European Union Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed, I have read the Committee’s report. I thought it was interesting, not least because the Committee includes significant Eurosceptics on both sides of the House. Much as I admire and respect—and almost adore—the Minister for Europe, I fear that the Bill is a complete and utter chimera. It does not do what it seeks to do, it will not do what many hon. Members on the Government Back Benches hope it will do, and in the end, it will damage the country’s interests.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow so many excellent speeches, including, obviously, those from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and especially—to be honest—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), the style and structure, if not always the content, of whose speech were particularly impressive. It was absolutely first class—except in content.

I want to talk first about the general purpose of the Bill to remind us what we are trying to do, which is to restore the trust between the electors and any Government over their relationship with the European Union. It is really important to restate that, because we can get so confused about the detail, as I have noticed during today’s and yesterday’s debates. It is a matter of restoring trust. The second important thing about the Bill is that it is all about ensuring we have clear decisions that can, and should, be made by a referendum where appropriate.

We are arguing not so much about the useful lists in the Bill, but about some of the areas that might require more clarification. My key point is that the Bill addresses the transfer of power and competence: it is neither a retrospective measure on things we might not necessarily agree with nor an opportunity to tear up things already in place. We have to understand that and the Bill’s limitations. Of course, its value lies in the fact that it ensures that, from now on, we as a country will have a clear capacity to decide whether we want powers and competences transferred. We have to get that clearly understood during these discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with himself. If he supports amendment 13, he surely cannot support amendment 100, and vice versa. It is a matter of quid pro quo, or perhaps quid pro euro.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear enough: I do not support either amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

But amendment 100 removes some elements from the Bill, while amendment 13 includes some, so it must be either A or B.

[Neil Carmichael]

My position is that neither of them needs to be supported. I believe that the present situation is perfectly acceptable, and we need to concentrate on the question of power and competence.

The European financial stabilisation mechanisms are also very important. The critical point is that we are not in the euro, and that ECOFIN makes the decisions through the qualified majority voting procedure, so any attempt to make changes in that regard would not necessarily have the desired effect. We have no plans to join the euro. Amendment 8 would be necessary only if we decided to join it, which we certainly do not intend to do. I might add that this legislation will make it a necessity, for the first time, to have a referendum before we are able to join the euro. That is really useful.

[Neil Carmichael]

But it has got something to do with ECOFIN and with our interest in ensuring that the euro remains strong, because we must remember that 50% of our trade is with the euro area. That is not to say that we should join the euro; we should not. I am simply reflecting our economic position.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point about ensuring that the euro is strong; otherwise, there could be enormous impacts on the UK economy, not least because we are, in many regards, the banker for the rest of Europe. However, I think he is wrong to say that clause 6 means that a future Government could not join the euro without holding a referendum. All that a future Government would have to do would be to pass an Act of Parliament saying that, notwithstanding the provisions in this Bill, we were none the less going to join the euro.

[Neil Carmichael]

I anticipated that point, which is why I made so much effort in response to the interventions by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). I just do not believe that any Government would repeal this legislation, because it would be suicidal to do so. I am therefore absolutely confident that the provisions in the Bill will be implemented, because no Government would ever decide to go against public opinion so flagrantly. That would be tantamount to postponing a general election for years and years. It would simply not be an acceptable step.

I come now to amendment 81, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). The first thing to say about the common fisheries policy is that it does not really work very well. We want to find ways to protect fish and fishermen, but the CFP is not an effective tool. Let me say a few words about it. The CFP was introduced to this country in the early ’80s after the 10-year moratorium agreed and negotiated under the original Act of Parliament that brought Britain into the European Union in the first place. It was the late Lord Walker who, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food negotiated it in the early 1980s. Our Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the day, pointed out, as I saw on a memorandum released under the 30-year rule, that “these are our fish” and so forth. There was a lively debate about how the CFP was constructed.

We cannot be retrospective about this issue, however. What we must do instead is make sure that an empowered British Government demand the reform of the CFP. Having a referendum on it now will not be effective. A ruthless approach to reforming the CFP so that it reflects the interests of Britain, the interests of fishermen and, indeed, the interests of fish is the most urgent and necessary requirement. I do not think that amendment 81 is particularly helpful, although I recognise and understand that all the amendments I have mentioned are in this grey area, where some clarification is required.

The Bill helps us in many ways; so, too, do the explanatory notes. We should rely on the list set out in schedule 1 and on the details of clause 6, as these provisions set out the substantive issues that we need to debate—and the British public will expect us to vote on them, as these are the areas that have been neglected in the past, as a result of which we have lost the trust of British people.

In summary, it is critical to remember that the Bill is about having referendums on the transfer of power and competence. It is not about tinkering with policy, which is the job of Ministers in the various Councils in the European Union. It is the job of this Parliament to secure and protect the capacity of the British people to be able to say no to a transfer of power from Britain to Europe. I believe that that is an acceptable position, and it is the right one for us to support. It is, I think, captured very well in the Bill.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Neil Carmichael

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

When I have heard those accusations, as I have when political opponents in my constituency have attacked me ferociously on these issues, I have wholly deprecated them. If we examine the work that the armed forces do in schools, we find that it is not about preying on young people who, in some sense, might not have other opportunities in life. Often such work is about giving people the confidence in themselves to go on to do something that has nothing to do with the armed forces. It is about giving them a structure in life, and a sense of discipline and opportunity, which is of value to the wider community. I know that some teachers at Treorchy comprehensive were sceptical about the combined cadet force coming to the school, but since it has been in place they have been entirely supportive and have found it to be an entirely beneficial operation.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I agree about the importance of cadets. I visited my local Stonehouse platoon of the Army Cadet Force last week. It is fantastic and I would like to be sure that this Bill will provide the appropriate support to the cadets and the officers who train them—I am sure that it will.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Neil Carmichael

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I very much hope that we do. There are two elements to why this debate matters: first, the role of the Speaker, and secondly, the role of the courts, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants to debate.

Contrary to what the Minister said, the Opposition rather than the Prime Minister often determine what is and is not a motion of confidence. As we heard, the Prime Minister could decide that the question whether the House adjourns is a matter of confidence, or he or she could refer to minor legislation as such. However, the Opposition can not only table a motion of no confidence, but declare that another matter is a matter of confidence. Effectively, they can demand that the Prime Minister address such a matter personally.

On 15 January 1972, Second Reading of the European Communities Act 1972, which I suspect the hon. Member for Stone knows well, was declared by the then Prime Minister to be a matter of confidence. He said that if he lost, there would be a general election. Undoubtedly, some decided to support him for that very reason.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Surely this debate about votes of no confidence is really all about the exercise of the Prime Minister’s power, because as the hon. Gentleman has just implied, it is the Prime Minister who decides whether we will have a general election. When Ted Heath used that threat in 1972, he clearly did so quite deliberately, in order to force his side to vote in favour of joining the European Union, and it was his decision whether there would be a general election. Given that, I cannot really see why the hon. Gentleman is going in the direction that he is.

[Chris Bryant]

Because the legislation is changing that provision in two regards, one of which is the subject of an amendment in this group. The Government—I think rightly—want to say that after a motion of no confidence, there could be two weeks during which the House could, if it wanted, pass a motion of confidence in either the same Government, presumably, or another Government, with either the same Prime Minister or a different Prime Minister, with a different set of ministerial colleagues. That is a change from the situation thus far. There are those who want to remove that two-week element from the Bill. We on the Labour Benches disagree with them, so we will not be supporting that amendment.

There were two occasions, on 11 March 1976 and 20 July 1977, when the motion “That this House do now adjourn” was declared by the then Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition to be a motion of no confidence, first by Harold Wilson and then by Mrs Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher. On occasion, the mere involvement of the Prime Minister, by turning up at the Dispatch Box to defend a particular motion or piece of legislation, has effectively turned it into a motion of confidence, and that has transpired during the debate. As we are abolishing the Prime Minister’s right to dissolve Parliament and placing that right in the hands of Parliament—we are putting that in statute—it would be better to state in the Bill, in clear language, precisely what constitutes a motion of no confidence, so that there can be no doubt.

I say that for several reasons. First, it would remove the Prime Minister’s power to force legislation through by calling it a matter of confidence. Perhaps Members on the Government Benches have not got used to this yet, but when we were in government, it was a fairly common occurrence whenever there was a difficult piece of legislation—whether on trade unions, the war in Iraq or whatever—for the Prime Minister to say, not necessarily in public but certainly in private, that it was a matter of confidence. That has led to some bad legislation in the past, which was certainly not helpful to us, and I am sure that there will be plenty of moments like that coming along for Government Members.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Neil Carmichael

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

Surely those points ram home the argument that five years is a good spell, because the hon. Gentleman has just admitted that from time to time we could break it and have an election earlier, but the norm would still be five years.

[Chris Bryant]

I will come on to why I think five years is an inappropriate length of time. However, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I will admit lots of things in this speech, but I will not admit what he has just told me to admit.

My argument is essentially that four years is a better term for a fixed Parliament than five years. A five-year legislative provision for a maximum length of a Parliament has served us not too badly and may well be okay, not least because it has meant in practical terms that Parliaments have tended to be more like four years, precisely as Asquith intended in 1911. But a fixed five-year term is overlong, and the main reason why we have that is that the Government want to continue until May 2015, which is an inappropriate use of constitutional reform.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole said that he was absolutely certain that there could not have been any underhand skulduggery. I think he was using irony, if not sarcasm, and irony does not always translate perfectly into Hansard. His Dog and Duck test is right. The vast majority of voters are not obsessed with the length of a Parliament, but they do know when a Parliament has had its day, and for the most part, by the time we get to four years in this country, certainly since the second world war, most electorates have started to say, “You know what, it’s time we had a general election.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, indeed. That would be the ultimate “Brokeback coalition”, I suppose.

[Neil Carmichael]

I want to talk about the hon. Gentleman’s statistics. Looking back at the previous century, we had two elections in 1910, elections in 1923, 1924, 1951, 1959, 1964 and 1966, and two elections in 1974. He cannot give us an argument based on an average. He needs to highlight the Parliaments that really mattered, most of which were Conservative ones, as opposed to trying to massage his argument by bringing in Parliaments of a few months or a bit more. Funnily enough—[Interruption.] I was about to finish.

[Chris Bryant]

Funnily enough, of course I can advance an argument that is based on the average length of Parliaments, because the practical experience of voters over the past two centuries is that Parliaments have not gone on for more than four years. Therefore, if we are going to fix it for the future that they will always go on for five years, the hon. Gentleman and those who wish to take the Bill forward without amendment intend to extend Parliaments and provide for fewer general elections—that is just a fact.

Only four Parliaments since 1945 have lasted roughly five years. In three cases, a change of Prime Minister had intervened in the meantime: the Parliaments from 8 October 1959 to 15 October 1964, when Harold Macmillan handed over to Sir Alec Douglas-Home; from 11 June 1987 to 9 April 1992, when Baroness Thatcher —she was not a baroness then, obviously—handed over to John Major; and from 5 May 2005 to 6 May 2010, when Tony Blair handed over to the former Prime Minister. In addition, the longest Parliament of all in this period was John Major’s, which ran from 9 April 1992 to 1 May 1997. It is difficult not to argue that in each of those cases the electorate had wanted an election before the election was eventually held.