprehensive settlement. We continue to encourage all parties to the Cyprus problem to develop such measures.”

Famagusta is one such area that can come under UN supervision and properly allow, in compliance with those United Nations resolutions, for the return of lawful inhabitants. Hon. Members believe that that would help to facilitate efforts towards a settlement. That does not need to wait for a settlement; progress can be made, as it can in the area of missing persons. There was a protest yet again last week by the relatives of missing persons. The relatives are still literally crying out for basic information about their loved ones, despite the great efforts of the communal committee for missing persons—work supported by the European Union, and by the UK taxpayer, too. Unfortunately, the whereabouts of those relatives are in the domain of Turkish authorities, in military bases and in Turkey itself. There must be compliance with the European Court of Human Rights judgments to allow the whereabouts of those missing people to be established.

It is important that we do not rely simply on the fact that the talks have stalled in the past six months, on what will be said, which is that we want to ensure that the Cyprus problem is resolved by Cypriots, and on the UN framework. Obviously, we want that, but we want to ensure that Britain takes its responsibilities seriously and that we as a Government step up our pressure on Turkey to recognise Cyprus when Cyprus has the European presidency. We also encourage Cypriots to step up and civil society to take a place where there are political talks and restore religious heritage and other things beyond that. We will be right behind them, supporting them every step of the way. We are doing that on behalf of British Cypriots and because of our historical responsibilities, so that we can, at long last, end the need for such debates in Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). He is right. I belong in the elite group of people who have stood in Enfield, Southgate in a general election. He belongs in the even more elite group of people who have won in that constituency. I pay tribute to all colleagues who have joined us for this important debate, specifically my hon. Friend, who has a deep, consistent interest in this subject, which is a cause of great importance to a large number of his constituents and in which he takes an interest more widely.

Let me make a couple of points in response to specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, then touch on three themes that came out of the debate: cultural sites, missing persons and natural gas and mineral reserves, which were mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

The United Kingdom fully supports Security Council resolutions 550 and 789, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned, and we will continue to raise those issues with the Turkish authorities. We urge Turkey to implement the additional Ankara protocol when we have a suitable opportunity to bring that to its attention. It is important that the European Union and Turkey find a way to make progress on this issue.

My hon. Friend was right to draw the attention of the House to this significant moment in the long history of Cyprus, because from 1 July until the end of this year it holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union. There are close links between our countries: Cyprus is one of only three EU member states in the Commonwealth; more than 80,000 British citizens live on the island; more than 300,000 Cypriots live permanently in the UK, many of them in Enfield and other parts of north London and across the country; a million British people visit the island annually; and 11,000 Cypriot students attend British universities. I strongly take on board the point that was made about our historical obligations and our contemporary interest in events happening in Cyprus.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister commit to looking into the question of the fraudulent title to land? Many thousands of English—British—people have land in Cyprus. I raised that matter when I visited. Will he commit to taking that forward, to ensure that there is a proper resolution in the courts so that these titles can be remedied?

[Mr Browne]

I will happily undertake to task the Department with looking into that. The Minister for Europe or I will write to my hon. Friend.

I have mentioned the three areas that I want to talk about in the five minutes available to me. First, on missing people, there are significant efforts to help families discover the fate of their relatives and give them the opportunity to bury them with respect. We understand that this is an important and sensitive issue for all Cypriots and recognise the need for it to be resolved. The work of the committee for missing persons is of great significance. Since its establishment in 1981, it has been one of the only institutionalised bi-communal committees in Cyprus. To date, the remains of 853 individuals have been exhumed from different burial sites located across the island and 321 remains of individuals exhumed within the framework of the CMP project have been identified through this process—255 Greek Cypriots and 66 Turkish Cypriots.

Of course, to complete its vital work the CMP must be granted access to all areas where it needs to excavate. I therefore urge all those in control of such areas, including the Turkish military, to co-operate fully with the committee. The Committee of Ministers responsible for the supervision of the Turkey v. Cyprus case in the European Court of Human Rights case has also underlined the need for Turkish authorities to take concrete measures in relation to the missing persons, and particularly in relation to the CMP’s access to all relevant information and places.

Secondly, the cultural heritage of the island, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate discussed at some length, is a sensitive area and the technical committee on cultural heritage, established in April 2008, has the mandate to work on improving the situation. The committee has developed an action plan to protect vulnerable buildings. It has already started work on some projects and hopes, with further funding, to be able to implement more of its plan. The UK Government strongly believe that respect for religious and cultural buildings is a key element in building trust between different communities, including through the preservation of churches, mosques and other buildings of religious and cultural heritage.

Thirdly, and finally—I am conscious that I am slightly skimming through these areas, but I know that hon. Members will want to hear the response to specific points—my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Enfield, Southgate mentioned the discovery of substantial gas reserves in Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone, which we regard as good news for the island. There has never been any doubt about the United Kingdom’s support for the right of the Republic of Cyprus to develop the reserves that lie within its exclusive economic zone. Along with the international community we have publicly stated our recognition of Cyprus’ sovereign rights to do so.

We welcome President Christofias’s saying that the gas reserves should benefit all the people living in Cyprus. We hope that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus will take further steps to demonstrate to Turkish Cypriots that they have a clear interest in the development of these reserves. We call on all parties to handle the issue in a way that does not undermine the settlement process and urge both sides not to escalate the issue.

I express once again, on behalf of the Government, my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for raising this subject and reiterate that the Government remain committed to seeing a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.

EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I have explained why the measure does not cut across British national policy, but I will come in greater detail to the relationship between the EU special representative and the Council of Europe.

I turn to the action plan. The European Scrutiny Committee noted that it is a comprehensive text and suggested that it constitutes a departure from the approach outlined in the previous joint communication. The High Representative has described human rights as

“a silver thread that runs through everything that we do in external relations.”

That is very much how the Government see human rights, too. In 2010, early in the Government’s life, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that

“values are part of our national DNA and will be woven deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy at every stage.”

The action plan is comprehensive, because integrating a human rights perspective across all areas of the EU’s external action is the best way to ensure that the European Union maximises its influence on these issues.

We did not just agree to the action plan on the nod. We conducted a line-by-line assessment of the items, and we are content that what is proposed is in line with our policy objectives and does not pose a risk of competence creep. In addition, the Council has formally agreed that the action plan will fully respect the existing division of competencies. Although it is a comprehensive document, it both builds on the original joint communication and has been examined closely by the Government on precisely the question of competence that concerns my hon. Friend.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way, but I am very conscious that a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.

[Mr Cash]

It is also true that the Minister is at the Dispatch Box and has a responsibility to answer these questions. There are four pages under the headings of outcome, action, timing and responsibility. Is he seriously suggesting that in every single respect, given the general nature of all these things and the fact that the legal consequences will ultimately end up in some court or other, he is right in making such a general assertion?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, of course the action plan is expressed in general terms, because the intention is that those general principles should be applied to the European Union’s human rights activity across the range of EU dossiers and areas of external policy action.

On the common foreign and security policy—CFSP—the freedom of the EU special representative or the High Representative to express a view and develop a policy on behalf of the EU collectively will depend on whether a CFSP position has been unanimously agreed for a particular country, region or crisis. The action plan describes in general terms how the EU and its High Representative and special representative should determine their priorities for action, but we cannot sit down in July 2012 and write down in detail which countries and crises will be involved and in what manner such work should be undertaken. Foreign Ministers in the Foreign Affairs Council and national representatives in the Political and Security Committee will consider these matters case by case.

The European Parliament saw a role for itself on the CFSP following the Lisbon treaty, and we were equally clear that the CFSP would remain intergovernmental. The High Representative has made a gesture to the Parliament in a non-binding declaration on political accountability, which says that she will seek the views—nothing more than that—of the European Parliament on CFSP matters. As one would expect, the European Parliament has taken a keen interest in the new human rights package. In accordance with article 36 of the treaty on the European Union, the mandate for the special representative provides that he or she

“may be involved in briefing the European Parliament.”

However, such briefings may take place only in a committee or sub-committee configuration and never in plenary debates, in which only the High Representative may participate. This reflects the arrangement, which we firmly support and uphold, that on issues pertaining to the CFSP the High Representative may be replaced in plenary only by a Minister of a member state.

I want to move on to the possible overlap with the Council of Europe, which concerns several Members. I start by acknowledging the important work that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House play as Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I recall the very pleasurable visits that I made to the Parliamentary Assembly during the United Kingdom’s six-month presidency of the Council of Europe. It is clearly important that there be effective, mutually trusting co-ordination between the Council of Europe, particularly its human rights commissioner, and the EU’s new special representative on human rights. That is reflected in the wording of the mandate, which I will describe shortly.

I note that the two roles have distinct responsibilities. The Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner is mandated to promote awareness of and respect for human rights within the member states of the Council of Europe. The EU special representative’s role is different; it is to promote human rights globally as part of the EU’s unanimously agreed CFSP. Both office holders will be involved in work on promoting respect for human rights in states of the Council of Europe that are not EU member states. To avoid any risk of unhelpful overlap and duplication, article 11(3) of the EUSR’s mandate expressly requires him or her to

“liaise and seek complementarity and synergies with other international and regional actors”.

To turn that jargon into English, it means that the special representative should maintain a regular dialogue with the commissioner to avoid duplication. The secretariat of the Council of Europe has expressed no concern to us about the creation of this role. Indeed, subject to proper co-ordination, it welcomes an increased focus on human rights within the EU’s external action.

During the UK’s presidency, I discussed with Secretary-General Jagland the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union. I was pleased to learn from him and other senior officials in the Council of Europe that, over the past year or so, there had been a distinct improvement in the quality of liaison and co-operation between the two organisations. There was a feeling, certainly among the secretariat, that there was no longer the pressure from the EU that there had been for its institutions to take over the work of the Council of Europe; rather, efforts were being made on both sides to agree the areas where each was likely to be the most effective actor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the protection of the human rights of the Roma community is incredibly important and that those rights are at risk in Hungary. Their human rights have been threatened in other member states, too—I will not mention a former President of the French Republic and some of the things he said about that community.

The fundamental law extends the Hungarian Government’s control over various bodies that should be independent, such as the central bank and the courts. In particular, there are concerns about the independence of the judiciary. We believe that an independent judiciary is a vital safeguard of human rights. The European Parliament and the Commission have raised concerns about democracy and the accountability of the Hungarian Government, and it is clear that human rights must be protected within the EU and its member states, if the EU is to have an authoritative voice on human rights in external countries. I would appreciate it, therefore, if the Minister could shed some light on these matters by answering the following questions: does he think that the situation in Hungary weakens the EU’s voice on democracy and human rights in third countries; and will he update the House on what discussions he and his colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, have had with the Hungarian and other EU Governments about the new Hungarian fundamental law and its the implications for the human rights of the Hungarian people?

[Mr Cash]

Is the hon. Lady aware of the enormous majority that the President, Prime Minister and Government of Hungary have as a result of free and proper elections? Does she think it the right and duty of the EU or the Venice Commission to tell a member state how it should behave, when it has such a massive democratic mandate? This is a very serious question.

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree only that it is a very serious question. The EU must promote and protect human rights within its member states, regardless of the majority that a President or Government have received from the electorate. We should not tolerate the judiciary, the media or other such institutions being under the control of whatever Government in whatever member state. Labour Members are proud of our record on human rights while in government. We passed the Human Rights Act and prioritised the promotion of human rights in our external policies, particularly our development policy. Further back in history, the UK was one of the leading architects of the European convention on human rights. We remain proud that the UK is a signatory to that convention, and we are a full and active member of the Council of Europe.

Although we welcome the Government’s position on the documents before the House, it seems that the Government are not always entirely consistent in their commitment to human rights. The Minister has said positive things today, but his Conservative MEPs in Brussels say and vote entirely differently. Regrettably, they sit with a rag-bag of anti-Semites, holocaust deniers and homophobes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I have listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), and my concern about this whole debate is that it seems that, somehow or other, there is a universality about human rights, without reference to democracy in individual countries. The question I have to ask is: how do we define what a human right is?

It is not so simple. I believe in human rights; I believe in the manner in which we legislate. However, we are already having a massive debate in the House of Commons about the Human Rights Act 1998, and about the commission that has been set up as a result of the coalition agreement. There are also massive questions being raised about the manner in which our judiciary is interpreting human rights—in relation to extradition, deportation, Abu Qatada, and so on. I have even noticed some Opposition Members showing an increased interest in whether human rights can be regarded as entirely generic and universal, when it is actually up to individual member states and individual Parliaments, based on the votes cast in general elections, to decide whether a particular human right is or has been contravened.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, because I am getting increasingly fed up with these people who continually assert, with their political correctness, that they know what a human right is. It is down to Parliament, based on what is decided by the voters in general elections, to determine those questions. It is a matter of law, not just some generic universality. I will be the first to fight for habeas corpus or trial by jury. What worries me is all these generic expressions—I will come to that in the middle of my speech—and this whole concept, which is promoting more and more generic human rights creep.

[Jo Swinson]

I sometimes wonder whether it is better not to encourage the hon. Gentleman, but I want to challenge him on universality, because I believe, as do many others, in the universality of human rights, as have been signed up to by our Government through the United Nations conventions. Does he really think that we in this country have no role in arguing and campaigning for changes abroad, and that if, for example, even a democratic country elsewhere in the world decided that it would persecute Christians—torturing them, and so on—just because of their beliefs, that should be of no concern to us whatever and that we should not try to change minds or persuade others to take action to change it?

[Mr Cash]

No, I do not. As a matter of fact, I have been very much personally involved in the Jubilee campaign, standing up for the rights of people in other countries who are being persecuted. Indeed, as the hon. Lady will know, I have also promoted the issue by forming the all-party group on water and sanitation in the third world. I stand absolutely 100% behind people’s rights in that regard. What worries me is when the whole thing is codified—as it is in the papers before us and the strategic plan—and interwoven with the universality matrix, and then buttressed by legal requirements. Therefore, when I hear the Minister saying, “Well, we will exercise the veto as and when it is appropriate”—if I can put it in generic terms—I simply do not believe that to be a realistic way of dealing with the issue.

This is another example of the European Union engaging in European creep on a monumental scale. I am not against the individual defence of people in relation to human rights questions, and there are many things that crop up in the European strategic framework and action plan that I would strongly support in an individual context. What worries me is the universality, not only because of the panoramic view that is taken of all these matters, but because of the panoramic way in which it will be applied in practice, headed by the European representative. This is essentially a practical question.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is it my hon. Friend’s assertion that, while he has no objection to a democratic country expressing strong views about abuses of human rights in other countries, democracies or otherwise, his real objection is that the European Union is seeking to take on this role without constituting a democracy in its own right?

[Mr Cash]

That is exactly the point. This is almost a jurisprudential question. It is not about fancy philosophy; it is about how we make decisions relating to individual, practical instances. My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. It is difficult to imagine that we will be able to make a choice, once the machinery is moving forwards. I shall give the House an instance from among the wide range of activities in the many pages of the strategic framework and action plan that has been adopted by the EU Council. By engaging in this proposal, we are effectively endorsing European creep. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister says that that will not happen, and that we will have the opportunity to exercise the veto, but I just do not see this as a practical way of working.

The Council has adopted the measure, and we have demanded this debate on the matter for very good reasons. We want to examine exactly what the measure contains. There simply is not enough time, in the one and a half hours allotted to us, to go through the incredibly complex questions that arise from the matter or to deal with the interaction of the decisions and the impact that they will have on human rights law in this country or in others.

I shall give the House a flavour of what I am talking about. Anyone listening to or reading the debate might like to look at the range of matters in the action plan. I mentioned that it is divided into outcomes, actions, timings and responsibilities. It is divided into seven chapters, and it sets out a variety of external policy activities. This has been agreed by all member states. Seven headings cover 36 policy areas and 97 potential actions, and that deals with the matter only in the generic sense. When we reduce this to individual cases, we are effectively saying that the EU will have a supervisory responsibility, subject only to the caveat that we will be able to exercise the veto, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I do not see that happening, however, once the machinery has been set up.

This is very much like the External Action Service. Indeed, it is very much like the EU itself. I said in 1992, or whenever it was—it seems a very long time ago now—that once the Maastricht treaty had gone through, once the European governmental system had been created with all the qualified majority voting that went with it, once we had created the mechanism and endowed it with resources, and once we had increased and implemented its legislative capacities and functions, we would have constructed an enormous creature that was incapable of being restrained. That is exactly what has happened, with disastrous consequences.

To come back to the main issue, let me provide a few examples. In the first place, the action plan refers to

“Human rights and democracy throughout EU policy”.

For those who are interested, this is taken from a Library note dated 9 July. It is also referred to in the papers before us and it has been looked at by the European Scrutiny Committee. The plan refers to the need to

“Incorporate human rights in all Impact Assessment”,

and to

“Insert human rights in Impact Assessment, as and when it is carried out for legislative and non-legislative proposals, implementing measures and trade agreements that have significant economic, social and environmental impacts, or define future policies.”

I would like to know what is not included in that, and what the opportunity would be for any restraint on the use of such provisions in the strategic plan.

The plan also refers to

“Genuine partnership with civil society”,

and that

“Heads of EU Delegations, Heads of Mission of EU Member States, heads of civilian missions and operation commanders shall work closely with human rights NGOs active in the countries of their posting.”

I would be the first to support NGOs in their individual activities, but this is a mandatory requirement, going beyond what I would describe as voluntary activity. Then there is the need to

“Present EU performance in meeting the objectives of its human rights strategy in the annual report on human rights and democracy in the world.”

I would be on the side of all those campaigners when it comes to individual human rights matters. I see in his place the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who knows that I campaigned with him on issues relating to the Chagos islanders. Going further back, I was also involved with the issue of aboriginal rights in Canada. I could provide a whole list to show that I have been as much at the forefront as anyone else when it comes to campaigning against abuses of human rights. Where I differ, and why I object to these arrangements, is in respect of this overarching determination to get away from specific campaigns into this idea of universality, whereby I think we miss the wood for the trees.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s genuine support for human rights issues in many parts of the world and the fact that he campaigns on them. Does he agree with me, however, that the issue of the Chagos islanders is now before the European Court of Human Rights and that it will take a decision? Both the hon. Gentleman and I want it to go in the same direction. Is this not one possible way of bringing about justice for the people who were treated so abominably in 1982?

[Mr Cash]

I would rather have the hon. Gentleman leading the campaign for the Chagos islanders than the EU representative who is being appointed under these documents. It is the individual commitment that counts. If I may say so, it is rather like John Bright, who campaigned for people’s rights throughout the world—in our colonies and our empire—in the 19th century. It is the individual passion and determination to stand up for people that I look towards. That is what Wilberforce was all about. I doubt whether William Wilberforce would have been deeply impressed by the manner in which this is being done. I really have to ask that question, because in my judgment, it is not desirable to end up creating this universal approach.

The second chapter is

“Promoting the universality of human rights”.

With the outcome of “universal adherence”, it specifies the action:

“Intensify the promotion of ratification and effective implementation of key international human rights treaties, including regional human rights instruments”—

and so it goes on and on, page after page, and I am reading from a tightly compressed printed version. In an intervention, I think I mentioned four pages, but there are seven pages of this. All I need to say is this: is this really the right way to go? Baroness Ashton and the entire External Action Service are, I believe, simply another manifestation of the problem. On the very day we have been told that we are to examine all the workings of the European Union in relation to the United Kingdom —all its competences—the central question is being lost, and a globalising, universal approach is being taken to something that will have to form part of the review announced by the Foreign Secretary.

On the very day we have advocated an analysis of the manner in which the European Union functions, we seem to be effectively endorsing a strategy that goes in exactly the opposite direction to the views of all those Members who support not only the review, but the repatriation of powers and the resolution of the human rights questions that are so bedevilling the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary and the whole question of extradition, the whole question of immigration policy, and the whole question of the application of law in this country on matters pertaining to human rights.

I view this development with grave concern. I do not refer to its individual application to individual cases; I refer to the attempt, through what I consider to be European federalisation or European creep, to convey the concept of a European Union that is acting on behalf of all of us. If a country such as Hungary has made a decision in its own Parliament, I think that that should be respected. Through their electors, through general elections and the democratic will of their own people, individual nation states, or member states, should be allowed to decide these matters, rather than having their decisions overridden by universality of the kind that these documents represent.

Court of Justice of the European Union

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the draft Regulation 2011/0901A(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council (amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex 1 thereto) and draft Regulation 2011/0902(COD) (relating to temporary Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal) and, in accordance with section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of draft Regulations 2011/0901A(COD) and 2011/0902(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The debate covers two draft regulations that reform the Court of Justice of the European Union with the aim of improving its efficiency. The European Scrutiny Committee has described the two regulations as

“a modest but useful package of reforms”,

and the Government endorse that verdict.

This is also the first time that the House has had the opportunity to debate such draft regulations under the new provisions of section 10(1)(d) and 10(1)(e) of the European Union Act 2011. Section 10 covers a small number of articles in the European Union treaties, and its provisions require each House of Parliament to approve a motion on the draft measure concerned before the Government are able, on behalf of the United Kingdom, to vote in support of the measure in Brussels.

As hon. Members on both sides will know, the role of the European Court of Justice is to ensure that European Union law is observed. It is a key role, and it is only right and proper that Parliament should oversee the Government’s approach to any reforms to that important European institution.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that implicit in what he says is the rule of European Union law, but is he also aware that the European Scrutiny Committee, in its report on the recent fiscal compact, made it clear that it did not regard European Union law as having been fulfilled, and that the Government themselves still retain their own position of reserving their views on the legality of the compact? What are the Government doing about that?

[Mr Lidington]

I know, not least from my own 90-minute evidence session in front of my hon. Friend’s Committee, how strongly he and other members of the Committee feel about that subject. However, it would be moving beyond the terms of this afternoon’s debate if I responded in detail about the Government’s approach to fiscal union and their decision to reserve their position on the use of the institutions for the implementation of the fiscal compact. Ministers have corresponded about that with the Committee and I am sure that there will be other opportunities for us to go into that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The report of the European Scrutiny Committee has been referred to by the Minister.

I will start by setting out the importance of the proposed reforms and putting them in context. As a practitioner of law over an extended period, I know that the volume of law has been increasing exponentially, particularly since we became a member of the European Union—or the European Community as it was then—in 1972. I do not think that anybody can put an accurate figure on the number of pages or statutes that have been effected in this House under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972; suffice it to say that it is monumental.

The European Court of Justice is being reformed because of its vast work load. That is the problem. We discussed the extension of EU competences a little earlier with the Foreign Secretary. Those competences impact on the daily lives of people not only in the United Kingdom, but across the European Union, and the excessive legislation strangles small and medium-sized businesses. That is all part and parcel of a much deeper problem than the surface question whether the Court needs a few more judges. The Court may need more judges, but that is because of the increase in its work load.

I will refer very briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the ancient history of codification. No less a person than Justinian had to decide whether the state could cope with the vast increase in law that had taken place. Eventually, he decided to reduce the volume of law from a monumental 3 million lines of legislation to 150,000 lines. His example demonstrates that it can be done.

The problem is work load and the volume of law. It is perfectly clear from the various papers that have been supplied to us that the length of proceedings, which now averages 17 months, also presents serious problems. The Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, based in Hamburg, has stated that the European Courts are under pressure because of their work load and that the greatest problem facing EU judges is the dramatic rise in the number of cases. The number of preliminary ruling cases increased from one in 1961 to 385 in 2010; and the number of cases at all three EU Courts had risen to 1,406 by 2010. Mr Rösler, who conducted the study, stated:

“That’s the highest level in the history of the EU Court of Justice.”

He went on to say that

“the EU Court of Justice has the biggest workload of any international court”.

The more law there is, the greater the work load. Mr Rösler believes that the EU’s geographical expansion is just one reason why EU judges face an excessive work load.

There is also the question whether we are having reform or a facelift. Mr Rösler states that reform is the only way out of the predicament, and his call is backed by the EU judges. In a very unusual public statement, the president of the Court, Vassilios Skouris, highlighted the Court’s excessive work load. He called for 12 new judges to be appointed to the European General Court. That has become a matter of dispute, as the Minister said. The question is what is being done. Mr Rösler mentioned the effect of having 12 more judges—I understand that that has stalled because the actual number has not yet been decided—saying:

“The expansion of the Court is urgently needed, but does not resolve the multi-faceted issues.”

In a statement I think some Members may regard as highly controversial, Mr Rösler says that a system of judicial federalism needs to be developed between member states and the European Courts. That is the direction in which all this is going. Above all, he says, the aim should be structural reform that establishes a new European judicial architecture. He says that would require the Court of Justice to specialise in relevant areas.

Mr Rösler goes even further, saying that the EU judiciary must open itself up to its citizens so that they can call upon the Court of Justice directly. It has already been accepted that the Court’s work load is absolutely enormous and arises from the vast increase in the amount of legislation affecting the daily lives of all the people in the EU, including people in the UK. Now, distinguished professors and others who are highly influential are suggesting that the whole process should be opened up to individual litigants. The idea is simply extraordinary.

Mr Rösler regards new, codified European legislation on conflict of laws and procedural law, which he says will significantly facilitate the enforcement of law before foreign courts and the EU Court of Justice, as a worthwhile long-term objective. There is almost no limit to the ambitions of those engaged in European jurisprudence. The problem is that the more law there is, the greater the distraction from the real problems facing Europe as a whole, which I do not need to go into today because they are well understood by the House.

We ought also to think about how to streamline the Court’s procedures and maximise its productivity through strategic changes to its personnel. That goes to the heart of the impact of European law. The European Court of Justice lies at the heart of part of the problem that the Foreign Secretary addressed in his statement earlier, and it ought to be put on his agenda.

The background to the debate is also influenced by the qualifications of the individual members of the Court. The Court is manned by people who, I have no doubt, could be regarded as generally proficient in law, as they are professors and celebrated advocates; the problem is that the members are not drawn from judges alone. That needs to be seriously considered. In the UK, it is unimaginable that members of a senior court at such a level would not be drawn from the senior judiciary. That in itself may be one reason why the European Court’s work load has increased so greatly in recent years.

The Court of Justice is currently composed of 27 judges and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the member states after consultation with a panel that is responsible for giving an opinion on prospective candidates’ suitability to perform the duties involved. I personally believe that the system needs to be tightened up, so that only those with judicial experience are members of the court, rather than it being merely a question of their suitability.

I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the fact that the great majority of evidence received as the measure was being conceived recommended an increase in the number of judges of the General Court as the best solution to the work load problems. Why did that aspect of the negotiations stall, and what is the Government’s policy on increasing the capacity of the General Court?

I say that without reference to my other remarks, because the increase in the work load is the consequence of the vast increase in the functions and competences that have streamed like a tsunami to the European Union. I opposed the Lisbon treaty in opposition. I proposed amendment after amendment, greatly supported by the current Foreign Secretary, and opposed every provision in the treaty, but the House ended up implementing it because it accepted that ratification had taken place. I did not agree with that, and despite the fact that we were given a cast-iron guarantee of a referendum, we did not have one.

I have some questions for the Minister. What is the expected cost of the amendments to the statute and the appointment of temporary judges to the civil service tribunal, and does he regard that as good value for money? How much will it cost to establish the office of the vice-president of the Court of Justice, and how will the office benefit a litigant? How much will it cost to establish the office of the vice-president of the General Court, which was previously known as the Court of First Instance, and how will that benefit a litigant? How will altering the composition of the Grand Chamber benefit a litigant? Do any of the reforms introduced by the amendments save money? If so, how much?

Some influential voices, such as former Advocate-General Jacobs, who will be well known to those who take an interest in these matters, and current Advocate-General Sharpston—both UK appointees—believe there is little scope for reducing the time taken to litigate cases before the Court of Justice through further procedural reform. The Minister might well ask himself why and consider it carefully. The reasons, it is said, include the Court’s translation obligations, the reliance on written procedure and the privileged status of member states to intervene. Does the Minister regard the views of former UK Advocate-General Jacobs and current Advocate-General Sharpston as correct?

I accept the apology the Minister makes in his letter to me of 11 July, which hon. Members have in front of them. There was uncertainty about what was contained in the provisions. I am grateful that he has made it clear that, on taking legal advice, the matter had to be rectified. The letter states that the

“appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal…at the CJEU also fell within Section 10 of the Act”.

The Government believe that the reform will be beneficial, as the Minister has said, and the European Scrutiny Committee takes the view, given the general comments I have made, that this is a modest but useful package of reforms. Well, it is a modest but useful package of reforms which takes account of the overarching volume of legislation that has generated the work load. Some hon. Members desire not merely to repatriate powers, but to reduce the volume of legislation as Justinian was able to do. That was at the end of the Roman empire—the fall, not just the decline. In that context, it might be observed that the last act of the Romans before the Visigoths and the others moved in on Rome was to try desperately to reduce the volume of legislation. Such action is now well overdue.

In our conclusions, having thanked the Minister for inviting us to comment, we express our regret at the lack of time given to us to do so. Indeed, our report was only published today, so for practical purposes we have all been put under a great deal of time constraint. Having said that, the real question seems to be: by how much can we reduce the amount of law that is leading to the excessive work load and to more judges, which in turn means increased costs? What practical impact will this have on litigants? I trust that he will not encourage the idea of personal litigation of the type recommended by the gentleman I quoted earlier. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer some of those questions as best he can, difficult though that might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

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

[Mr Cash]

On the preliminary reference procedure, Mr Rösler says:

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

He goes on to say that

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

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

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend has made his point clearly for the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked about the risk of further efforts to enhance the powers and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. He referred in particular to the possibility of the introduction of a right to petition the Court and take cases there. I can assure him that, notwithstanding what learned professors might say, no such proposal is on the table at the moment. No such proposal forms part of the regulations before us. The subject has not crossed my desk and it is not a matter of live discussion among Governments at present.

My hon. Friend also asked about the timing of the debate and expressed concern at what he believed to be an absence of time for the European Scrutiny Committee to consider this matter. I would challenge him on that. Looking back at the record, I see that we provided explanatory memorandums to that Committee at various times during the course of the negotiations: first, on 28 April 2011, then on 24 June 2011, 30 September 2011 and 20 April this year. I wrote to him last week to advise him of the latest developments and to request that the Committee clear these measures from scrutiny.

As for the most recent developments, we are working against the decision by the Cypriot presidency to table these measures for discussion and decision at a Council meeting in the very near future. My concern in writing to my hon. Friend as I did was to ensure that his Committee was aware of the need for urgency if the Committee and Parliament were to have the opportunity to express their views and, in the case of Parliament, to take a decision about the UK’s approach to these regulations ahead of that Council meeting.

The final point on which I was questioned—

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

All right, I will, but then I will move on.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend should not show his impatience; that is not a wise thing to show to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I think that his demeanour should be a little more relaxed.

Let me say simply that I have put a number of questions to the Minister and I can see that he is not going to answer them, so I should be grateful if he wrote to me when he has had a chance to look at the transcript of the debate. As it happens—I do not say this with any stricture—he was talking to the Whip on duty when I asked him the questions that had been formulated carefully by our advisers. I should be grateful if he replied to me in writing, as he is clearly not going to respond at the moment.

[Mr Lidington]

I can assure my hon. Friend that, when it comes to dealing with him, my patience is infinite. I will certainly check the record and I will write to him if there are any points on which we have not given him an adequate answer. I ask him to look at what I have said about the nugatory costs of the measures, because questions on that matter formed a considerable part of the series of questions that he put to me during his speech.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East asked about the Government’s attitude towards the proposal to appoint additional judges to the General Court. My answer is that we do not rule this out. We can see why this is being advocated as a means of reducing the significant backlog of cases at the General Court, but before we agree to an increase in the number of judges, with the additional costs that that would undoubtedly entail, we certainly want to be absolutely clear that every possible efficiency measure had been taken to reduce the General Court’s spending and to improve its productivity. We view this question—and the possible costs arising out of an increased number of judges—as one that needs to be addressed in the broader framework of the financial pressures on the EU and its member states and in the context of the negotiations over annual EU budgets and the multi-annual financial framework.

Another point in reply to the hon. Lady is that, in addition to our concern about costs, we would want to be satisfied with the judges concerned if additional judges were indeed appointed. The United Kingdom—England and Wales in particular, where a common law system applies—will be concerned as a country to make sure that judges with a knowledge of common law systems are properly represented when cases are considered by the European Court of Justice.

I have tried to respond to the points raised in the debate, and I hope that the House will now agree to the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the draft Regulation 2011/0901A(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council (amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex 1 thereto) and draft Regulation 2011/0902(COD) (relating to temporary Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal) and, in accordance with section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of draft Regulations 2011/0901A(COD) and 2011/0902(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Balance of Competences

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Stripping away one or two of the remarks about political parties, I think that amounted to a welcome for the announcement, as the right hon. Gentleman said that he had “no objection”. That is as near as we get to enthusiasm from Opposition Front Benchers on this subject, so I am grateful to him for what counts as a very strong welcome and I look forward to the Labour party submitting its evidence to the review in due course.

Given that the right hon. Gentleman got into party political matters, let me say that it is a pity that Labour never conducted such a review. It might have helped the Labour Government when they were handing over so many competences without understanding what they were doing, without subjecting them to proper scrutiny in this House and without having a referendum. We remember—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are talking about particular treaties, but it was in the Nice treaty that Labour gave up the veto, which ended up with our being implicated in eurozone bail-outs under qualified majority voting—something from which this Government have now extracted the United Kingdom. The Opposition will therefore benefit enormously—and could have benefited in the past—from this kind of analysis, and I am glad that they have no objection today to its being undertaken.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about our priorities in the coming months. They are, of course, to protect the integrity of the single market. There is much talk about banking union, for instance, although different countries and different commentators mean different things by the term. We will protect the integrity of the single market, but above all our priority is to support measures that will really bring growth to the EU. They include removing barriers to business and pursuing free trade agreements with countries such as Canada and Singapore. Much of that agenda was endorsed at the June European Council.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask other questions about the future, and to suggest that the timetables were somehow amiss, but he himself said in an article in The Guardian on 1 July that

“there are also those within the Labour party who have speculated about the possibility of a referendum… We should not decide now because the pressing priority…is…securing Britain’s interests and protecting the single market”.

That is exactly what I have been saying. He went on:

“And we cannot sensibly decide now because none of us can fully predict where Europe will be in a few months, never mind a few years.”

So he does not want to answer the questions that he has just been putting to me about the longer-term future. What we do know is that, whatever happens, we will be in a better position if we have undertaken this work. It should have been undertaken before. It will inform our negotiations, improve our discussions with our partners and allow the public to be engaged in the process. Perhaps it will also lead to Governments undertaking more successful negotiations than the one that he will remember from his time as Minister for Europe, when he gave away £7 billion of our rebate. There is much to learn if we are to avoid negotiations that are so memorably, comprehensively and disastrously unsuccessful as those.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Naturally, we all welcome this initiative. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is not only about specific powers but about democratic power as a whole, and that that raises the question of the sovereignty of Parliament, and of the wording of the European Communities Act 1972 and its impact on the daily lives of the people of this country? Does he also agree that it is essential to incorporate all those questions in the review, as well as on the necessity of holding a referendum as soon as one can possibly take place?

[Mr Hague]

It will be a wide-ranging review and I am expecting a substantial contribution to it from my hon. Friend, given his knowledge of and long-standing opinions on so many aspects of EU competences. We are not restricting what people can submit in their evidence or what subjects can be addressed. The review will involve the majority of Government Departments, and, of course, all the analysis of the competences taken together will prompt major questions about how democracy works and about the appropriate levels at which decisions should be made. It is not a review about a referendum. We passed legislation last year that deals with the circumstances in which referendums will be held, and it is for each political party to explain the circumstances in which they would hold a referendum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have recently discussed that matter, as my hon. Friend knows.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The Prime Minister is fully entitled to say what he believes should be done, as are many other world leaders at the G20. There is no reason the UK should be unable to give its views about what should happen in the eurozone, given that the United States and many other countries are free to do so. The eurozone economies have an important effect on our economy, and what is happening there is having a chilling effect on our economy, so we are fully entitled to give our views, as well as to show strong leadership in controlling and bringing down the excessive deficits left to us by the Labour party and in having a safe haven status that is the envy of much of the rest of Europe.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is a great historian as well as Foreign Secretary. Does he accept that the eurozone crisis is not only a eurozone crisis but a European Union crisis, and political, economic and democratic in nature? Given that it affects the daily lives of 450 million people in Europe, has the time not come for a convention, not of the kind held last time, but one based on the principles of democracy and the defence of the British nation?

[Mr Hague]

I will go so far with my hon. Friend, as usual, but not all the way, as usual. I absolutely agree that the crisis is having a major effect not only on those in the eurozone but more broadly, and that it is having major political as well as economic ramifications. As for drawing together, in whatever form, reflections on the future of Europe arising from the crisis, however, it would be better to do that when one can discern how the crisis will end and progress and develop over the coming months.