Chagos Islands

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

If resettlement went forward as an option, how resilient would that be to climate change and changes in sea levels, which have been a problem elsewhere in the area? Will the Minister explain the background on the business of ceding the archipelago to Mauritius if it is no longer used for defence purposes?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend answers his own questions in a way. Yes, the islands are low-lying and so do face some of the perils of climate change, although I hope that recent decisions and the actions of Governments will stop the water level rising any further. He is correct in saying that there is an understanding that we would cede the islands to the Mauritians in the event that they were no longer needed for defence purposes.

Yemen (British Nationals)

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I condemn this foul murder by terrorists and record my condolences to my constituent Penny Bearman, Luke’s stepmother, and to all his family? It is perhaps inevitable that the family are left wondering whether Luke might still be with us today had this operation not taken place. What comfort can the Minister give the family that it would have been undertaken only in the most extreme circumstances in which there was no alternative?

[Mr Ellwood]

I reiterate our condolences to the family. I know that police liaison officers have been in touch with those members of the family living in Britain. If there is anything more we can do, the Government stand ready to provide that support in this difficult time. In difficult and dangerous circumstances a call had to be made, but I know that it was made in the knowledge that Luke’s life was in danger.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheryll Murray]

Absolutely.

It gives me great pride as a Cornishwoman to take this Bill forward in Parliament today. The concept of deep-sea mining is not new, but as we make technological advances, this new industry is fast becoming a reality, and I am keen that Britain should be at the forefront. Everyone will know of my interest in the sea and the marine environment, and no one is more aware than me of the deep sea’s potential in contributing to the great expertise for which we are world-renowned. The United Kingdom is well placed to benefit strategically, economically and in employment terms, and to influence how deep-sea mining is taken forward.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill to the House. Is the Bill necessary because technology and particularly robotics miniaturisation mean that deep-sea mining can be done remotely so it can be done by an individual or an enterprise rather than its requiring governmental assistance?

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend is partially correct. The Bill is all about exploitation. We have the potential in about five years’ time to start looking at exploitation. It is much better that the United Kingdom should control the licence applications because we must be able to control the environmental situation in which exploitation and exploration are carried out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expertise and for updating us.

As I have said, the 1981 Act predates the signing of the 1972 UN convention on the law of the sea and, subsequently, the implementing agreement to part 11 of the convention, which relates to deep-sea mining. In some small, niche areas the Act is not entirely consistent with the convention, including with regard to providing for the enforcement of decisions of the sea bed disputes chamber of the international tribunal for the law of the sea. The tribunal was established under the convention, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it is totally necessary.

Putting our legislation in good order is important for the UK, not least because we are strong proponents of the convention, which defines the rights and obligations of coastal states, including the entitlement to various maritime zones over which different levels of sovereignty may be exercised.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again; she is being very generous in taking interventions. Will she explain exactly how deep-sea mining works? For example, what are polymetallic nodules?

[Sheryll Murray]

I hope my hon. Friend will be patient, because I will come on to that later.

UNCLOS defines the rights and obligations of users of the seas, such as flag states and fishing states. I think all hon. Members will understand how passionately I care about the fishing states. A few years ago Canada used UNCLOS to arrest the Spanish fishing vessel the Estai which was illegally fishing outside Canadian territorial waters. It brought her into Canada to measure her nets and confiscated them. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Members will remember that the Canadian flag was flown in many fishing ports at the time in support of their counterparts, the Canadian fishermen. UNCLOS also relates to states that want to lay submarine telecommunication cables across the ocean floor and those that want to undertake marine scientific research.

A convention that is accepted by most states, that addresses those issues and that provides various dispute resolution mechanisms helps maintain international peace and stability in the maritime space.

[Charlie Elphicke]

A mining process could lead to contamination of the sea, which might either contaminate the fish or, indeed, polish them off. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we ensure that any mining operations that are given licences do not cause environmental difficulties?

[Sheryll Murray]

Deep-sea mining takes place at great depth in specific areas of the ocean. I do not think that the warps, bridles and trawl doors on my late husband’s boat were long enough to trawl the sea bed. We should not excavate in a non-environmentally friendly way, and I will come on to discuss that. This is one of the reasons why the UK needs to amend the 1981 Act, so that we can impose stringent and clear environmental conditions. The UK takes part in the council meetings, which are considering—this was started at the last meeting in July—what conditions should be applied to the exploitation. These are very early days—we are talking about exploration at the moment and not exploitation, which is still some way off—but the UK should be a leader in that sphere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Rare earth metals are used in mobile telephones. I believe that there may be some such metals in the granite rock under the mountains of Cornwall. The Chinese seem to have a lock on that market. Is it not important that rare earth metals are more widely available, particularly for use in our mobile telephones?

[Sheryll Murray]

Absolutely. That is another point that I will address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

I will come on to that, but I can inform my hon. Friend that I was referring specifically to polymetallic nodules, the harvesting of which does not involve the use of explosives. The nodules lie on the sea bed, or are partially embedded in sediment on the sea bed. Techniques to mine them are likely to involve scooping or vacuuming them up from the sea bed.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend drew a distinction between deep-sea mining and fracking. Will she confirm that fracking and other processes for winning fossil fuels such as oil and gas are not within the ambit of the Bill?

[Sheryll Murray]

We are talking about sourcing hydrocarbons, which I will move on to a little later in my speech. If I miss anything out, I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up on it.

Mining for polymetallic nodules could be a lot less environmentally damaging than land-based mining for the same minerals. To assist my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), mining for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts is a different matter. It would involve the excavation of rock. Mining for those materials is even further off than mining for polymetallic nodules, and the principles that might apply to nodules would have to be reconsidered for sulphides and crusts. We are determined to ensure that the highest environmental standards are applied to any use of those minerals. The point is that international regulations have been agreed for the exploration of different types of minerals, and they were in place in advance of exploration contracts being issued. The various regulations have been continually reviewed and updated in the light of developments and new considerations.

There are no regulations yet on the exploration of any of the minerals in question—they are probably at least five years off. As I mentioned earlier, it was only this year at the ISA’s annual meeting that the council had a preliminary discussion on the process for the development of a regulatory framework for the exploitation of polymetallic nodules.

National Referendum on the European Union

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stuart]

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is one of the great myths that has been peddled. He does a disservice to the party. As I said in an intervention earlier, I honestly believe that the Prime Minister was not reneging on the promise on Lisbon when it had been ratified. If I had promised a board meeting before a payment goes out and someone else pays it out, the cheque is cashed and I do not hold a board meeting to discuss the cheque that has already been cashed—I am not reneging on anything; I am simply recognising the reality. I do not believe that the Conservative party or the Prime Minister reneged on any promise.

The manifesto on which I and my hon. Friend stood in 2010 made no promise of any referendum whatsoever. What it did promise—I say this gently to my colleagues tonight—was to bring in a referendum lock if there was to be further treaty change. I recognise and my hon. Friends point out that some powers leak and leech away without a treaty in prospect. The passage of a European Union treaty, however, was historic in this Parliament and this democracy. There will come a time when a treaty triggers the provision, and it will not be far off—I do not believe that the Government can slip vast powers under it. The truth is that that time is coming and we are winning the argument. The last thing we need to do is fight among ourselves. We must recognise that we are carrying the British people, who are more Eurosceptic, with us.

I continue to believe that we are better off within the European Union, although I am open to persuasion that we could be better off out. Some colleagues who believe that passionately are using today’s debate as a Trojan horse. I respect their view, but I think that the three-part nature of the motion is confusion and that the suggestion that we can somehow mandate the Government to renegotiate is false. I do not see how we can do that. The Government must lead and get the best position they can. When they come back with a treaty, as I am sure they will in the not-too-distant future, it will be put to the British people. That will be the time to do it. I do not think that it is disingenuous to talk about timing.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My hon. Friend touches on a central point, which is that not all of us feel that we would be better off out of the EU. Many of us want the common market we signed up for, more free trade and less of the baggage. Is that not the direction of travel in which we should be headed?

[Mr Stuart]

I agree. Colleagues might say tonight with a wry smile that they, too, like the Prime Minister, believe in nudge theory. They would say that the motion, the strong debate and the number of Members who will be in the Aye Lobby will tell the Government how seriously members of our party feel on the matter, and they may have a point. My constituents, whom I have sensibly been talking and listening to, are not telling me that this is top of their list of priorities. At the top of their list are jobs, employment and the need to ensure that we do not put people in the dole queue, particularly young people, as one of the Labour party’s toxic legacies was to leave so many young people not in education, employment or training.

Our duty is to move very coolly on this subject. The time will come when we will have a referendum. We should not pass the motion tonight. We should absolutely listen to our constituents, who are telling us that they have priorities above and beyond the obsession in certain parts of the Conservative party with Europe above all other issues.

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

May I say how good it is that we are having this important debate this evening, but how disappointed I am that the build-up to it has given the impression that the Conservative party is divided on Britain’s approach to the European Union? The truth is that the only real division this evening will be over the wording of a motion, not the substance of our approach to the EU. In reality, Conservatives are united in believing that the EU has accumulated far too many powers, that the status quo is no longer an option and that we must renegotiate a new relationship with the EU and make a fresh start.

I think that three distinct steps need to be taken. First, we need a plan, and in my view the Government should be doing the work right now to identify which powers we would seek to repatriate. Secondly, we need to take every opportunity we have to negotiate and to deliver that plan. Finally, the end of the process should be the point at which we have a referendum and put the renegotiation to the people.

It is because I believe that a referendum should come at the end of the process, rather than the beginning, that I cannot support the motion as it stands this evening. However, I cannot support the Government by voting against it, so I will abstain. The reason I cannot support the Government is that I want them to do far more than they have so far been willing to do to accelerate the plan for a renegotiation. That will be the main focus of my comments today.

It concerns me that the Foreign Office might be ducking the challenge here, and I have been very disappointed by the “jam tomorrow” nature of some of the Foreign Secretary’s comments. The urgent need to get our economy moving again becomes clearer by the day. There are no easy ways out of the current mess. We need radical thinking to get our country moving again, and that should include dealing with the morass of EU laws and regulations. I do not think that it is good enough to say that changing the EU is all too difficult and so nothing can be done for years to come. Sorting out the EU is not something that might be nice in the distant future; tackling the burden of EU regulation is an integral part of the solution to the current crisis and we must act now. We have to find a way of cutting the Gordian knot that has created a situation in which politicians talk about reforming the EU but can never find the moment to deliver real change.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my hon. Friend set out how exactly he would cut that Gordian knot?

[George Eustice]

I was about to come on to precisely that.

I do not accept the argument that nothing can be done until there has been an intergovernmental conference or a new treaty. Where there is the political will, there is always a way, and where needs must, the EU has shown itself able to react quickly and then sort out the lawyers and the legal basis for action later.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need very brief questions and answers.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will Ministers say what reports they have received on the economic situation in Greece, on whether there has been any intelligence on the likelihood of a default and on the likelihood of Greece remaining in the euro?

[Mr Lidington]

We receive many reports on Greece—including, of course, on the very grave economic situation there. The economic health of the eurozone, including that of Greece, is important in assuring jobs and prosperity in this country. It is important both that the Greek Government deal with the structural reforms and the changes to bear down on their own deficit and that the eurozone more widely addresses the causes of instability. We hope that they do so at their meeting planned for this week.

European Union Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

I would like to comment briefly on Lords amendments 3 and 5 regarding the 40% threshold and on Lords amendments 6 to 13 regarding the number of referendums. I will then focus on Lords amendment 15 regarding the so-called sunset-sunrise clause.

Some people in both Houses say that a reasonable turnout in referendums is necessary to ensure a demonstrable degree of legitimacy. That argument was advanced during the alternative vote referendum debate, but it has weaknesses. We have already heard that there is a certain perverse incentive to encourage a lower turnout than might usually be the case, and that is a fair point. It is important to remember that there has been a threshold of 40% on only one occasion—the devolution referendums for Wales and Scotland in 1979. Wales rejected the then Government’s devolution proposals by a majority of four to one, while in Scotland there was a turnout of less than 40% but a narrow majority in favour of the proposals. The result in Scotland brought this question to the fore: when is a win not a win? That is a real dilemma, and it is one of the reasons that many Labour Members have reservations about the use of the 40% threshold.

Reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I should point out that Rhondda is in south Wales and Ronda, as it was pronounced by the Minister for Europe, is in Spain. My hon. Friend tells me that, although he speaks Spanish, he represents to the best of his ability the constituency in south Wales.

Amendments 6 to 13 would reduce the number of theoretically possible topics for referendums from more than 50 to three: the single currency, the creation of a single EU integrated military force, and border controls and the Schengen protocols. As Labour Members argued consistently on Second Reading and in Committee, there is an overwhelming argument for referendums to be held if ever a British Government wanted this country to join the single currency, which is extremely unlikely, and when there is a proposal for a major constitutional change. In Committee, we proposed an amendment for a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine whether a proposed treaty change was a significant constitutional change. Unfortunately, that proposal was not successful in this House, and nor did it gain sufficient support in the other place. However, that remains our position. Of course, Members in the other place are entitled to their views, but we have reservations about the proposal that referendums should be confined to these three subject areas, and it is important to put on the record that my comments set out the Labour party’s position.

That brings me to the sunset-sunrise clause. In the other place, Lord Kerr, the distinguished former head of the diplomatic service, put forward three arguments for such a clause, one of which related to foreign policy. He argued with conviction that were the provision enacted, other European Governments could freeze Britain out of the debate through enhanced co-operation or by acting outside the treaties altogether. That might happen, he said, when a British negotiator in Brussels is unable to agree to something

“because his Government back home will tell him, ‘Don’t be silly. That would trigger a referendum.’”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 810.]

He argued that a regular assessment and decision at the start of a new Parliament on whether such a system was working would be a reasonable measure to adopt. That is worthy of consideration.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

A Government would say that only if they did not think that they could win such a referendum, so how can it be right for his lordship to put the case that the British people, if they were minded to vote against such a thing, should have their role entirely negated? That seems to be the essence of the argument, and surely that is wrong.

[Mr David]

That is not entirely fair. When Lord Kerr presented his argument, he suggested that referendums could be triggered on what are universally considered as fairly technical, minor matters. It is a hypothetical situation. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that in the minutiae of negotiations, we negotiate effectively for the United Kingdom only when we do not have it in the back of our minds that there might be hurdles to be overcome at a later stage.

The other two arguments used in the other place were essentially constitutional. It was argued that the referendums envisaged in the Bill are essentially post-legislative. In other words, once the Government have negotiated a treaty change and Parliament has agreed to it, a referendum will be held. As the referendum is post-legislative, it is a lock. The electorate will have to decide whether to overrule the Government and Parliament of the day. Holding referendums post-legislatively in that way questions Parliament’s traditional role. Such a change should therefore be subject to constant review and reaffirmation or otherwise. That constitutional argument is worthy of consideration.

By far the most important and powerful argument concerns the principle that a Parliament cannot bind its successor. That is a vital principle of our parliamentary democracy. In the evidence taken by the European Scrutiny Committee, which is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), a number of expert witnesses explained the importance of that principle. Michael Dougan, the dean of the Liverpool law school and a professor of European law at the university of Liverpool, concluded his evidence by saying:

“If there is a real concern about the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty that needs to be addressed during the passage of this Bill, it surely consists in an attempt by the Government to persuade the current Parliament to bind its successors in a manner which runs counter to accepted understandings of our constitutional order.”

That is a pretty powerful statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

Like the Minister, I do not want to stray into that debate. One thing that has been clear from this whole debate, including on Second and Third Reading, is the real threat to this institution comes from judicial activism. That threat does not come so much from the European Union as from our own judiciary. We must be mindful of that.

Another expert witness who gave evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee was Vernon Bogdanor, a research professor at King’s college London and a former tutor of the Prime Minister. He said that

“the purpose of the bill must be to prevent a future government from supporting such an amendment or transfer without a referendum. The bill seeks, in other words, to bind a future government. That seems to me inconsistent with the declaratory proposition that Parliament is sovereign.”

That is an extremely powerful statement. We must consider the full impact of this legislation.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for Parliaments not binding their successors. The logic of his argument is surely that at the start of each Parliament, this country’s membership of the European Union and the legislation on the European Union should be reconfirmed.

[Mr David]

No, I do not think that that is the case. One thing that has come across clearly in the debates in this House is the sovereignty of Parliament. We are talking about the sovereignty of Parliament in a dualist system, but Parliament nevertheless has the right to determine what legislation has primacy over the people of this country. The ultimate decision rests with this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I will restrain myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, and follow your strictures.

I shall refocus on the idea of a sunset-sunrise clause. It is all the more important that these sensible proposals from the other place be given due consideration because, as has been said, never before has a Bill been deliberately designed to influence future Parliaments. I am sure that good parliamentarians would not want to undermine or even question the doctrine of free-standing Parliaments, which is why I hope the House will support Lords amendment 15. An affirmative resolution at the start of each Parliament would both ensure the legitimacy of this Parliament in making a decision and reaffirm the doctrine that one Parliament cannot bind its successor.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about an affirmative resolution, but nevertheless, that resolution would depend upon the action of the Executive. Proposed subsection (2) in the Lords amendment states that

“the Secretary of State may by order provide”

that the provision continues, so it would be entirely up to the Government. I put it to him that his point is therefore not a good one.

[Mr David]

With due respect, I think it is a good one. Purely in terms of procedure, as the Government have conceded, there needs to be an assessment of how this innovative constitutional legislation works in practice. That is a good idea, and I welcome the Minister’s concession on it. However, the logical extension of that is an affirmative resolution at the start of the next Parliament. If the Bill is working well, that resolution should be agreed to. If it is not, there should be an opportunity to reconsider. I therefore hope that the House will look favourably upon Lords amendment 15. It is modest, sensible and pragmatic, and above all else it reflects the principles of parliamentary sovereignty to which we all adhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we keep an eye on this matter, and we should do so. Last year, representatives from our high commission met Syed Nasir Ali Shah, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly for Quetta, and Jan Ali Changezi, who is also a Parliamentary Assembly member and the Minister for Quality Education in Balochistan. We take these issues very seriously, and we are aware of concerns that have been expressed by the community here and in Pakistan. We will continue to raise these issues in support of minority communities. We hope that the inter-faith committees that might be set up by the Pakistan Government will include Hazara representation.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

12. What reports he has received on the situation in Japan following the recent earthquake and tsunami; and if he will make a statement.

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

The earthquake and tsunami of 11 March have had a devastating impact on Japan. As of 27 April, 14,508 people have been confirmed dead, and 11,452 are still missing. There are no confirmed UK casualties. The UK has mobilised various resources to help the Japanese Government. We have sent a search and rescue team and provided other forms of support to the Japanese Government, including nuclear assistance. We receive regular reports from the Japanese authorities regarding ongoing work to make safe the Fukushima nuclear plant, and we are ready to offer further technical assistance as required.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Japan is a major friend, ally and trading partner of the UK, and it is right that we should be there for a friend in need. Will the Minister tell us what help is being given to assist its economic recovery, and what steps are being taken to help following the nuclear disaster?

[Mr Browne]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assertion about the deep friendship between the United Kingdom and Japan. We have expressed that friendship and it has been evident in our actions. Our economies are intertwined, but we are also leading the debate within the European Union on a free trade agreement between the EU and Japan.

European Union Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I negotiated the opt-out for the junior doctors working time directive back in 1999, and in a sense we knew on the negotiating basis all the problems that would happen in the NHS that the UK Government saw coming. We also knew that the directive would not actually hit us until about 2008-09. Now it is here, and everyone here is entitled to say, “We didn’t see it coming.” In fact, on one level we did see it coming.

It is also important for the House to consider the fact that, during the discussions on the Convention on the Future of Europe, I was in the very unusual position of being a negotiating partner at Government level, and also representing the House. Therefore, provided that I used a legal adviser from the House, I could be given the legal advice that was given to the previous Administration.

We should consider the nature and length of debates in the European Union. I deliberately chose the working time directive for junior doctors as an example, because it started in 1992 and started to have legislative impact on this country 10 years later, and only now are we beginning to find out its full effect.

We have now moved from Conservative to Labour to Conservative, and within our Government machinery—[Hon. Members: “Coalition.”] It is okay—the Liberal Democrats came sixth in Barnsley, so there is a ray of hope. Given the veil that falls between one Administration and the next, which hides the accumulated knowledge that could allow parliamentary scrutiny, there must be a mechanism that transcends individual Administrations, which would give the House access to the information that has been given to Ministers. Although new clause 1 is limited, it is nevertheless an important wedge representing that principle.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I understand that the hon. Lady is suggesting not necessarily publishing everything for everyone on this country’s negotiating position, but perhaps listening to Parliament. Am I right in thinking that a similar system exists in Denmark?

[Ms Stuart]

Yes and no. I would caution against using the Danish principle, because it mandates Ministers bindingly. No one needs to talk to them when they are sitting round the negotiating table in Brussels, because they know what they will say. They do a head count and say, “The Danes say x.” The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to not publishing all the information, because too much information is also a weapon: people can be drowned in information, and they cannot see the wood for the trees.

The advice given to Ministers should be made public to Parliament, so that Parliament can decide whether it wishes to pursue something. More importantly, that would allow information to move from one Administration to the next, and Parliament could develop the collective memory of responsibility and decision making that is essential in our dealings with the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

Having taken part in many European decisions and negotiations, including on treaties, I say to the House that they are precisely that—negotiations. Perhaps because British parliamentarians are equipped with a better way with words than some of our more dramatically rigidified colleagues, we often find words that help the Council come to a better decision—often helped, it must be said, by our excellent officials. Frankly, the notion that those notes, scribbles and whispers can somehow all be published is bordering on fantasy, as the hon. Member for Stroud rightly said.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving an interesting depiction of matters in the Council of Ministers. Will he tell the House whether Governments such as the UK Government formally table amendments for discussion, or whether the process is more informal, with things written down at the end?

[Mr MacShane]

It is a mixture of both. First, one listens to the positions of all 27 member states, then one says things like, “Look, that’s not going to fly for us. We suggest you drop it. Here are our ideas.” Proposals go backwards and forwards between the Council secretariat and the Commission secretariat, and they come back here for discussion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) rightly said. Whitehall has a very effective co-ordination operation. As a result, the finest civil servants in the land meet very early every morning—sensibly that is usually done without any gabby politicians present—and over a large English breakfast, on the eighth floor of some Hilton or Hyatt in Brussels, they hammer out a position and work out where every other country will be to maximise what Britain wants. Very often, we are the demandeurs who want to achieve a policy change in the European Union which requires skilled diplomatic negotiation. I say respectfully that the notion that all that can be minuted and published is not realistic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

Yes, “relevant” is a difficult adjective to define. There is an even more difficult adjective in the Bill, which states that only a matter that the Minister judges to involve “significant” sharing of sovereignty should be brought back to the House for debate and a possible referendum. I put it to Members that no British Government or Minister would sign a treaty that they would then bring back to the House of Commons and offer for referendum. It would be a dereliction of duty. I have every confidence in the excellent occupant of the post of Minister for Europe, and his duty is to negotiate the best for Britain. If a treaty is not good enough for Britain, he should not sign it. We should effectively veto it there and then rather than have the nonsense and rigmarole in the Bill, whereby a treaty would be brought back to the House, we would have endless debate about what was and was not significant, and then it would be put to a referendum.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

Of course, but this is the last intervention that I will take.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has been extraordinarily generous in taking interventions.

I raised with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) the situation in Denmark, and she said, “Their negotiating position was known. We knew what they were doing.” Is not a potential concern about the new clause the fact that our negotiating position could be known? Does it harm Denmark in practice that its position is known?

[Mr MacShane]

The Danish Parliament is very different. The last time there was a majority Government in Denmark was 1909. Actually, perhaps that will not be such an unusual thing even for our own legislature in the years to come—let us wait and see how this century unfolds, especially if the people are so foolish as to adopt that ludicrous alternative vote nonsense. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is so easy to get that reaction.

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a good question: do we, as a House, take the European Union seriously enough? Do we have the mechanisms and structures to involve ourselves fully in EU debates and decision making? The Danish Parliament has an all-party Committee—although we should remember that the Danish Government are always a coalition—to which Ministers must report, and it is a much smaller operation. I would like this House to set up permanent Standing Committees to survey different areas of EU policy and legislation. Our Select Committees could have permanent Sub-Committees to track EU decisions that would otherwise be off the rota. Those Sub-Committees could travel around Europe, and not necessarily just to Strasbourg and Brussels—I keep insisting that decisions on Europe are taken in Rome, Paris, Warsaw and elsewhere, and not comprehensively and uniquely in the two European Parliament buildings.

I should like us to debate Council meetings after they have taken place rather than before—I made my maiden speech in a pre-Council debate and have taken part in many more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I not only accept it; I fully endorse and applaud it. There is a work programme that comes forward from the European Commission, and it is debated in Westminster Hall, but very few people turn up: that is the reality. We have tried to engage a number of Select Committees by referring to them matters of interest to the European Scrutiny Committee, which continues to be chaired ably by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We are trying to engage Select Committees in those issues so that the European Scrutiny Committee and then the House could be advised of any European matters of substance that should be considered.

We could therefore change aspects of the apparatus we use before reaching the point to which the new clause refers, where a Minister is recommending a referendum. When this clause is triggered, the Government will have decided that they want to do whatever it is the referendum has been called to consider. It will be a referendum on a Government proposal, perhaps for a new treaty or a new decision that will change our relationship with Europe.

Let me finish by providing one example. We took a decision a long time ago—it was probably agreed across the Chamber because it was politically sensitive for us not to opt into all of the Amsterdam treaty—whereby we did not become members of the Schengen group of countries. That group is effectively all the European Union countries apart from us. Frontex, the new border police, is now trying to throw a ring around Europe and it is going to be heavily pressurised by migration from other parts of the world—particularly from Africa, and perhaps very quickly from north Africa. We are not a member of Frontex because we are not a Schengen country. We sit on the board—Frontex has been quite nice to us, even though we did not sign up to it—so we asked whether any of our officers engaged in a Frontex operation could have the same protection from prosecution as other Frontex officers. We are told “No, because you are not a member of the Schengen group.” The train is leaving the station very quickly to protect the rest of Europe, and the United Kingdom is running at the back waving a little flag saying “Can we join? But we do not want to be full members.”

We ought to be fully informed of the consequences of decisions such as that. I am not talking about those who are, for reasons of prejudice, Eurosceptic and against doing things on an EU basis, in the belief that they can somehow be done on a bilateral basis with 26 other countries. If we had been fully informed, we would have concluded that membership of Frontex was important enough for us to take the step of joining the Schengen countries and being a real part of Europe.

Although such information and debate would be extremely useful, that will not be made possible by the new clause, and I therefore hope that it will be withdrawn. However, we need to make those changes in the Chamber if our constituents are to understand that we know what we are talking about in Europe, and that we are acting on the basis of analysis and proper information rather than prejudice.

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is a privilege to follow the extraordinarily interesting and thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The debate on the new clause has been largely underpinned by a dislike and distrust of the European Union and its works, and I share that distrust. Many Members feel that an organisation that spends vast swathes of our money and imposes massive increases in our budget contributions in return for no obvious value, at a time of great downturn across the continent, is not an organisation that is in touch with this country—or any other country. They do not trust an organisation that feels so remote from the electors of this country and every other country in the European Union. Even in Germany, an increasing number of people are finding the European Union and its works troubling.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman says that he attaches no obvious value to the European Union. Does he exclude from that the EU’s important contribution to world climate change and trade negotiations? Does he exclude the European arrest warrant, which enables us to fight terrorism across international borders? Surely those things have some value.

[Charlie Elphicke]

They could all have been achieved by nation states. Obviously we welcome the ability to do some things on a wider and more agreed basis, but we do not want the spider’s web of intrusion into our national lives and the lives of member states that we have seen in the European Union. That is why many Members object to it and say, “We don’t trust anything that happens there.” Every time there is a treaty negotiation the spider’s web creeps further out, more of our money is sucked in, and more of our national vitality is taken away from us and planted in Brussels.

I am merely recording the sentiments that, in my view, underlie the new clause. It is felt that we have been shut out of the process, and that we do not have a say. For the last 20 or 30 years, the Governments of all the member states in Europe have been saying that they have secured great deals in Europe, but the general public in countries throughout the European Union have a sense that they have, to some extent, been sold down the river.

The new clause is underpinned by questions such as, “What are the amendments that you are moving? What are the discussions that you are having? What really happened behind those closed doors?” I understand that view, but although I share the deep concern that has been expressed about our involvement, and future involvement, in the European Union, I am not sure that the new clause represents the right way in which to deal with it. There is a balance to be achieved, given the inevitable tension between transparency and the need for negotiations. I am a massive fan of transparency, because I want to know how the European Union spends our money, and I want government that is accountable to our people. Dare I say it, I want government of the people, by the people, for the people. On the other hand, we must take part in negotiations, and we must ensure that our negotiating position does not blow up in our faces.

Many examples can be given. The Cabinet meets in secret, and we do not learn what happened until some years later; the NATO councils and some of the United Nations councils meet in secret as well. Traditionally, relations between member states tend not to be published on a case-by-case basis. I have listened with interest to the argument being put that the Council of Ministers is not an executive organisation but a legislature. That is a technical, semantic argument about what is really a negotiation between Governments of member states—it is an intergovernmental negotiation.

I have grave misgivings about giving away our negotiating position and telling other nations, which we want to squeeze for a better deal, where our top and bottom lines are in that negotiation process. I make that point because I must tell the House, with regret, that I used to be a law firm partner—I was a poacher before I turned gamekeeper—and in that time I would negotiate for my clients against the lawyer on the other side of the table who was representing their client. I did not want to tell them what I was going to concede; I did not want them to have an idea of what I and my client might, and might not, give away in future negotiations. I did not want to reveal where the lines of debate were or when I would say, “No further,” because if I had I would not have got the best deal. Just as in those times I wanted to get the best deal for my clients, in these times I want to get the best deal for my clients, who are now the people of Dover, and the nation as a whole.

[Stephen Phillips]

Actually, my hon. Friend is a gamekeeper turned poacher. He is making a compelling argument about not giving away our negotiating position to other EU member states. The difficulty here, however, is to do with the use of the word “relevant” in the new clause. Does that mean that under this clause we would disclose information that would not already have been known to other nation states? In that case I can see the point of his argument. However, if it means something different, it may not have that effect. Does he have any grip on what the word “relevant” means here, and does this problem not underline why the new clause should not be added to the Bill?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree, and I was about to turn to that argument.

The new clause is important in prompting a debate that should be had—and might previously have been had—about the relationship between this House and the Executive in respect of our negotiations in Europe. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) nods from a sedentary position. This is a very important point, which goes to the heart of things, and it is why I asked about the situation in Denmark. I did so not in order to trip her up but because I was genuinely interested and knew that, as she is an expert on European matters, including the Council of Ministers, she would have experience to share on that subject.

The phrase “relevant documentation” in the new clause is not, of course, defined; it could mean anything or nothing. That is a technical deficiency, therefore. I also think that there is a technical deficiency in the phrase, “amendments sponsored”. I asked the former Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), how amendments are dealt with in Europe: is an amendment tabled and moved, or is there a nice bit of Euro chit-chat and then everyone comes to an agreement at the end? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston can correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that it is a bit of a mishmash of everything, and out of the sausage machine of discussion comes a new piece of Euro-legislation, freshly approved with the mark of Europe stamped on it.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

I fear the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Austro-Hungarian empire would have called the process “durchwurschteln” as it is a sort of sausage machine. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having such a good grasp of what goes on even though he has never been inside any of those negotiating rooms in Europe. The key problem is that the practice and the theory are so far from what we think they are. That is why I thought it was so important to try to open the door on what goes on, and it also highlights why it is important to keep asking questions about how these things work.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I am humbled by her kind words and great generosity. An important issue of transparency is involved here. We want negotiations to go on; we do not want to have everything picked over later, to risk our negotiating position in future and to risk our relationship with other member states. They might not want some of their information put into the public domain.

I want discussion to be full and frank. Why is that? I do not know how anybody else feels, but I remember that this country went through a phase of “sofa government”, when there were no minutes, no notes and no discussion. Not everybody thinks that that was a high point of our national life. Some people think that it was a particular low point because little deals got cut on sofas, in corridors and far away from anyone taking any minutes. That is the risk when we say, “Let us know what goes on behind closed doors.” Funnily enough, this sort of thing will not go on behind closed doors; it will go on in closed corridors and on sofas. I worry about that, because it is a real concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stuart]

May I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go on about Finland, because it has this much more right than the Danes do?

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is exactly the argument that I seek to put. There is massive distrust of the European Union in this House, and massive suspicion that Ministers—of all parties—go to Brussels and sell us down the river without our knowing what goes on. Meanwhile, our electors give us a good kicking about why this, that and the other happened, and we cannot really explain why it happened and what our role in it was. So there is an accountability deficit.

Denmark has an open process, whereby its Folketing’s European affairs committee meets in public and agrees a mandate system, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston told us. It says, “This is your up line and this is your down line. Go off to Europe and negotiate.” The process is public so, as she beautifully put it, people do not need to worry about Denmark because they know where it stands. People count it in or count it out, and negotiate with everyone else. I suspect that Denmark is left out of negotiations because people say, “We don’t need to cut a deal with those guys.”

[Ms Stuart]

The difference is that although Finland mandates, the mandate can still be negotiated with its Parliament, whereas the Danes are mandated and the Ministers cannot change their minds. They are therefore at the meeting simply to say what their Parliament has told them. The Finnish system is better because it still allows for mandating movement.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Beautifully put, as ever, by the hon. Lady, who describes the problem exactly. The Danes’ mandate becomes an open negotiating position and they lose their ability to be flexible and to push other member states in the give and take that sits at the heart of true business or governmental negotiations.

Finland, like Denmark, does involve its national legislature, but the difference is that in Finland this is done in private. The Finnish grand committee meets in private, away from the cameras and the spotlight, so it can have that important discussion.

I do not know what other Members think, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has some good points to make. He makes them with great passion and often at great length, and he is well informed. He passes the Linlithgow test, because he reads all those boring papers, whereas all the rest of us put our heads in our hands and then flip through them quickly to pick out the main points. My hon. Friend actually reads this stuff—I do not know how he does it, but he does—so he is able to have a substantial and serious discussion about the issues. I put it to the Minister—I hope that he will respond in due course—that we need a mechanism, perhaps a Committee system, whereby those hon. Members who are interested, even obsessed, with the European Union can represent the House’s interests and hold discussions in private, as the Finnish grand committee does, before a negotiation happens.

The Intelligence and Security Committee knows what goes on, and therefore builds in some democratic accountability, but it does not blab to everyone exactly what our spies are up to around the world and what our security interests are. If it were possible to have a mechanism similar to the grand committee system in Finland, so that Parliament could be involved, perhaps there would be a greater sense of trust and a greater sense not only that we have the essential transparency, but that we do not send our Ministers in to bat in Brussels with—as I think a former Prime Minister put it—one arm tied behind their backs, so that they cannot negotiate in this country’s fullest interests.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in relation to Finland. Does he not agree that the system in Sweden, which is quite similar to that in Finland, would provide a useful way forward? Such a committee could meet, usually in closed session, and give a mandate to the Minister. The Minister would have discretion to depart from that mandate, but the position would be clearly defined before the Minister went to the Council. That has all the attractions of the systems that my hon. Friend has been ably advocating.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I do not think that it is for me, as a Back Bencher, to find the detailed solution, but those who are senior in the House, such as Front Benchers, should consider the other models of accountability used in Europe. They should consider the fact that we want accountability and transparency, without prejudicing the United Kingdom’s negotiating position in the discussions that are held in European Councils. So long as we have to put up with being a member of the European Union—or, indeed, are enthused by that fact—we need to negotiate well and get the best possible deal for this country.

[Martin Horwood]

I originally intended to speak in support of the comments made earlier in the debate by my Gloucestershire neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), but I found myself in a surprising degree of agreement with the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who gave a learned analysis of the implications of the new clause, as opposed to its intent.

As described by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and others, the intention is to create more transparency and openness—that is obviously a good thing, which we would all support—but somewhere in the drafting of the new clause it has become a little confused, or perhaps awkward, in the attempt to bring it within the scope of the Bill.

The effect of the new clause would be to reveal a great deal of documentation, but after the decision had been taken. The decision to which the statement under clause 5 related would have already happened. Although much of the documentation would be relevant in the sense that it related to that decision, it might not prove to be very pertinent to the decision. Much of it might be advice, even legal advice, that was ultimately rejected. So it would not have materially affected the decision under consideration. What really mattered would be the outcome, and the proposals that the British Government were putting to Parliament and, perhaps even in a referendum, to the people of this country. We could discuss that without the benefit of all the paperwork that had been discarded earlier in the process.

The second problem with the new clause is that a lot of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said was about trying to add transparency to the process at European level—to the Commission’s decision-making processes and the debate in the Council of Ministers. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) compared that to the former secrecy of debates in this Chamber, but the new clause would not reveal the debate that took place at European level. It would reveal only the background paperwork, which would be rather like getting a House of Commons briefing, but with no copy of Hansard to follow.

The new clause would not bring great openness or transparency to European processes. The only transparency that it would provide would be on the British negotiating position. Then we would start to have a problem, because although that would be revealed after the event, the nature of the advice, especially the legal advice, could have profound implications for future negotiations. If we revealed all that documentation, that would clearly impact on the position of British Ministers in subsequent negotiations. It would almost certainly impact on the advice, especially legal advice, that officials felt able to give to Ministers, because they would know that it was not private advice, but would become public in due course. Clearly, that would put British Ministers at a disadvantage relative to other Ministers in the European Council. It would undermine the British interest and thereby achieve, presumably, the reverse of what the new clause intends. It would, in a real sense, send British Ministers naked into the Council of Ministers. In some cases, that is a very sobering thought indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I am afraid that he entirely misses the point. In framing the new clause I have been working within the confines of our unwritten constitution, using the elements and protections that are already there, and extending them to the Bill. I absolutely accept that it is an irony of our constitution, as it already exists, that the protection against a Parliament lengthening its own life is an unelected Chamber a few yards down the way. However, that is the situation in our constitution, and it is one that has been enormously effective for 100 years.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that his argument would have more force and credibility if the sunlight of democracy shone over the other end of this building?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I so wish that the hon. Gentleman, who is a most distinguished Eurosceptic, were right, but unfortunately the judges have taken that power to themselves. I return to what Lord Justice Laws said in his judgment on the metric martyrs case:

“Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not.”

The judges have set up for themselves two different types of Act. It seems to me that we should claim that power back for the democratically elected Chamber of Parliament, and say that when we think an Act is of significant constitutional importance, what we will do is not entrench it—that is against the spirit of our constitution—but give it a modest protection by saying that it can be repealed only with the full consent of both Houses. The great advantage of that, for those of us who remember what happened prior to 1911, is that it would require a Government to win a general election—to go back to the people—before they could get something through the House of Lords, if the House of Lords said no. That happened in 1911, with the reforms to the House of Lords, and in 1832, with the Great Reform Bill. That provision has been an historic and traditional way of protecting our democratic rights—one that, oddly, involves the undemocratic Chamber—and that is why I think it would improve the standing of this Bill. It would protect the democratic rights of the British people and deal with the constitutional situation as it is—as the judges have developed it—rather than the constitutional system as the hon. Gentleman and I might wish it to be.

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is not only an incredible privilege and honour to listen to the superb eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but an even greater privilege and honour to follow him. Nevertheless, on this occasion I do not follow him in the sense of agreeing with the new clause that he is propounding. I put it to him in an intervention that it was ironic that he was seeking to use the unelected Chamber as the guardian of the people’s democracy. His answer was, “Well, look at the preamble to the 1911 Act.” I was reminded of the dictum of St Augustine of Hippo, who, as I am sure he knows only too well, said, “Make me pure, Lord—but not yet.”

[Mr Binley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Charlie Elphicke]

In one moment.

I do not think that it is an excuse to say that because the House of Lords is partly reformed, we can give it a role as the guardian of our democracy pending the completion of that reform. Given that we have been racing towards the reform set out in the preamble to the 1911 Act for 100 years, it may take another 100 years to complete it—and given the way things carry on in this place, I suspect that we will indeed be waiting for 100 years to come.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but I just wonder whether he thinks the House of Lords has done a bad job since 1911 in the one area in which it is exempt from the 1911 Act—that is, in defending the right of the British people to have an election at least every five years?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I do not decry the role of the House of Lords, the excellence of their lordships, the work that they do, their courage or the passion with which they advance their cases. Indeed, it is often said that the debates held in their lordships’ House are far more informed, considered, interesting and informative than our debates in this House. Having been in this place and not that place, I cannot compare the two. Nevertheless, it is a dangerous principle to say, “Let’s include a provision in the Parliament Act to say that the House of Lords should be not only the guardian of five-year Parliaments but the guardian of this Bill, to protect it from being altered.”

I would have much more faith in the proposal if reform of the House of Lords had been completed—something that I hope will come to pass. One of the problems that I have with the House of Lords is not the people in it or their mental ability—many of them are excellent people and their mental ability is far superior to mine—but my concern that they do not hold a democratic mandate. It is an important principle that where we have representatives in our legislature, they should have a mandate from the people. I guess it is because I am a Lincolnian politician—I believe in government for the people, by the people, of the people—that I believe that the sunshine of democracy should permeate our entire legislature, and not just this House. I admit to some radicalism in my thinking on such matters, but I believe it is important that all our politicians should be elected and have a democratic mandate.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend turn his mind to this radical thought? If the House of Lords were to become an elected Chamber, it would not make the slightest bit of difference in respect of the argument that he is presenting, because the Parliament Act would remain on the statute book. The argument that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has put forward would also apply to an elected House. The question, in a nutshell, is one of judicial supremacy, which is why I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has been saying.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I take the view that this will be an important Act. It will introduce a referendum lock to ensure that we do not get dragged further into the European Union without consulting the British people. Inevitably, because Parliament is sovereign, it would be able to unravel the Act, to repeal it and to take away the people’s right to have a say in a referendum. That is the right of Parliament, but I do not agree with the argument for entrenching it to the same extent as the Parliament Act, as is suggested in the new clause. The Parliament Act is an entrenchment of our basic right not to have our democracy stolen from us. I would not place this legislation on that same lofty plane. It is important that Acts of Parliament should be able to be changed or repealed by a sovereign Parliament. The political issue is that any person or party that repeals an Act such as this will reap the whirlwind from the electorate. I am happy that we are able to pass and repeal Acts, and that the electorate should have the final say at an election, at which point they can condemn any such behaviour. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley).

[Mr Binley]

I have no wish to ask you a question.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can we conduct the debate through the Chair, please?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I conclude my remarks.

[Michael Connarty]

First, may I compliment the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on the eloquence both of the construction of his new clause and of his delivery in arguing for it? I believe that the new clause is flawed. He suggested that the evidence that we had received—he kept referring to Lord Justice Laws’ ruling—was correct, but we received evidence from many other people that it was incorrect. It was suggested that we could not establish two tiers of laws just because a judge decided to make a remark in court, and that all laws, including the European Communities Act 1972, stand the same and can have implied amendment and repeal.

If Parliament decided to pass a law here that was contrary to a ruling, directive or regulation of the European Union, it would still stand as a law. The dilemma would then be whether the European Court of Justice would have the right to overrule that decision or whether we would press on our courts our decision in the new Act, which would cause a judgment to be called for in the European Court. If no one called for such a judgment on an Act that we had passed contrary to a regulation or directive of the European Union, it would continue to apply. It would not be knocked down, and no penalties would be imposed on the UK, unless someone called for the European Court of Justice to make a judgment on that new Act. So it was nonsense to suggest that in 1972 we had suddenly created an Act that was incapable of implied repeal or amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I find myself in sympathy with the Conservative position at the times of those treaties. The Conservatives were not convinced by the case for a referendum, and neither was I. It rather reflects the changing disposition of those on the Conservative Front Bench that, as I recollect, the Foreign Secretary was a fierce advocate of the avoidance of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. At least on that, we are at one.

The real guard is the precedent established by political consensus that, for example, no party will join the euro without a referendum. No party pledged to ratify the proposed European constitution without a referendum. There was no consensus on Lisbon. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members did not believe that a referendum was needed, but Conservative Members did, and the Conservative leader did until he suddenly realised that he might be in government in just over a year’s time and did not fancy spending the first two years as Prime Minister obsessing over European renegotiations.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hate to intrude on the right hon. Gentleman’s reworking of history, but to describe the Lisbon treaty as nothing to do with the European constitution is a travesty of the truth and of what actually happened. Does he accept that he should regret not following through with a referendum on that matter?

[Mr Alexander]

I do not wish to intrude on private grief, but I sense that that question would be better directed towards his new-found colleagues in the coalition, who clearly do not share his view. If he was to achieve consensus on his side of the House, he might have a better chance of achieving it across the whole House.

The muddle in that part of the Bill is as nothing compared with clause 18—the so-called supremacy clause. That was meant to be the red meat, but the more erudite Government Members simply are not biting. The hon. Member for Stone called it a “mouse of a Bill” when referring to this point. Those Members know that this is Britain’s first foray into what can safely be described as decorative legislation. It demeans this House to assert that it is sovereign when the fact is not seriously questioned. What we have seen in the middle east and north Africa in recent weeks should be a salutary reminder to us all that Parliaments and states derive their sovereignty from the people they serve. This Parliament will be no more or less sovereign because of the superfluous clause 18.

The question that we are all left asking is, “What is the rush?” The Government say that they have no intention of passing any powers to Europe for the next four years, so part 1 of the Bill will not be used, and clause 18 has already been shown to be superfluous. However, the Bill has been brought before the House for Third Reading before the Localism Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill and the Welfare Reform Bill—before any of the legislation that is supposed to define the very purpose of the coalition Government.

If the Bill is not just a legislative attempt to distract the Conservative right, I am afraid I can think of only one possible explanation. The week before last, the Deputy Prime Minister was reportedly shocked to discover that he was briefly in charge of the Government. The only real purpose for the Bill that I can adduce is that it is designed to guard against an eventuality such as this: the Prime Minister abroad on a trade mission, the Foreign Secretary about to head to Washington for important discussions and the Chancellor in Klosters, with the Deputy Prime Minister seeing an awful Liberal Democrat election result and deciding to make a dash for the history books by joining the euro before any of them manage to get back to the country. I tell Conservative Members who are slightly concerned by that scenario that in reality they need not worry; the mere fact of the Deputy Prime Minister’s support is probably a bigger barrier to Britain joining the euro than any referendum lock contemplated in the House.

We are content for the Bill to proceed to the House of Lords for further scrutiny, particularly of clauses 3 to 6. However, what it reveals about the Government is probably of more import than its true legislative effect. Dramatic, epoch-making events are taking place in the middle east as we gather here this evening. In Libya, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have not exactly covered themselves in glory, and the root of the problem appears to be their failure to co-ordinate either within Government or among our allies. May I respectfully suggest that the Bill is distracting Ministers from what should be their overriding focus at this time?

In February, the Foreign Secretary said that the cost of simply drawing up the Bill had already run to £200,000. We are left wondering not only how much the final bill will be but whether it is really the best use of the Foreign Office’s resources when it is having to make significant efficiencies. Of course, the bill for this Bill has not yet ended, because the Government have ignored amendments tabled by the Opposition and are leaving judicial review, rather than Parliament, to determine in the final instance whether there should be referendums. We do not know how often judicial reviews will be called or a decision will be reversed, but we do know that what has been called the William Cash memorial Bill could equally be called a fiscal stimulus for any legal practice specialising in judicial reviews.

The Conservatives’ monomania about Europe in opposition was an eccentricity, and the further they sank in the polls, the grander their rhetoric became. I confess, for that reason alone, to occasionally having cheered them on. However, they are in government now and the time has come to put away the party preoccupations that kept them going in the dark days of general election defeats. Now their job is to run the country and develop a foreign policy worthy of the name. Now is not the time for legislation designed to appease their own Back Benchers.

I have enjoyed both versions of the Foreign Secretary that have been seen in the House in the past decade—the baseball-capped, 14-pint-a-night young Conservative with extraordinary rhetorical skills, and the rather more world-weary, scholarly voice of experience in a Cabinet that all too often lacks it. There is a lot for Opposition Members to admire in both those characters, but surely to be a strong Foreign Secretary he needs to decide whether the Bill really fits with the seriousness needed from a British Foreign Secretary at a time of global economic and political turmoil. His 2001 persona would surely have loved the Bill, but I and many others had hoped that he would take that fact as a warning rather than an endorsement.

The Foreign Secretary has my support in putting pressure on the Gaddafi regime in Libya in the coming days, and the Minister for Europe has my support when he speaks out against human rights abuses in Belarus, as he did at the weekend. In seeking the right reforms in Brussels, they have not merely my support but my sympathy. I just wish that they would get on with those vital tasks instead of wasting so much of the people’s time with a Bill that satisfies few and achieves so little.

European Union Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful for that, Mr Evans, because otherwise the hon. Lady might have tempted me yet again. She knows my soft point, and she knows very well that it would not take me long to get going on that issue, either. But, she is right.

I have tabled a number of amendments, but I do not intend to press them to a vote, because we have had a thoroughly good debate, and I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, think that further consultation between the Minister, his officials, the European Scrutiny Committee and our Clerks might help to ensure that we get the maximum out of the provisions, even if they do not really measure up.

In any case, we know what happens in our votes; we have watched them now for about a week. On one occasion, we reached 45 genuine—as I call them— abstentions. By the way, Mr Evans, your name appeared on one list, but I said, “No, he’s Chairman of Ways and Means; this is not somebody you can count in.” Anyway, on parliamentary sovereignty we had between 45 and 50 such abstentions, which is quite a lot, but it is not anything like as many as the number of Members who rather agree with us in the broadest sense. I shall not go down that route, but what happens in votes is not very edifying. We do not win votes, because people are being told to vote in a way that is inconsistent with what they think, and that is another democratic problem.

Amendments 99 and 98 are mischievous, simply because they were tabled only to demonstrate my concern, which I have just raised, that opt-ins should not be allowed under any circumstances. On amendment 47, however, regarding the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, for Hertsmere and for Daventry are right. I am reluctant to adopt a default position, but for the purposes of debate I want to get out into the open something that concerns me, because the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, on which I dare say books could be written, ought to be as restricted as possible.

Article 83(2) of TFEU, as I state in amendment 47,

“permits the establishment by directive of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area subject to harmonisation measures by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question.”

In a nutshell, I should like that to be one of those measures—from the written statement to which the Minister has referred—that ought to be discussed properly.

Let us think about what the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions affects and what its consequences are for the people whom we are elected to represent. If I cannot win the vote on my desire to throw out the whole measure, my minimum default position, however cynical and unhappy I am about opt-ins anyway, is to attempt to include it in the arrangements that the Government have provided.

Those are my thoughts on this group of amendments and on my amendments. If I sound a little concerned about them, I hope that Members will understand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, I see the provision under discussion as an enormous step. I am not sure that it is beneficial, because it assumes that there will be opt-ins. There are 30 or 40 of them, and there have already been eight in the past few months. The trend exists, and I do not see anything holding back the tsunami. Indeed, I see the tsunami being built up, and that is not in the interests of the democratic principles by which this House is elected.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is much concerned about Members from all parts of the House being under the control of the Whips. For my part, I would like to say how much I agree with—

[Nick de Bois]

With the Whips.

[Charlie Elphicke]

With the Prime Minister. In particular, I agree with his speech on 4 November 2009, in which he said:

“We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges. We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it. That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”

I would like to put on the record how much I agree with that position, and how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Why are we discussing further opt-ins in this Committee, when we should be considering how to recapture a sense of control and our national way of life in relation to the criminal justice system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

May I just say how much I welcome the strong policy on asylum? Asylum has been a substantial problem in my constituency of Dover, with masses of would-be asylum seekers and economic migrants at Calais wanting to break into the country. Will the Minister tell the Committee more about how we will ensure our strength and independence on border security?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not want to be distracted from the subject matter of the debate—clause 9 and the amendments—so the best thing is for me to tell my hon. Friend that I will either write to him or ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to do so in response to the point that he raises.

May I summarise the Government’s case in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone? There have been many criticisms of the current criminal mutual legal assistance system; it is said that it is fragmented, confusing and subject to delays. In some cases, it takes many months to obtain vital evidence, and when the UK has been the requesting state, that has had a detrimental effect on UK investigations and trials. The EIO seeks to address those problems by simplifying the MLA system among EU member states and introducing strict deadlines for the execution of requests.

It is true that had we not opted into the EIO, we would still have been able to operate MLA with other EU countries, but we would have been in a tiny minority of EU countries not using the EIO. Owing to that, and because deadlines would not apply to UK MLA requests, it is likely that those requests would be given a lower priority than those of other states, and that our prosecutors would have experienced longer delays. Given that 75% of the UK’s MLA traffic is with other EU countries, the practical impact on UK cases would have been significant.

If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the matter further, I suggest that he first looks at the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on 3 August 2010, and which she has deposited in the Library. The letter details a number of specific cases in which the current arrangements were proven to be inadequate. In one case, evidence that was not returned prior to the conclusion of the trial may have led to the suspect being exonerated. Her judgment and the Government’s judgment is that had we not opted in, it is likely that there would be more such cases.

European Union Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We would certainly want to avoid that and would look at the experience that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is important to recall that the principle of grants being made available for lead campaign organisations was recommended by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life and approved by Parliament in legislation passed under the previous Labour Government in 2000. I hope that he agrees that it would not be in the public interest for one side in a referendum campaign to be able to outspend the other hugely. A grant ensures that both lead campaign organisations can campaign effectively and that helps the public make an informed choice.

I emphasise that the Bill is not intended to serve as a vehicle for providing for all the detailed referendum rules required to supplement the provisions already contained in the PPERA. That is because we cannot anticipate exactly what referendums might be required in the future, when they would be held or, indeed, what the relevant electoral and referendum law would look like at that time. I do not want to write on tablets of stone arrangements that could prove to be at odds with a subsequent change in general electoral legislation. Therefore, we cannot provide everything on the convening of those specific referendums in the Bill. Rather, it sets out the circumstances in which those referendums would have to be held.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On the issue of who can vote in referendums, I notice that specific mention is made of the right of the people of Gibraltar to have a say in a referendum. It seems to me that they would like to be part of the United Kingdom for many purposes when it comes to European matters. Would it not be right to allow them more of a chance to have a say?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, we must look at the question of whether the franchise for a particular referendum should include the people of Gibraltar in the context of whether it would affect Gibraltar. As he will appreciate, although Gibraltar is in most respects treated as part of the EU, some parts of the treaties do not apply to it. It is therefore right that the Bill specifies that the electorate in a referendum should include the people of Gibraltar when the subject matter of that referendum also applies to them. To provide further reassurance, I call tell him that I have consulted the Chief Minister of Gibraltar formally and discussed the matter with him face to face, and he has assured me that he is content with the arrangements for Gibraltar as set out in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are considering how to comply with the Court’s decision. Article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights sets out the right to vote in elections. Importantly, that right extends to elections to legislatures, within the meaning of article 3, so we are not under an obligation to enfranchise prisoners for local elections or referendums, and the policy is that we will not do so. The Government accept the need, as did our predecessor, to change the law to give some prisoners the vote in the light of the Court’s judgment. The right to vote will be restricted to UK Westminster parliamentary and European Parliament elections only.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on prisoner voting in, I believe, Hirst v. the United Kingdom. Despite what my right hon. Friend says, and given that case, how can we be confident that an element of judicial activism will not enable prisoners to vote on a referendum question?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is perfectly right to be alert to any sign of judicial activism, but I assure him that one thing that will be very much on the mind of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is to devise a policy that takes us forward in compliance with the judgment while keeping to the minimum the risks that my hon. Friend fears.

We recognise the need to ensure that Parliament and the British people have a degree of clarity now about any referendums that will take place under this Bill in future. We want to provide as much clarity as we can from the outset in order to reduce any scope for wriggle-room, and we therefore propose specific measures in this Bill to ensure that any referendums held under it are to some extent standardised. Clauses 11 to 13 include three mechanical provisions for every referendum to be held in future.

Clause 11 concerns the franchise for any future referendum held under the terms of the Bill. The most appropriate franchise for future referendums on questions of transfers of competence or powers from this country to the EU is one based on that for elections to this House, rather than on that for either local government elections or European parliamentary elections, for example. If we were to adopt an alternative franchise, we would allow for voting by citizens of other European Union countries resident in the UK, and that would sit rather oddly with the principle of having the British people decide on whether they wish to pursue further transfers of power from their country to Brussels.

[Mr Lidington]

I do not know whether this delights my hon. Friend, but peers would be able to vote in a referendum; it might well delight Members of the other place. The purpose of the referendum would be to obtain views about the transfer of competence or power from the UK to the European Union, and the Government do not consider there to be a strong, principled reason for excluding peers from expressing their views as part of such an exercise. We therefore propose the same franchise as that used for the European Economic Community referendum in 1975 and that which will be used for the referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary elections, namely the parliamentary franchise plus peers.

[Charlie Elphicke]

One concern that I have about using the referendum mechanism is that it does not contain thresholds. Recently we had before this House a Bill, which has become jammed in another place, where thresholds were discussed. Does the Minister not think that, in the case under discussion, thresholds might surely be worth considering?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Brady)]

Order. That is outside the scope of the clause, which is about people who are entitled to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Our position is that people who are resident in the United Kingdom and who are enfranchised for general elections will count legally as UK nationals for European purposes. That is the electorate, with the addition of peers, that we envisage for any referendum that is required under the terms of the Bill. The distinction that I tried to make earlier—I apologise to my hon. Friend if I did not explain myself with sufficient clarity—was between Gibraltarians living in Gibraltar, who would be entitled to vote if the subject matter of the referendum affected Gibraltar, and citizens of Crown dependencies or British overseas territories living in those places. An analogy might be made between those people and citizens of Gibraltar, but as I have tried to explain, the relationship of the Crown dependencies and other British overseas territories with the EU is very different from that enjoyed by Gibraltar.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hate to press the cause of the people of Gibraltar, but I understand that for the purposes of elections to the European Parliament, the people of Gibraltar are able to vote for Members of the European Parliament for the south-west region. Given that they can vote in elections for that Parliament for all purposes in the European arena, surely they should be able to vote on referendum questions for all purposes.

[Mr Lidington]

No, I think that we have drawn a fair distinction by saying that it is right to confine the electorate for a referendum that does not affect Gibraltar to people in the UK who are entitled to vote in UK elections, and to say that Gibraltar should be allowed to vote when the issue in question affects it. I repeat to my hon. Friend that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has assured me that he is perfectly content with what we are proposing.

The franchise proposed in clause 11 is also referred to elsewhere in the Bill, namely in clauses 2 and 3. I believe that what we propose is proportionate and justified to ensure that citizens in both the UK and Gibraltar who would be affected by a treaty change, or by a decision that would transfer power or competence from this country to the EU, could express their view in a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

No, in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, in which an omnibus treaty amendment is delivered under the ordinary revision procedure, there would be a single question. It would be ridiculous for the Government to present that to the people as a number of different questions, because the Government, on behalf of the United Kingdom, would have to ratify the entire package en bloc, or refuse to ratify it en bloc. The negotiation would have resulted in a compromise among member states on something to which they all felt able to give their assent, and they would all have to be accountable to their respective electorates for that overall decision.

[Charlie Elphicke]

On this matter of referendums being held on the same day, will the Minister explain the revenue implications of separate referendums on separate days?

[Mr Lidington]

As I said in response to an earlier intervention, if different decisions about treaty amendments were being taken at roughly the same time—I imagine that they would be either passerelle clause decisions or simplified revision procedure decisions—it might well be sensible to combine the referendums on those measures on the same day. The public would get pretty impatient with Parliament if we suggested that should they pop down to the polling station every other Thursday to put their cross in the box for yet another referendum proposal. They would quite rightly be asking why we were requiring their local authorities, as the electoral registration authorities—and ultimately them as taxpayers—to go to such expense and bother on so many different occasions. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that common sense would prevail, regardless of which party was in office.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to make a bit of progress. In particular, I want to deliver a bit of good news to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), to whom I am always pleased to give good news. Advice has reached me that confirms the point that I made to him somewhat tentatively when I responded to his intervention. The law does indeed make it clear that when it comes to the interpretation of statutes, the singular can be interpreted to mean the plural. Under the language that we have used in the clause, it will be possible to have either one ballot paper with multiple questions or several different ballot papers, depending on the circumstances at the time. That would obviously be a detailed decision that the Government of the day would have to make, taking, I would very much hope, the advice of the Electoral Commission into account.

It should be noted that neither clause 12 nor any other clause in the Bill sets any other explicit parameters on the framing of the question. However, it is a condition separately in clauses 2, 3 and 6 that, for a proposal in a referendum to be passed, the majority of those voting should be in favour of the ratification of the treaty or approval of the decision, whichever it may be. That condition would logically require that the question be framed as a simple choice between two options, rather than a menu of options to which the responses would be much more difficult to interpret. In other words, it is implicit in the Bill that the question would be a binary one. It is the Government’s clear view that this should be the case for all and any referendums held under the provisions of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I go back to what I said earlier: I trust the people. If a Government wanted to ask people to vote again, they would have to go through the entire procedure again—assuming that a new protocol or slightly revised treaty wording were involved—as well as having to persuade a pretty sceptical electorate that they should change their mind. I think that my hon. Friend is at risk of exaggerating the likelihood of those circumstances arising. While I do not think that the loss of a referendum vote on a European treaty amendment should determine whether a Government should fall, it would undoubtedly be a very severe political blow to that Government.

Once this Bill becomes law, I think the pressure will be the reverse of what my hon. Friend fears, as the pressure will be on any British incumbent Government to be very confident that they can carry support among the electorate for a treaty reform transferring new powers or competences to the European Union before they agree to it at the European Council. The arrangements we are putting in place thus provide safeguards against what my hon. Friend fears.

In any event, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires the Electoral Commission to consider the wording of any referendum question when a Bill to provide for the holding of a poll is introduced in Parliament. In the case of a draft instrument, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question before any such draft is laid before Parliament for approval, and he or she is then required to lay before each House a report stating any views as to the intelligibility of that question which the Commission has expressed in response to the consultation. We have not sought to disapply that requirement, as we think the Electoral Commission plays an important role in ensuring both the neutrality of the question and that it is correctly and easily understood by voters.

Under PPERA, the Electoral Commission is required to consider the wording of the referendum questions for UK, national and regional referendums and for some local government referendums. Having done so, it is required to publish the statement of its views as soon as practicable and in such a manner as it may determine. Helpfully, the commission has developed guidelines to aid the drafting of intelligible referendum questions. In these, it says that a referendum question should present the options clearly, simply and neutrally so that it is easy to understand, to the point and unambiguous; and should avoid—I hope this helps my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North—encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another, and avoid misleading voters. In reaching its conclusions, the Electoral Commission adopts a systematic and thorough approach, which now has the advantage of some considerable experience behind it. It is also important that it publishes a report of methodology to enhance transparency and its credibility.

Clause 12 is thus a proportionate and sustainable provision to ensure that the voice of the British people can be heard on each question asked of the people. That, in turn, will help us with our commitment to rebuild the trust between Government, Parliament and the people, and to reconnect our people with decisions taken in their name on our continuing relationship with the European Union. For those reasons, the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I want to make a few brief points and hope that the Minister will come back to me on them. I note that after the Scottish elections of 2007, the Gould report concluded that it was preferable for referendum questions not be done as a multiplicity, but to be put separately after separate campaigns. I am particularly concerned because there has been a tendency on the part of some Governments to play somewhat fast and loose on whether there should be a referendum at all or, indeed, in respect of asking loaded questions. We need to be careful to ensure that if there is a combination of questions, the key issues are not edged together and confused, leading to a muddle in the public’s minds. That is a serious and substantial concern, so I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to it.

Also, I was not being frivolous when I asked the Minister how much it would cost if referendums were held on separate days—leaving aside the annoyance that voters might feel in being called time and again to the polls.

[Mr Lidington]

On my hon. Friend’s second point, I do not have precise figures. Clearly, our experience of national UK referendums is limited—the last being in 1975, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has frequently reminded us today. The referendum on the voting system planned for later this year will no doubt give us some guidance. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend if I acquire any firmer indication of what the costs might be. Clearly, there would be financial advantages in combining more than one poll, whether it be a combination of referendums or of a referendum and a local or devolved election on the same day.

Let me say in fairness to the Gould report, to which my hon. Friend alluded, that although it criticised what happened in 2007, it also recognised that there were benefits in the combination of polls, such as reduced costs and a higher turnout. A well-managed referendum, involving close co-operation between us and the Electoral Commission and others, should allow us to maximise those benefits while avoiding the problems that undoubtedly occurred in 2007. Let me emphasise again, however, that the decision would need to be taken in the future, and would depend on the circumstances at the time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Role of Electoral Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.