Ukraine

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

What my hon. Friend has said may take us on to wider debates, but I should point out that we are one of the few countries in NATO that spend 2% or more of GDP on defence. I think that only four NATO countries do that now. I have argued in the past—including at NATO meetings—that other nations will need to increase their percentages over the coming years.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has not yet mentioned the Council of Europe. Will this Government move to expel or suspend the Russian Federation from membership of the Council of Europe for this most blatant breach of the 1949 statute?

[Mr Hague]

The secretary-general of the Council of Europe and I will meet and be able to consider these things later this week when he visits London, but my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Of course, the Conservative Members who are in the Council of Europe have already moved away from the group that they were involved in with Russian members. One of the Russians listed for sanctions yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—in the Socialist Group. I say that not as a partisan point, but I hope Opposition Members will make their views on that clear.

Human Rights

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ann Clwyd]

Mr Chope, will you explain whether, when somebody makes an intervention, that is taken off the speaking time? I see that the clock kept running.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

There is no time limit, other than the self-restraint that I know hon. Members will exercise, recognising that a lot of people want to participate in the debate. Although there is no requirement that the debate must finish after one and a half hours, I hope that it will, so that we have an equal amount of time for the second debate. I hope that that helps the right hon. Lady.

[Ann Clwyd]

Thank you, Mr Chope.

I turn to the criteria for designating countries of concern, which perhaps in part will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I am pleased that the FCO has provided the criteria it uses to make its designations in the 2012 human rights report. I remain baffled, however, that Bahrain, given the continuing serious violations that were committed during the period that the report covers, was not added as a country of concern. I reiterate the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“If there is no significant progress by the start of 2014, the Government should designate Bahrain as a ‘country of concern’”.

Let us hope that the meeting held last week between Bahrain’s Crown Prince and the main opposition leaders signals the willingness of the Bahraini Government and the opposition to engage in meaningful negotiations, leading to meaningful political reform, greater political openness, fairer representation and the end of discrimination. If it does not, I suggest that it is time to get much tougher with Bahrain.

The Foreign Affairs Committee Chair mentioned deportation with assurances, which is a very important point, because the FCO seems satisfied with existing arrangements and has rejected suggestions made by our Committee to strengthen the monitoring process for people returned under those arrangements, including to Ethiopia and Algeria. I urge the FCO to look at the matter again, and remind it that a DWA agreement was also concluded with Libya during the time of Colonel Gaddafi and was seen at the time as perfectly fine. I doubt, for instance, that, as the Chair said, a domestic human rights institution in Ethiopia that is widely known to be ineffective can be trusted to monitor the well-being of those returned to Ethiopia under the agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Mike Gapes, may I say that we shall start the Front-Bench speeches at around 2.40 pm?

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

No. Clearly, negotiations have not commenced, although the Government continue at all times to work on seeking a more competitive European Union that is less regulatory, and in any such negotiation we of course want an EU that will be more accountable to national Parliaments as well. The position of the Conservative party, rather than of Her Majesty’s Government as a whole, is to implement the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which was passed in this House on Friday, and that means a referendum by the end of 2017.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Would it require treaty change to ensure that the benefits paid to EU citizens are paid at the rate prevailing in their home country?

[Mr Hague]

It does not require treaty change to ensure that the concept of free movement is carried out on a more sensible basis. It should not be about exporting child benefit, for instance. The Prime Minister has set out changes that we can make without treaty change. However, it is possible to contemplate, as the Prime Minister has also set out, having new arrangements on free movement for countries that join the EU to slow the access to each other’s labour markets until we can be sure that it will not cause vast migration. Some of those arrangements would require treaty change.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘decisions’ and insert ‘decision’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘are’ and insert ‘is’.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

[Mr Chope]

It is a pleasure to move amendment 1, and to consider amendments 2 and 3 with it. As hon. Members who are following the Bill closely will realise, the substance of the amendments lies in amendment 3, which proposes to leave out paragraph (b) of clause 1(2). That would have the effect of making the Bill apply only to subsections (1) and (2)(a). It would no longer include any reference to

“the draft decision to establish a Multiannual Framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2013-2017 (document number 10449/12).”

On Second Reading, the Minister expressed the view that we would be able to go into the issue of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in more detail in Committee, and the amendment gives us the opportunity to do just that. I want to reassert the concern that I expressed last week on Second Reading that, although this Government and this country were always against having such an agency, we are tremendously relaxed about extending its budget and its range of activities now that it has been established. There must come a time when we say to the European Union, “Enough is enough. You have gone too far already and we want to rein back the range of activities of the Agency for Fundamental Rights in the coming five-year period.” I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some words of encouragement on the action that our Government are taking to rein back the activities of the agency and, in particular, to prevent it from encroaching on the competences and activities of the Council of Europe, which covers 47 member countries, including the 27 members of the European Union.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what this Agency for Fundamental Rights does? As I understand it, its job is to collect and give evidence on data regarding fundamental rights in all the EU countries. Given that we are all already signed up to the European convention on human rights—much against my will, but there we are—which apparently has nothing to do with the European Union, can he explain why on earth we need this body in the first place?

[Mr Chope]

The Government at the time had grave reservations about this being included in the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, for the very reason to which my hon. Friend refers—namely, that it represented a duplication of activity that was already taking place. It was an attempt to set up in the European Union a duplicate body to the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights.

My hon. Friend asks what the agency does. It was intended to try to create what was called a fundamental rights culture within the European Union, and to that end, the organisation does an enormous amount of research. It holds conferences, one of which I have attended. As I said on Second Reading, it was more a propaganda exercise than anything else. The agency produces large tomes of documentation relating to what it describes as fundamental rights in different countries in the European Union. However, it is clear from everything that it does that its ultimate agenda is to be not an advisory body but a legislative body. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government realise that that is the agenda, that they have seen through it, and that they are vigorously opposing it, given that it involves the duplication of so many activities.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am still not clear about one point. Will my hon. Friend give the House a precise summary of the difference between a human right and a fundamental right?

[Mr Chope]

In essence, the Agency for Fundamental Rights tries to deal with collective rights, rather than individual rights, whereas the European Court of Human Rights deals with individual rights. That is a moot point, however. As with so many things, the European Union comes along and confuses the issue by giving a new institution a very similar name to that of an existing body. We have a Council of Europe, and, although we do not have a council of the European Union, we have a European Union Council. We also have a Commission of the European Union. The European Union has stolen the flag that was originally the flag of the Council of Europe. It has even stolen the anthem of the Council of Europe, and it is now intent on stealing the main part of the Council of Europe’s activities—namely, looking after human rights under the European convention on human rights.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

This is part of a creeping sickness, is it not? The European Union is trying to claim rights over trans-frontier broadcasting so that it can tell the whole of Europe what we may and may not broadcast. Upstairs, the House heard this afternoon that the European Union is trying to take over the European Space Agency, which of course goes much wider than the European Union; and now we have this, this evening. Where does my hon. Friend think this might stop?

[Mr Chope]

I know my hon. Friend has been doing very valuable work in scrutinising trans-frontier broadcasting —he is, I believe, a rapporteur on that subject for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Trans-frontier broadcasting exemplifies the problem we have. The Council of Europe set up a convention on trans-frontier broadcasting which has been signed up to not just by its 47 member countries, but by a lot of other countries as well; it is a very important convention. However, the European Union has come along and said that the convention cannot be brought up to date because it cuts across a fundamental competence of the Union. Therefore, the Council of Europe has been prevented, amazingly, from updating the convention because the European Union has said it cannot do so. Of course, because the Union has 27 of the 47 member countries of the Council, if it says, “You cant’ do that”, the Council’s member states collectively have no option but to obey the Union. This is an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) rightly says, of the European Union’s plan to encroach further upon the territory and responsibilities of the Council of Europe, to the extent that ultimately, it wishes to take over the whole organisation. That is what is so sinister about this measure.

If this were for free, we could all be relatively relaxed about it and deal with it as an academic abstraction, but it is costing us serious money: some €83 million at the moment, as we heard on Second Reading. The Agency for Fundamental Rights was set up fewer than 10 years ago with a budget of virtually nothing; now, it already has accrued that amount of expenditure, and the plans for 2013-17 are to expand it much further.

As we heard in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s brilliant statement today, he and colleagues in the European Union are saying, “Enough is enough: we’ve got to rein back on the European Union’s expansionist programme”. When people put forward the challenge, “What are we going to rein back?”, my view is that this is a good starting point. We never wanted this in the first place, and I hope we are going to hear from the Government what we are doing to push back in the opposite direction.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am somewhat concerned about this issue myself, but I want such rights to be strengthened, rather than weakened. However, I will come to that in my speech. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that some fundamental rights ought to apply to workers and trade unions taking strike action—for example, that we should determine those nationally, rather than internationally?

[Mr Chope]

I am absolutely in favour of our having control over these issues as a sovereign country, which is why I do not really buy into the concept that there is some standard of fundamental rights across the whole of Europe. Now, the European Union is trying to identify and interpret common factors across all member countries—the Council of Europe is probably as guilty of this—and then impose them on all the countries through the agency, the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights. These are very serious issues, and I look forward to hearing in due course where the hon. Gentleman thinks the agency should go.

The agency was only set up as a compromise to provide something based in Vienna. The Austrians had said that they did not have a European Union agency there, and, the agency having duly been set up, the Austrians are in the forefront of wanting to give it more powers, responsibilities and money, so that more Eurocrats can be based in Vienna and contribute to the Austrian economy. That is the cynical way these things develop. It was a compromise deal, and we have now seen that this organisation has a life of its own. I hope that Ministers will say they are going to snuff this out before the end of the 2017 multi-annual framework. That is why I have great pleasure in moving amendment 1, but if the issue comes to a vote, I will seek a vote on amendment 3, which is where the substance lies.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am very concerned about this issue because before my time in Parliament, I was involved in the trade union movement, in which I have a strong interest, and my feeling is that the agency and fundamental rights in the European Union are a bit of a paper tiger when it comes to defending workers’ rights. As I said when I intervened, I want fundamental rights to be strengthened. Whether they are strengthened by legislation in this Parliament or at the European Union level is a matter for debate, but they certainly need to be strengthened. The rights of trade unionists were weakened considerably by previous Conservative Governments and they have not been restored to anything like my satisfaction.

The “paper tiger” nature of fundamental rights in the European Union was shown in the Viking Line case. Industrial action was taken and, strangely, the fundamental right to take strike action was overridden in favour of the interests of employers. Profits and the rights of employers were seen to have primacy over the fundamental rights of trade unionists. So, I am not impressed by the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Union. If they are fundamental, the trade unionists taking that action should have been found to be in the right, and the European Court of Justice should not have ruled against them, finding in favour of employers. There have been two such cases, major cases, and they have shaken the confidence considerably of many trade unionists who mistakenly put their faith in the European Union to defend their rights.

I was never impressed with the European Union. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) knows, I am a critic from a left-wing, rather than right-wing, point of view. I was never as confident as perhaps some of my colleagues were that the European Union would defend trade union and worker rights. I will not necessarily be voting with the hon. Gentleman on this issue—if a vote is indeed called—but I do want the fundamental rights of workers and trade unionists strongly supported and defended, be that in the European Union or in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a pride in living in the past, and that is fine and dandy, but of course he was talking about what the convention was set up to do in the first place, many years ago, whereas I am talking about the present. I am sure that he did not envisage our having to have ridiculous things such a votes for prisoners as a result of our membership of the European convention on human rights. I do not want to get sidetracked on to something that is not, strictly speaking, dealt with in this group of amendments, Mr Evans. The hon. Gentleman was tempting me down a path that I fear you might have intervened on had I pursued it any further. My point is that whether we are in the convention rightly or wrongly, we are in it and so it is utterly pointless to have the agency trying to mimic what is already being done there.

My second point relates to the agency’s desirability. Even if it was not pointless, it would certainly be undesirable. Let me give hon. Members an example of the types of issues the agency is trying to interfere in. It had a speaker on a panel discussing:

“Guaranteeing access to healthcare for undocumented migrants in Europe”.

We now have a new term—undocumented migrants. I think my constituents know them as illegal immigrants, but in the politically correct-speak of the EU they are undocumented migrants these days. Of course what the agency is trying to do is encourage all these illegal immigrants to access health care in countries such as the UK. My constituents are sick to the back teeth of the national health service being used by illegal immigrants and rather prefer these people to go back to the country that they should be in to access the health care in the country they come from. I hope that the Minister will address the following question: are the Government really using taxpayers’ money to fund an agency within the European Union that is actively encouraging people from within the EU illegally—this discussion was on illegal immigrants—to access this country and use the services provided for people in this country? It would be a ridiculous state of affairs if it was the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government to use taxpayers’ money to fund an agency to give out that kind of advice. If the Government’s policy is that they do not like this particular organisation and do not approve of what is it doing, what on earth are we doing with this Bill? Why are we being encouraged, in effect, to allow taxpayers’ money to be spent this agency?

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will not welcome this information, but this all goes wider than what he has described, because what is often being suggested is that these people seeking to access health care should be able to do so without disclosing their own identities.

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely, and again I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The situation makes the Government’s position on these matters unjustifiable and completely ridiculous. If the Government do not support all this, why on earth are we in this situation? If we are in this situation because the Minister is utterly powerless to do anything about it because he has no influence whatsoever, I hope he will admit that. When our referendum comes, in 2017 or thereabouts, it will be another argument for why we should leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Michael Connarty]

No, I do not want to continue with the Council of Europe. I have spoken at length in the House in debates on the functions of the Parliamentary Assembly, which I think is an excellent organisation that brings people back to why we come to Parliament. It is about the application of human rights. We often get tied up in playing our parties off against each other, but if we look through the lens of human rights we can very quickly see where the breaches are. There were huge outcries under the previous Government when we were locking up people for long periods without trial, which I objected to. Many of these things come back to the fundamentals.

The EU is adding its weight. It has more power than the Council of Europe to deliver judgments and make those judgments stick, because penalties apply to things that the EU gets involved in. If we decided to break away from a European directive, we could, as a country, be fined. When, for example, Bulgaria refused to come up to scratch with its legal system, it had all its EU finances frozen until it brought itself up to a standard that was acceptable.

The EU might attract many criticisms, and at times I find it greatly irritating, but I am pleased that it is adding its weight to the need to look at things on a human rights basis and to report on that. That is what the proposal is about.

--- Later in debate ---

The decision to approve a new five-year work programme for the agency will continue to provide the Council with the authority to direct its work. The Government have successfully ensured that the proposal will not extend the ambit under which the agency functions. It will have no impact on the role or tasks of the agency. As such, the Government cannot support the amendment and I respectfully ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for responding so frankly. What he has said illustrates the farce we are in. As a result of the commendable passing of the European Union Act 2011, we are being asked to approve, among other things, the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency for the next five years. If we do not approve the programme, we have been told, “Don’t worry—they’re going to go ahead with it anyway and choose their own programme.” Similarly, as the Prime Minister told us earlier with regard to the multi-annual financial framework—the next seven-year budget for the European Union—if a real-terms reduction had not been agreed, it would have carried on spending more than had been agreed anyway. That shows the extent to which we have been tied up in knots by the European Union and its institutions. The evidence coming out of this debate will be prayed in aid by people such as me when we get into the hard issues of debating whether or not it would be better to stay in or leave the European Union. I see this as part of that debate.

This debate has raised a number of interesting points beyond the Minister’s insight into what our powers amount to in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) undertakes with extreme diligence his job as leader of the UK parliamentary group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He raised a number of serious issues. Such issues are being raised not just by him as leader of the UK delegation, but by a lot of other delegations. One such issue is that, at a time when the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe are being starved of resources, we can see with our own eyes that the 27 member countries of the European Union feel that they can throw money at the gravy train that is the Fundamental Rights Agency. Sadly, I did not hear an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister about what the Government are doing to stop that. They may be powerless to do anything about it, for the reasons given in his speech.

I do not think that that is good enough. We now have a situation in which we know that a lot of that money is being wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred in his excellent speech to undocumented migrants in Europe having access to health care. That was the very subject on the agenda at the Warsaw conference that I attended and on which I expounded on Second Reading. What a waste of money that was.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was concerned about the five-year delays in getting judgments. The European Court of Human Rights needs more money if it is to increase the speed with which it deals with its casework. It is not getting extra money because the 27 members of the European Union would prefer to spend their money on the Fundamental Rights Agency.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend not mean to say that the work load of the European Court of Human Rights should be severely reduced to leave more matters in the power of democratic member states? Surely he does not want more money to be spent at that level.

[Mr Chope]

As a lawyer—[Laughter.] As a non-practising lawyer, I believe that if somebody starts a case before the courts under the rule of law, it should reach a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. It is incumbent upon any organisation that operates a legal system to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the judges to reach decisions reasonably quickly.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend not agree with the Government’s very wise argument that we do not want so many appeals to the European Court of Human Rights and that individual litigants should be able to appeal only to our Supreme Court?

[Mr Chope]

I certainly agree with that in relation to our particular case. I look forward to debating that issue when we discuss the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill. Two months have gone by since the draft Bill was published and the Committee still has not been set up to consider it. However, that is another story.

[Mark Reckless]

Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that he objects to delay on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Again, I believe in the concept of reasonable expectations. Once a draft Bill has been produced and the Government have said that it will be put before a Joint Committee, I expect the Joint Committee to be appointed within a reasonable space of time. The Committee can then meet and decide its own timetable. However, I would not want to take issue unnecessarily with the Government on a matter such as that, which is relatively small in comparison with some of the other issues on which I have differences with the Government.

I would love to recommend to my colleagues that we divide on this subject, but having heard from the Minister that even if we carried a Division, it would be of no use whatever and might even be counter-productive, I am minded to say that the best thing to do is to hope that the Minister will take back the concerns over the misallocation of resources between the Council of Europe and the Fundamental Rights Agency, and that he will see what he can do to change the system so that the next time we have a debate like this, we have the power to control the agenda and the work programme, rather than being presented with a fait accompli, the alternative to which is even more latitude for the agency concerned.

The next amendment that we will discuss is more wide-ranging and I hope that the Minister will explain in a little more detail why that amendment cannot be accepted by the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Wayne David]

Clause 1 refers to the draft decisions on the Official Journal and the Fundamental Rights Agency.

I will refer to those two issues in a moment, but I would first like to say a little about clause 1(1), which sets out that when a decision is reached under article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, or the Lisbon treaty as it is known as, under section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 that decision must come before Parliament for ratification.

As connoisseurs of these matters will be aware, article 352 is quite controversial. It is the so-called flexibility or enabling clause, which allows decisions to be taken when there is no legal base for them. Its predecessor was article 308 of the European Community treaty. When I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, we produced an excellent report on article 308.

I am pleased that we have this new parliamentary power under the 2011 Act. I am sure that the Minister for Europe will recall that the Opposition consistently supported more powers for national Parliaments when the Bill was going through this House. The procedure with regard to article 352 is an important new power.

I was, however, concerned that the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), said last year in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee that an Act of Parliament was not required to enact the decision on the Fundamental Rights Agency because it satisfied the exemption requirement under section 8(6)(a) of the 2011 Act. That was rightly questioned by the European Scrutiny Committee. In a letter to the Committee on 22 November, the Government stated that they had had second thoughts and that legislation would be brought forward after all. That is one point to the European Scrutiny Committee.

I find it strange, given the initial difference of opinion between the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee, that there is not even a passing reference in the explanatory notes to why the Government at first considered the decision to be exempt and then had a change of heart. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee what changed between the summer and winter of last year that prompted the Government to alter their position. Eventually, the European Scrutiny Committee cleared the document, but it stated that the Government’s uncertainty—I would say vacillation—had led to an inordinate delay.

Clause 1(2)(a) is about giving binding legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal, as only the printed version currently has such veracity. This may be called the libation clause. I say that because, as I mentioned on Second Reading, this paragraph is required, in part at least, because of a ruling by the European Court of Justice on a case concerning the importation of red dessert wine into the Czech Republic.

After being fined for breaking customs law, Skoma-Lux, the company that imported the dessert wine, brought an action in a Czech regional court in an attempt to cancel the fine. The company argued that the wine should not be classified as standard red wine and that the Act of accession for the new member states that joined in 2003 was not legally binding because it had not been published in Czech in the paper version of the Official Journal.

After expert examination by the customs technical laboratory in Prague, the wine was indeed reclassified because, unlike most wines, it was made from grape juice that had added sugar and corn spirit. It was said that that did not change the

“organoleptic characteristic of the beverage”

but did cause the wine to have a sweet taste that cannot be achieved by “standard wine production”. Because the regional court was not sure whether that could be discerned by customs officers, the issue was referred to the European Court of Justice. Sadly, I have been unable to find out the view of the European Court of Justice on that matter. Perhaps the Minister for Europe can help us.

Although that is unclear, what is clear is that the European Court of Justice made a number of unequivocal statements with regard to the other point that was brought before it, namely the availability of EU law in the paper form of the Official Journal. The Court ruled that “making the legislation available” on the internet

“does not equate to a valid publication in the Official Journal of the European Union in the absence of any rules in that regard in Community law”.

In the light of that ruling, the European Commission agreed to bring forward a proposal. Political agreement was achieved at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of March 2012. Undoubtedly, easy access to EU law makes for speed and is economic, and it would obviously be advantageous to have legal certainty.

Earlier I mentioned reservations in this House about the use of article 352, but it is worth noting that scrutiny reservations are not confined to this Parliament. I understand that other Parliaments, especially those in the Czech Republic and Germany, also had concerns about article 352 and the possibility of decisions being taken without a given treaty base. On the legal status of the online Official Journal, I understand that Germany entered a parliamentary scrutiny reserve and therefore the German Government were unable to confirm their agreement. Will the Minister confirm whether the situation in Germany has been clarified, and that there are no problems in other member states?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for the Opposition’s support for this clause. He asked a couple of specific questions including why the Government changed their mind about the applicability of the exemption in the European Union Act 2011 to these measures. Originally, the Government thought that section 8 exemptions applied to a decision previously adopted under article 308 of the treaty. However, having reconsidered the issue of exemptions, and partly owing to the sterling work of the European Scrutiny Committee and its equivalent in another place, the Government concluded that decisions previously adopted under the legal base of article 308 do not fall within the exemptions in the 2011 Act. Therefore, along with future article 352 decisions that were previously adopted under article 308, such decisions will require parliamentary approval through primary legislation.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the state of play in Germany, and I am happy to assure him that Germany and all other member states have completed parliamentary scrutiny of this issue. The Council is awaiting the decision of the UK Parliament before the decision can be adopted.

We have discussed exhaustively the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency, and the hon. Gentleman made a good point that the other part of this clause is about allowing the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union to be regarded as an authentic version. I am sure the Committee will agree that in the modern world in which electronic communications are now as normal as paper communications, that is a sensible measure that will not increase costs for the UK and its taxpayers. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Approval of decision relating to number of EU Commissioners

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 18, at end insert

‘subject to a condition that the staff and resources available to members of the European Commission shall not be increased but redistributed for any number of EU Commissioners in excess of 27.’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

[Mr Chope]

The background to this, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, is that a reduction in the number of EU Commissioners was proposed, but the Irish—among others—said that that would potentially be very unfair on them. They wanted to be guaranteed the right to have a Commissioner and, as part of the compromise deal that was done to try to win the support of the Irish people in a referendum, the concession was made. They were told, “Don’t worry, every country can have an EU Commissioner.” We are now being asked to give approval to the decision relating to the number of EU Commissioners.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend explain why it is felt necessary that each country should have a Commissioner?

[Mr Chope]

It is difficult for me to speak for them, but perhaps some countries feel that only if they have a Commissioner of their own will they have sufficient patronage to distribute. It is within the patronage of any Government to appoint an EU Commissioner. For example, we have heard rumours that the way out for the Deputy Prime Minister will be to be appointed the next UK EU Commissioner.

[Mark Reckless]

Does my hon. Friend recall that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about that directly, and he assured the House that he would not be a candidate? If Ireland insisted on keeping its Commissioner in order to ratify the Lisbon treaty and we did not want to ratify it, why did we not say, “Well, this depends on a vote of this Parliament”, and why should we approve it if the aim is to help the Lisbon treaty get through?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to it with the benefit of his knowledge when he winds up. So often we talk hard on these EU issues—sometimes the Government and Ministers talk hard on them—but when we have it in our power to do something about them, we pull our punches and let the matter slide away. Especially now, in the build-up to the decision that the British people will be invited to take on whether we should leave the European Union, it is vital that the Government do not duck these issues, but face up to them.

I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House earlier today. It was against the background of it being pointed out in the German newspaper Die Welt that the Prime Minister was wrong to suggest that hundreds of eurocrats were paid more than him or Chancellor Merkel, because its research had shown that the actual figure is 4,365. The Prime Minister said how disappointed he was that the administrative costs will still be some 6% of the EU budget, and he said that reducing the level of those costs would be “a long-term project”. Well, this modest amendment would be a start.

Just because there will be more EU Commissioners, it does not mean that the expenditure incurred by them should increase pro rata. The amendment does not ask for any real-terms reduction in the total spent on EU Commissioners, but it suggests that the total amount spent at the moment should be redistributed among the 28 or 29 Commissioners.

[Philip Davies]

Obviously this is a sensible amendment that is totally in line with the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier today, and I presume that the Government cannot possibly disagree with it. Does my hon. Friend think that he has stumbled across another area in which the Government might have to admit that they do not in fact have the power to do what my hon. Friend would like them to do?

[Mr Chope]

I hope that that is not the case, although I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been tipped off about what the Minister will say in response to the debate. I cannot see the point of the Bill if we cannot pass an amendment that has been accepted as in order. The amendment would simply make it a condition of our acceptance of having an EU Commissioner for each member country that the total budget should not be increased if the number goes above 27, but should be shared among however many Commissioners there are. I would be amazed to be told that such a modest amendment was not within our power, especially when we know that it would be going in the direction of travel—to use that ghastly expression—of many other members of the European Union who are concerned that its administrative expenditure seems to absorb far too much money.

[Philip Davies]

Given the Minister’s form tonight, does my hon. Friend not expect him to say that even if the amendment were accepted, the EU would just carry on anyway and recruit the number of staff and expend the resources it wanted to, because it does not take any notice of decisions in this Parliament?

[Mr Chope]

That is a fair point, and it was reflected in what the Prime Minister said earlier. He said that the European Commission simply has not looked at what it can do to constrain its administrative expenditure. He has a lot of knowledge about that issue because he sees it face to face every time he goes to Brussels or any other European institution. He can see the amount of money wasted on bureaucracy in Brussels. There is obviously scope for a modest reduction, and that is why I had hoped that I would have already received notice that the Government intended to accept my amendment.

[Mr Nuttall]

Given that the decision by the European Council to maintain one Commissioner per country was taken only because of the result of the Irish referendums, and the decision by the Irish people to say no to the Lisbon treaty, would it not strengthen our Government’s hand in their attempt to cut the administration costs of the European Union if the Committee approved the amendment?

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, and I would have thought that this amendment would be supported by Opposition Members too, as they have been in the forefront of calling for a reduction in expenditure by the European Union. Whether or not they believe that sincerely, they have been calling for that.

[Philip Davies]

Is not the opposite point to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) more pertinent? What message would it send to the European Union about the Government’s determination to clamp down on administrative costs in the EU if they resisted such a modest amendment as this?

[Mr Chope]

That is a very powerful point. By their actions shall people and Parliaments be judged. This is how we are going to send out a message to our European partners. Are we really serious about these issues, or are we just going through the motions? I look forward to hearing from a Member of this House who thinks it is wrong to limit the expenditure of the European Commission to what it is at the moment so that it cannot be increased. If there are such Members, I hope that they will have the courage of their convictions and stand up. If that does not happen, then I hope the Government will accept the amendment. It gives me great pleasure to have moved this modest amendment. Looking at it, I wonder whether it is too modest. On the other hand, it would be better to get this on the record than to create too much controversy.

[Emma Reynolds]

With characteristic modesty, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has presented his amendment. He also discussed the scope of clause 2, and I wish to speak to that before I come on to his amendment.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the fact that there is a live debate on both the shape or membership of the European Commission and on financing it. Clause 2 provides for the current formula of one Commissioner per member state to be maintained at least for the next Commission. According to the explanatory notes, it also provides for a review of that decision either before the 2019 European Commission is formed or before the 30th member state joins the EU, whichever is sooner. We are having this debate today, we had a debate on it on Second Reading and it will continue to be debated. I want to highlight some of the points that were made on Second Reading.

There are two sides to this debate. On the one hand there is a complaint—one that I think we should listen to, and one I am sure other hon. Members will make—that the European Commission College of Commissioners has become too big and unwieldy. As the EU has grown to 27 member states—soon to be 28—there are simply too many Commissioners and that has had an effect on how it can take decisions. The other side of the argument, put powerfully and effectively by the Irish Government in recent years, is that for small member states the current formula of one Commissioner per member state guarantees an equality that would not otherwise be secured. That point has been made in the intergovernmental conference and the convention, in the constitutional treaty discussions and the Lisbon treaty negotiations by Ireland and other small member states, although not all. I mentioned last week that Denmark is of the opinion that although it does not want to give away that equality, it is worth giving it away in order to make the European Commission a more effective decision-making body.

Those are the two sides to the debate. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and I suggested that there is a case for considering different degrees of seniority. If we were to keep one Commissioner per member state, then, as with our system of government where there is a Secretary of State and Ministers beneath that level, we could keep one Commissioner per member state, but with degrees of seniority, which might make for more effective decision-making.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The amendment aims to freeze the number of staff and resources available to Commissioners at the level provided for 27 Commissioners, no matter how many such Commissioners there are. It seeks, therefore, to make the UK’s approval of the draft decision to revert to the system by which every EU member state has its own Commissioner dependent on that condition being implemented. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) as I cannot recommend that the Committee accept his amendment. There are three reasons for that that I hope will provide him with a measure of reassurance.

First, there are technical reasons concerning the consequences of my hon. Friend’s amendment. Secondly, there are certain safeguards within the current structure of the EU budget that mean that some of the dangers about which he is concerned ought not to arise. Thirdly, I hope to give him clear reassurances both about the Government’s robust commitment to seeking every opportunity to secure greater economies and efficiencies in EU expenditure and about some of the negotiations and instruments where those objectives that he and I share might be achieved.

I completely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the need to improve efficiency in all EU institutions, including the European Commission, but we need to be clear about what the consequences would be were this amendment to be carried. The Bill provides simply for the approval of the draft EU Council decision on the number of EU Commissioners. The draft decision provides neither the scope to change the allocation of resources within the Commission nor the power or opportunity to influence the overall EU budgetary ceilings, the individual budget headings, either on a multi-annual or annual basis, or the allocation of resources within each of those budgetary headings. Were it to be carried, therefore, the amendment would leave the UK unable to agree to the change proposed to the number of Commissioners, but would not provide the means by which to alter EU expenditure in the way that he is seeking.

[Mr Chope]

Surely if the Government were to accept this amendment all that would happen is that my right hon. Friend or the Prime Minister would go along and say to their counterparts in other European countries, “I’m afraid we can’t agree to this unless you agree that you won’t increase expenditure as a result of having additional commissioners.” They would accept that, would they not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend looks at what the Prime Minister achieved last week—against expectations in some parts of this House and outside it—and if he looks at the significant moves taken towards fisheries reform in recent weeks, I think he would see evidence to show that it is possible for a determined and energetic UK Government working closely with like-minded allies to secure the kind of reforms to the European Union that both he and I would wish to see enacted.

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I want to return to his point about efficiencies and expenditure.

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps this intervention will facilitate that. I ask my right hon. Friend whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) was correct in saying that the administrative ceiling is going to increase by 8%. If so, how is that consistent with everything that my right hon. Friend is saying? Why would they need to spend more money on administration?

[Mr Lidington]

I would wish heading 5 on administration to be a lot lower than was provided for in the package negotiated last week. It is up compared with 2006 to 2013, but it is down by €1 billion from the proposals brought forward by the European Commission and President Van Rompuy at the November European Council meeting. I was being told by the Commission as late as December last year that that reduction was completely impossible as it would lead to the inability to recruit staff or to deliver key services, yet there has been that significant reduction. I am the first to acknowledge to my hon. Friend that I wish we could have got unanimous agreement to go a lot further and that we need to return to the charge.

[Mr Lidington]

I may be able to put on record the exact figure later on, but I do not have it in the notes in front of me at the moment.

The other opportunities lie in measures such as the staffing regulations for EU institutions, which are the subject of negotiations at the moment. It is those regulations that govern the salaries, the pensions, the tax status—or perhaps the non-tax status—of EU staff. Those regulations govern such matters as allowances, on which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I would be in agreement. It is impossible to justify objectively the payment of an expatriate allowance to staff who are working in Brussels rather than London or Paris and who have in some cases been working there for well over a decade yet still receive this expatriate allowance to recognise the apparent hardship of having to work in the Berlaymont.

There are many opportunities that we can and should seek for reform. The Government are determined to do that, and I believe that they have strong support in the House for so doing. However, it remains in the interests of the United Kingdom for this decision to be ratified. I hope that, having heard what I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and to be confident in the Government’s resolve to continue to work for the greatest possible economy and efficiency in every part of the European Union’s work.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his full response to the concerns that have been expressed this evening and the concerns that gave rise to my modest amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for agreeing with me in spirit, which is something that I certainly value.

I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the Committee’s attention to the prediction that the administrative ceiling will rise by some 8%, a figure that seems to be pretty much undisputed. That demonstrates the truth of an observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). If it is as difficult as it seems to have been to bring about a zero increase in the EU’s administrative budget, how difficult will it be to win back those powers and responsibilities for our own Parliament during the negotiations leading up to the referendum? That just shows how tough a job it is to make any progress in the European Union.

I accept my right hon. Friend’s view that there are difficulties with my amendment, and that it would have, as he put it, technical consequences. However, one does despair when, following all the excitement associated with the power effectively to veto these proposals under the European Union Act 2011, as soon as we start threatening to use the veto—or even arguing for a modest amendment, or for the attachment of a condition to something that the European Union wants to change —we are told “Oh, we cannot do that, it would be ever so difficult”.

I am sure that you share my frustration, Mr Hoyle. We discuss all this stuff, and then, when we reach the end of the debate, it seems that we have travelled no further in terms of substance. We appear to have thrown in the towel in allowing an increase in the number of Commissioners, and it will be very easy for the Commission to increase its expenditure if there is an 8% increase in its ceiling for administration.

However, the debate has provided an opportunity for everyone to see exactly what battle we must fight with the European Union if we are to win back any substantive powers. Furthermore, because I am as concerned as many of my hon. Friends about the hard deal that people in rural areas have had as a result of the local government settlement, I do not want to eat into the time that is available for the debate on that subject by pressing for a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Antarctic Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

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

I am grateful for the interest that so many people have shown in my Bill. I shall begin by talking about the Antarctic in general terms, before explaining why the Bill is so important and dealing with the key parts of it.

Many of us know where the Antarctic is, but let me be absolutely clear and say that it contains the south pole. It is the fifth largest continent in the world, and is one and a half times the size of the United States of America. So it is a big place, and hence an important place. The House may be interested to know that the first birth of a human being there occurred in 1978, so it really is exceptionally cold; I am sure that Members are able to make the link. The Antarctic is almost completely—98%—covered in ice, and if all that ice melted, we would find ourselves with a sea level about 60 metres higher than it currently is. The scale of the continent is formidable.

Our history in relation to the Antarctic goes back a long way, and the expeditions of Shackleton and Scott are emblematic of this country’s interest in it. I salute all who were involved in those expeditions, particularly Robert Scott’s last expedition. I shall say more about the subject later, but I think it important for us to recognise at this stage that Britain has always been very involved and interested in the Antarctic, as the Bill demonstrates and emphasises.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having taken his Bill this far. He has not yet mentioned Argentina, which, I understand, also has a great interest in the Antarctic. Why does his Bill make no reference to that country?

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend asks a useful and important question, which, ironically, lies at the heart of the Bill. We have a treaty relationship which effectively controls our relationships with other nation states and our activities in the Antarctic. By ensuring that the treaty is applied to domestic law and is strengthened, we are strengthening our own British presence, and thus issuing a challenge in any dispute that we might have with the Argentine Government. That is one of the key reasons why the Bill should be allowed to proceed.

There are two more general points to be made in connection with the Bill—

EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

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

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

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

“may be involved in briefing the European Parliament.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

That may be the view of officials at the Council of Europe, but it is certainly not the view of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly. In a debate at the last part-session, members from all political parties and from right across the 47 member states expressed grave concern about the duplication and the additional cost involved in this project. Why are we spending money on this project in an age of austerity?

[Mr Lidington]

The budget for the special representative and his or her office and team has to be found from within the existing budget of the External Action Service. It will therefore have to be found at the expense of other potential items of expenditure. I have no doubt that some people will argue that, given the creation of the role, a bigger budget is needed, as with any EU special representative role, but we do not accept that. We continually resist calls for increases in annual and multi-annual budgets and seek to bear down on the costs of, and to secure better value for money in, individual special representatives’ missions and common security and defence missions more generally. I do not want my hon. Friend to think that this will lead to a vast new bill.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be able to participate briefly in this very important debate and to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I congratulate and thank him, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and all its other members for putting the spotlight on this important issue.

My hon. and learned Friend said that the UK Government must make it clear that they will not countenance anything unlawful. The question is whether anything in the treaty is unlawful, and that is where the rule of law comes in. My understanding is that one of the most important elements of the rule of law is that the law should be clear and easily understood; otherwise, it is very difficult for people to know whether they are complying with it. Over the years, ambiguity has been the hallmark of the laws that the EU and the European Court of Justice have gradually developed, which have been against this country’s best interests.

What is in the treaty is very unclear, as my noble Friend Lord Howell, the Foreign Office Minister, made apparent when he said in the other place:

“There has been much comment about the use of the European Union institutions, and I want to come to that. The new agreement sets out limited roles…The legal implications are complicated and hinge upon how the agreement is implemented. It is for this reason that we have reserved our position.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 936.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) asked, what is the point in reserving our position? If we remain silent, it could be interpreted as an estoppel or a consent to what is going on.

Why are not the Government asking the European Court of Justice to interpret the treaty now? The ECJ will have a role in interpreting the arrangements for the European Union’s accession to the European convention on human rights. If it can do that, why cannot it examine the treaty? We would then know exactly what it thought about the legality or otherwise of the treaty. If we wait for it to interpret the treaty, we will find that it does so in a purposive manner, in accordance with the principle that it is right and proper for the EU to have more and more power. Why do we not get a proper and authoritative interpretation of the treaty now, before we proceed?

If one needed any ammunition to support the principle that the treaty is ambiguous, one would need look no further than the opinion of the Council of Ministers. Four questions are asked in it and the answers are set out, and they confirm that it is incredibly ambiguous.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right.

The convention played an important role after the second world war in re-establishing democracy and the rule of law across western Europe. It played a vital role after the cold war in leading the former states of the Soviet Union and its satellites to start adopting the principles of democratic liberalism. The convention remains crucial in tackling the murder of journalists in Russia, for example, or questions of religious freedom in Turkey. There are also telling recent examples of its relevance here at home—for example, in preventing the misuse of stop-and-search powers.

The problem is not with the fundamental principles of human rights expressed through the convention, but there are real issues that rightly cause concern in this House and more widely—issues that, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, matter to all countries that are party to the convention and members of the Council of Europe. Those relate to the operation of the Court in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the Court and recognises its important role, but it is not working as it should, for at least two reasons.

First, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds rightly said, it is struggling under a huge workload, and drowning under a backlog of more than 150,000 cases, which is growing by roughly 20,000 additional cases each year. The eightfold increase in case loads since 2001 shows that a sensible refocusing on what really matters is not a subject that can simply be deferred for another day; it is an urgent priority.

That urgency is illustrated further by the fact that more than 90% of cases before the Court, when they finally get to the top of the queue and are properly considered, or found to be inadmissible, simply do not come within the scope of the convention, or the procedural rules are found not to have been observed. For cases involving the United Kingdom that figure is higher. Roughly 97% of cases brought against the United Kingdom are found to be inadmissible—and that is before we get on to whether in the other cases—the minority—the finding is for or against the country alleged to have broken the terms of the convention. The backlog is the first reason why there is an urgent need to reform the court.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend announced yesterday that the Government will host a conference at Wilton Park on the theme of the 2020 vision for the European Court of Human Rights. Will he confirm that members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly will be invited to participate in the conference?

[Mr Lidington]

I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend’s interest in participating and will ensure that the participation of members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly is properly considered. I will make sure that I consider it myself.

National Referendum on the European Union

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

In essence, the debate is about whether we are representatives of the people, or delegates of the Government or the shadow Government. I think that those who have argued today in support of our being representatives of the people have won the debate—a debate in which I am proud to have been able to participate, having sat here for the best part of five and a half hours.

This time last night I was at a polling station in Tunisia, observing the election results. People were queuing for more than three hours just to exercise their right to vote. It is vital that, in Tunisia and in this country, the people do not elect representatives and then find that those representatives go back on their word. There is a certain worry in Tunisia that that may happen in the case of the party with the most votes. I believe, however, that in this country participation in elections has been plummeting because on too many occasions we have promised something to the electorate and then let them down.

I do not think that we should hold a referendum until we have had a chance to conduct a proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of our membership of the European Union. In the last Parliament I tabled a Bill to achieve just that, which was supported by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. Now neither of those Front Benches supports the idea of such an audit. Why not? I think that that is indicative of the present cynicism about the issue of Europe.

As for timing, many people have forgotten that the forthcoming seven-year budget presents us with a great opportunity. Once every seven years, we have a veto over the EU budget. I think it a pity that the Foreign Secretary effectively indicated today that he was satisfied that we would be doing very well if the next seven-year budget contained only an increase in line with inflation. We are telling local authorities and people working for Governments that they must make real-terms cuts. Why are the Government selling us short by not entering into those negotiations in a much more hard-headed way? If we pass this motion, or give it a tremendous amount of support, it will strengthen the Government’s hand in their efforts to secure a better deal and negotiate a reduction in our contribution to the EU budget, rather than a real-terms increase. The Government have fallen short of their responsibilities to the people on too many occasions, and the message coming from the House tonight is that the Government must listen and the EU must listen and we, the people, must press the point home that we want a referendum. We want to trust the people.

Inter-Parliamentary Scrutiny (EU Foreign, Defence and Security Policy)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House pays tribute to the work of the European Security and Defence Assembly and the members of the UK Delegation; notes the continuing need for coordinated scrutiny by national parliaments of intergovernmental activities under the EU’s foreign, defence and security policies; welcomes the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Future inter-parliamentary scrutiny of EU foreign, defence and security policy, HC 697; and approves its approach to delivering that scrutiny.

Having just listened to the passionate speech by my good friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), I feel a bit of a spoilsport in bringing on such a dry subject, but that is democracy. Anyway, I congratulate her on her speech.

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report that we are debating today puts forward a proposal for intergovernmental scrutiny of the EU common foreign and security policy, including the common security and defence policy, following the demise of the Western European Union, including its parliamentary assembly, in mid-2011. Along with other national Parliaments, this House finds itself having to have this debate today because it was left somewhat in the lurch by the decision of national Governments to dissolve the Western European Union. The WEU has carried out active and serious international parliamentary oversight of the EU’s common security and defence policy for many years. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the assembly and the UK delegation to it. In particular, I would mention my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), as the president of the assembly and leader of the UK delegation.

Following the decision to dissolve the WEU, member state Governments, including in the UK, have encouraged national Parliaments to come up with successor arrangements to the WEU assembly, to provide continuing inter-parliamentary scrutiny. In response, an ad hoc committee was formed comprising me, as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, and Lords Roper and Teverson, as Chairs of the House of Lords Select Committee on European Union and its Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy. We met and decided to refer the matter to the Speaker and invite him to make an appointment to chair an ad hoc committee to address the issue.

Somewhat to our surprise, the Speaker declined to get involved in this debate. As a result, the ad hoc committee met again and considered what proposals to put forward. A proposal, which subsequently became the basis of the report that we are debating today, was agreed by the Members present and endorsed by their Committees. Unfortunately, due to an administrative cock-up, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset was not present, but his evidence was taken into account as, fortunately, he had given us written evidence. We decided that the best way to proceed would be for the two Houses to adopt a formal public position on the arrangements for the WEU Assembly’s successor, and for a relevant proposal to be presented to each House in the form of a Select Committee report.

The House is today being asked to endorse an approach to this issue which is not the Foreign Affairs Committee’s alone; our deliberations form the basis of the report, but it has been endorsed by three Select Committees: the FAC, the European Scrutiny Committee and the Defence Committee. I am grateful to those Committees, their Chairmen and their members for their co-operation. The House should also be made aware that the proposal being put forward in the FAC report has also been put forward by the House of Lords European Union Committee in a report of its own. That Committee will ask the full House of Lords to endorse its report, but it is waiting for the Commons to reach a decision and to act.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I have been looking at the formal minutes of 12 January of the decisions to which my hon. Friend has referred. Can he explain why an amendment proposing that this matter should be decided on a free vote was turned down by the Committee on his casting vote? Surely, if ever anything was free vote business, it is the question of whether Parliament supports the line being taken by the Select Committee.

[Richard Ottaway]

I just took the view that a free vote was not appropriate. It was a simple subjective judgment; it was as straightforward as that.

The key objective of the report and of the motion before the House today is to ensure that the WEU Assembly has a successor. We want scrutiny of intergovernmental activity to continue with national Parliaments in the lead. I say to the House, however, that if national Parliaments do not get their act together, there is a risk that inter-parliamentary scrutiny will wither and that the European Parliament will, by default, take over the main role in this field. There is therefore a responsibility on national Parliaments in this respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Ottaway]

It was felt that the European Parliament has some expertise in this area, but the hon. Gentleman leads me neatly on to the details of our proposals that I was about to set out. The European Parliament would have the same sized delegation to the proposed conference as all other Parliaments, which is six members. With the 20-plus members of the EU each having six members, and only six from the European Parliament, it is clear that the European Parliament will not be in a dominant position. I will come back to the rival proposal in a few moments.

What is proposed is that, as set out in the Lisbon treaty, we establish an EU inter-parliamentary conference on foreign affairs, defence and security, to be known as COFADS, which would meet twice a year. Its members would be the EU national Parliaments and the European Parliament; the Parliaments of the EU candidate countries—Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro and Turkey—would be invited to attend as observers. The conference would be able, but not obliged, to adopt conclusions by consensus, which would not be binding on participants or their Parliaments. It would replace the current informal conferences of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairs and Defence Committee Chairs, known respectively as COFACC and CODCC.

The urgency of today’s debate is connected with the fact that the Assembly of the Western European Union has already held its last regular plenary session and will hold an extraordinary final session in May. The forum that is trying to establish agreement on a future inter-parliamentary scrutiny committee is the EU Speakers’ conference, which will meet on 4 and 5 April. It will consider a proposal presented by the Belgian presidency, on which comments are invited. They must be submitted by 14 March, hence the need for the debate to be held today.

The Speakers’ conference is already aware of the Foreign Affairs Committee report and the parallel report from the House of Lords. If the House of Commons approves the Foreign Affairs Committee report today, we will of course make that known to the conference, and the Speaker or his representative at the conference will be able to refer to the motion. Given the United Kingdom’s importance in relation to European foreign, defence and security issues, the express view of the Westminster Parliament could be expected to carry considerable weight.

The Belgian presidency proposal—the rival proposal—would put the European Parliament in a stronger position than the proposal in the FAC report. Under the Belgian proposal, the European Parliament would be able to send up to a third of the participants in the new conference. It would co-chair the rotating presidency country Parliament, and it would provide the secretariat. In my judgment, that is not the kind of national Parliament-led forum that we want. It is not in keeping with the intergovernmental nature of the common foreign and security policy. Today’s debate, and the motion, constitute a key part of the effort to get that message across to the Speakers’ conference.

The FAC report has been widely circulated, and efforts are under way to seek support actively. I am able to report, with pleasure, that either through the passage of resolutions or through correspondence, the French, Swedish, Czech and Portuguese Parliaments, or committees thereof, have already indicated their support for the model proposed in the FAC report rather than the proposal from the Belgian presidency. It would therefore be a matter of some international difficulty, not to mention embarrassment, if the House were to decline to endorse the approach that we have taken.

[Mr Chope]

Is not the problem with the approach being taken by my hon. Friend and his Committee that it excludes parliamentarians from non-EU European NATO countries, whose inclusion was a specific requirement laid down by the Minister for Europe when he first responded to this process?

[Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. The candidate countries will, of course, be invited to attend as observers and to participate fully. Given that there will be no votes in the committee, they would in practice be fully engaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I think that my hon. Friend has missed the point. We are not talking only about candidate countries; we are also talking about non-EU members of NATO, such as Norway. I am not aware that Norway has any aspiration to join the EU.

[Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend is quite right. There is also the question of Albania, which is to be resolved but which is one of the issues that the Speakers’ conference will have to address.

I leave it to the Minister to set out the Government’s position, but I will say that the Minister for Europe participated in several of the meetings that I have held with my colleagues on this issue. I thank him for his co-operation, and thank his officials for their help.

When national Governments disbanded the WEU, they also effectively withdrew their funding and left Parliaments responsible for finding the resources that would enable them to continue their inter-parliamentary scrutiny. In formulating our proposals for a successor, we have had our eye very much on the international budgetary situation, and the need to have scrutiny while setting that against considerations of cost and the risk of being seen to be establishing a new EU talking shop. Keeping costs to a minimum has been a guiding principle of our proposals, and that underpins our wish to see as much as possible done through existing institutions, the national Parliaments and the COSAC secretariat.

That is the approach that the Foreign Affairs Committee considers appropriate, and I urge the House to support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

France has only just rejoined NATO. It does not have quite the same weight in NATO councils as ourselves, Germany and Italy. We have a real problem.

We could have been a lot more robust about preserving the Western European Union. The idea was put to me when I was a Minister, but it was one of those topics that just get put back in the box in the hope that it dies. The last Labour Government and their Foreign and Commonwealth Office team should not be awfully proud of that. The WEU was not the greatest organisation in the world, but it did bring together serious, real-life parliamentarians from countries that were directly involved in military activities. Instead, we have now got an absolute disaster of a sequence of proposals, of which I worry most about the proposal from the presidency of the EU, which is currently held by Belgium. I do not know where that proposal comes from because Belgium does not have a Government to put a proposal forward.

We heard some interesting comments in this week’s debate on the EU referendum Bill from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. He started animadverting on something called a non-paper and treated the concept with immense scorn, but a non-paper or aide memoire is quite a common bit of diplomatic terminology. However, this is the first time that the current House of Commons has had to deal with a very major proposal relegating its importance, and coming from a non-Government.

I hope we can be robust on this issue, because let us be quite clear: the Belgian presidency proposal sets up a new committee of which six members will come from the Westminster Parliament—both Houses—and 54 from the European Parliament, so it will have nine times more representatives on the committee. Having spent some time in the couloirs of European Union decision making, let me assure Members that a proposal put forward by the country holding the EU presidency carries a lot more weight than a resolution of any particular committee of any particular national Parliament, much as we all respect, love and admire our own Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Mr Chope]

The situation is even worse than the right hon. Gentleman describes, because the Belgian presidency proposal is that each Parliament would have four representatives, while the European Parliament would have 54.

[Mr MacShane]

There we are. I never get to eat as many Belgian chocolates as I would wish, and the amount is going down minute by minute. I thought the figure was six, but now it is four, which amounts to 13 or 14 times less representation than that of the European Parliament.

The Foreign Affairs Committee report is what the French would call a nombriliste discussion, which is to say a lot of navel gazing. It is a discussion about different bits of the axis between your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Woolsack. There is some reference to the Speaker not appointing a Chair. I am very interested in what the constitutional and parliamentary reasons for, or implications of, that are, but this is about what we say to each other in three Select Committees in this House and two in the other place. What is not on the record is what we should have been doing. We are utterly incapable of doing this, although we actually did start debating the matter a bit on Tuesday. I am talking about working out how we connect this House to other national Parliaments and parliamentarians in order to discuss EU business.

It is no use just sitting on endless piles of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph in London or telling each other across the Chamber about these wretched things called the European Union and the European Parliament, which some hon. Members do not like. We need to reorganise how we link up with many like-minded members of national Parliaments to put in place a more effective national parliamentary network to look at how the affairs of the European Union can better mesh and integrate with the work of national Parliaments. That is because, in essence, a huge transfer of authority is taking place away from the now defunct WEU to the European Union and the European Parliament. We do, however, have the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which is a very worthwhile outfit, to which many of the member states that will now be excluded can come and others can come by invitation.

We are seeing that Europe is completely unable to respond to the Libyan crisis in the southern Mediterranean with a degree of muscular soft power or slightly less than full military hard power. In our debates, we find that the new structure being proposed is expected to provide the European parliamentary supervision of exactly the decisions that are or are not being taken on Libya and the other north African countries in revolt. A Heads of Government meeting will take place tomorrow, and I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and his team well in coming up with a policy that can connect, but it will have to have some parliamentary oversight. We are already being told no to war. We are being told that NATO must not intervene. We can sense a protest building out there, whereby if this country were to be involved in some kind of decision, with or without UN sanctions, that might produce a public opinion backlash. Again, we have given up adequate parliamentary supervision and discussion of these issues. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), who valiantly tried to keep the WEU alive, made all sorts of concessions and worked with colleagues, but was steamrollered by Whitehall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walter]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I think it goes a little beyond the scope of the motion. However, we and the Assembly of which I have the honour to be president are dealing with what are almost entirely intergovernmental structures consisting of European Union member states and other states in Europe such as Turkey, which has been mentioned several times, Norway or Iceland. We come together as willing partners in collective defence and security operations. Community institutions are not in any way relevant to our debate today; we are debating intergovernmental functions that are entered into freely.

My final point on the Foreign Affairs Committee report relates to the reference to the EU Speakers’ Conference, which will take place in April. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has already referred to the Belgian text—Belgium holds the EU presidency—which proposes an inter-parliamentary conference for common foreign and security policy and common security and defence policy, composed of delegations of the national Parliaments of EU member states. Paragraph 2 of that text suggests:

“Each national parliamentary delegation shall consist of four members.”

Paragraph 3 requests that

“The total number of delegates from the European Parliament shall not exceed one third of the members of the Conference.”

Therefore, if there are 108 members from national Parliaments, there will be 54 from the European Parliament.

On a reasonably rough approximation the UK and France together contribute around 60% of Europe’s defence budget, and we will have eight votes between us. However, the European Parliament, which makes absolutely no contribution to Europe’s defence budget, has no troops at its disposal, does not buy any aircraft carriers or other warships, aircraft or fighters, and has no troops deployed anywhere in the world, will have 54 votes. Is that the right proportion in terms of democratic accountability? I hasten to suggest that it is probably an imbalance. I am not averse to the European Parliament having some role and that its voice should be heard, but the presumption that its voice should somehow be considerably greater than that of the United Kingdom, France and others that contribute to Europe’s defence is nonsense.

The Belgian text goes on to suggest:

“The Conference shall have its seat in the European Parliament in Brussels. Meetings shall be organized twice a year in Brussels or in the country holding the rotating Council Presidency…The meetings shall jointly be presided over by the national Parliament of the Member State holding the rotating Council Presidency and the European Parliament.”

That means that responsibility is now to be divided 50:50. Paragraph 9 proposes:

“The secretariat of the Conference shall be provided by the European Parliament.”

The agenda will be set by the European Parliament, the conference will meet in the European Parliament and one third of the conference’s members will be Members of the European Parliament. My view is that that body will simply be an extraordinary meeting of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee: twice a year, it will invite Members of national Parliaments to come along to Brussels to hear what it has been doing. It will not be exercising genuine parliamentary scrutiny.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he accept that what is proposed is inconsistent with article 10 of protocol 1 of the treaty on the European Union, which mentions a conference of parliamentary committees submitting contributions for the attention of the European Parliament? That is completely different from what is being proposed by the Belgian presidency.

[Mr Walter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to become too legalistic, but I will refer to a number of principles that I and colleagues have laid down that suggest we should have a much stronger inter-parliamentary standing conference. The principles on which we based that suggestion are all entirely consistent with the Lisbon treaty, which I know my hon. Friend and others were not enthusiasts for; none the less it is where we are.

Article 12 of the Lisbon treaty states:

“National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union.”

Article 10 of protocol states:

“A conference”—

which my hon. Friend has just referred to—

“of Parliamentary Committees for Union affairs may…organise interparliamentary conferences on specific topics, in particular to debate matters of common foreign and security policy, including common security and defence policy.”

The most important words in the treaty are in declaration 14, which states:

“The Conference also notes that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy do not…increase the role of the European Parliament.”

In fact, the European Parliament has therefore no new competence as a result of the Lisbon treaty, but if we read the Parliament’s documents we find that it assumes that it does have that new role. Even if it does not, it is jolly well going to grab it and take it, because national Parliaments are doing nothing about it. That is why we need a strong functioning body. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you do not propose to call my amendment, but the spirit of my proposal was that we should have a much stronger body than that which the Foreign Affairs Committee proposes.

We propose a standing conference of inter-parliamentary representatives, which would carry on the work of the European Security and Defence Assembly, the Assembly of the Western European Union, enabling us to have effective inter-parliamentary scrutiny that would embrace at least the ground that it covered and include the five non-EU European NATO members, who provide considerable support to the work of the European Union and, collectively, to European defence.

We believe that that inter-parliamentary standing conference could be based in Brussels. It could have been based in Paris, but the Minister tells us that we are going to sell the building, so it cannot. The conference’s prime role would be to engage on European foreign affairs and defence issues with the Council of the European Union, its supporting and executive agencies, member Governments and Parliaments as appropriate. Recommendations and opinions would be made, but they would not necessarily bind national Parliaments.

The Council of the European Union, and especially the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, would make regular reports to that standing conference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), who obviously feels passionately about the organisation that he has been chairing, which is about to go out of existence. I can understand his frustration. I appreciate many of the points that he made, particularly his attack on those in the European Parliament whose view of their organisation is that it is somehow superior to national Parliaments and should be the body that scrutinises defence, security and foreign policy matters to the minimisation, or potential exclusion, of national Parliaments. That is something that we have to confront.

This debate is really about how we put into practice the Lisbon treaty requirement that there be a mechanism within the European Union based on national parliamentary committees coming together and co-operating to deal with matters that are dealt with on a national co-operative basis, not a communautaire basis. There is a deep philosophical difference in the views of those Members of the European Parliament. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and I were in discussion with them when we visited Brussels in September. Some of them have a view, and a model, that goes even further than the paper produced by the Belgian Council presidency—a federalist view that says that the European Parliament is the supreme democratic body on all matters to do with the European Union.

We need to be very clear about this. There will be a negotiation, and the position that our Parliament and other national Parliaments put forward will probably not be its final outcome. It is therefore important that we lay down some principles about where we are starting from. The work that the Foreign Affairs Committee has done in this Parliament began in the previous Parliament when I was discussing this with the then Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), just before the general election. We had been presented with this situation, and we were trying to find a way to secure some accountability and a mechanism, knowing that Parliament was going to be dissolved and that it would be some months before new Committees were established. We were trying at that point to get some initiatives based on the successful work over several years of the Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairpersons, or COFACC, and the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union, or COSAC, which are the two bodies that bring together the representatives of Foreign Affairs Committees and European Scrutiny Committees periodically to discuss common concerns. That is not a perfect model and it probably needs some beefing up and development.

We must be aware of the danger that there are people in the European Parliament who want a permanent, well-funded secretariat based in the European Parliament, serviced by people who serve its Committee on Foreign Affairs. Those people have an ideological dispensation towards a certain approach to foreign, security and defence policy matters. We need to find a mechanism that takes account of the clear point in the Lisbon treaty that the body should be based not on the European Parliament, but on bringing together the national Parliaments. After it is established, the national Parliaments might decide to co-opt or bring in representatives who attended the meetings of the assembly of the Western European Union. They might also decide, in time, to establish a secretariat of their own to assist the rotating troika model that we have put forward in the report. Basing the mechanism on the rotation may well not be perfect. From time to time, there is a presidency country that has more resources and a greater ability to host such meetings.

From my experience of attending COFACC meetings over five years, that is a very good model. We did not have interminable discussions over the entrails of commas and full stops in meaningless resolutions that would never go anywhere, but had a real exchange of views. People such as Mr Solana, Cathy Ashton, and the Foreign Minister or Prime Minister of the country that had the Council presidency came before us, answered questions and were accountable to the spectrum of opinion from the 27 member states.

Today, we frankly either have to agree to this report or have no position. If we have no position, we are effectively undermining our friends in like-minded countries. I had discussions with the Speaker of the Portuguese Parliament in January last year when the Foreign Affairs Committee visited Lisbon and when this idea was first developed. Concerns have been expressed in like-minded European Union countries about the aggrandisement, or even quasi-megalomania, of some in the European Parliament in relation to how these matters should go forward post the Lisbon treaty. If we have no position, we will undermine the work of our partner countries that are on the same wavelength as us, to which the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee referred. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who is not present at the moment, to point out that France is not an insignificant country in the European Union. We have friends in a diverse group of countries, including Finland and Portugal, who hold similar views about how defence, security and foreign policy should be scrutinised and how accountability should be dealt with.

We have not reached the final position, because there will have to be negotiation and there will probably be an almighty row. People in the European Parliament who do not like the suggested model will clearly resist it. Some countries, such as Belgium, will do so—I could make a joke about chocolate soldiers, but I will not, because it is an old joke from a previous decade. The Belgians are not alone—there are people in Germany, Italy and other European countries who have a similar attitude to the European Parliament and its aspirations. We need to come to a view today that helps the debate and clarifies it for the future.

[Mr Chope]

We do not need to come to a view today in adopting the Committee’s report. At the beginning of April, Mr Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), will represent Mr Speaker at the conference. I am sure that he will faithfully reflect the balance of opinion in today’s debate when he represents this Parliament at that conference. It will not be suggested that we are not doing anything, because we are achieving a lot through today’s debate.

[Mike Gapes]

I would rather we had a clear position to guide our representatives when they take part in those negotiations. Of course, a negotiation ultimately leads to some movement and compromise. From the thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for North Dorset, I believe that although he is not entirely happy with the report, he is more happy with it than the approach that came from the Belgian Council presidency.

We have a choice today. I have to declare an interest as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee who was involved in the discussions on the matter in the early days, before the report was agreed. Nevertheless, I am very pleased that the Committee’s members from three parties have reached a consensus view, which also reflects the view expressed by the Committee in the last Parliament.

We have had experience of attending seminars organised by the European Parliament from time to time. National parliamentarians are sat at the end of the row, then some man who has been elected with about 3% of the popular vote in his country proceeds to denounce the views of a whole delegation of national parliamentarians, who collectively might represent 95% of the popular vote in their country. That is the nature of the debates in the European Parliament on these matters.

We, as national parliamentarians, have to take the political heat on the doorstep when matters of life and death are involved. We have to debate issues such as Afghanistan, whether we should establish no-fly zones, humanitarian interventions and the responsibility to protect people in north Africa. The people who have to be held democratically accountable for those matters are not the Members of the European Parliament but the members of the national Parliaments.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has rejoined us. One thing I agree with him about—he will be able to read what I said earlier about where I disagree with him—is that we in this House do not scrutinise European matters adequately. We need to get our act together rapidly, because those issues become more and more important. The report is at least an attempt, with co-ordination between different Select Committees and our colleagues in the other place, to get a common British view to put into the important international process. I therefore hope that the House will endorse the report today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to respond to today’s important debate. I notice on the Order Paper that this afternoon the House had the opportunity to consider the question, “What do Ministers do?” The House might find it helpful, therefore, to know that the Minister for Europe, at this very moment, is meeting the Danish State Secretary and other parliamentarians in Copenhagen to discuss the Danish presidency of the European Union in 2012, and other EU and NATO issues. That is why, despite not having specific departmental responsibilities for Europe, I have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Foreign Office this afternoon.

I thank and pay tribute, in particular, to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), for all his work, and to other Members who have contributed this afternoon, including the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and the former Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). I am grateful to them all for their insights into the future workings of, and arrangements for, scrutiny of defence matters across Europe, and their experiences of how it has functioned in the past.

In getting to this point, I welcome the positive dialogue that the Government have enjoyed over the past year with interested MPs and peers on this issue. I know that the Minister for Europe is grateful for the close engagement and leadership of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Chairman of the European Union Select Committee in the other place. Since its formation after the second world war, the Western European Union Assembly has served to promote consultation and co-operation on defence and security matters in western Europe. I pay tribute to the efforts of Members here and in the other place, both past and present, who have played an important role in pursuing United Kingdom and European interests through the Assembly.

The closure of the WEU and its Assembly does not mean that member states do not recognise the value and importance of parliamentarians taking part in debate with their peers on European defence. The Government attach importance to parliamentary scrutiny of the EU’s common security and defence policy, and want to ensure that the cross-European parliamentary debate on European defence issues currently performed by the WEU Assembly continues. Inter-parliamentary discussion serves to enhance and enlighten the national scrutiny work of Parliaments and complements the breadth of knowledge that already exists in the House. That is a good thing, so we wish this overall endeavour well.

Let me be clear about the Government’s role in the process. In March last year, Governments across Europe decided to close the WEU, the bulk of its functions having already been transferred to the European Union. In doing so, we recognise the value of continuing inter-parliamentary debate on European defence and security policy. To ensure that a future forum could be established to facilitate that, we have worked to help discussions with interested parliamentarians on how this might be taken forward. During those discussions we set out the Government’s preferences. Ultimately, however, it is for national European parliamentarians to decide what form that future inter-parliamentary scrutiny arrangement should take. It is not for Governments to dictate to parliamentarians how they should scrutinise the functions of those Governments.

The UK Government have clear priorities. We believe in the primacy of national parliamentary scrutiny of the EU’s common foreign and security policy—a point that was raised on many occasions in this debate. That reflects the intergovernmental nature of the policy, and within it the common security and defence policy. Given the role played by national Parliaments, there is no need for any new arrangements involving an expansion of the European Parliament’s competences to scrutinise the CFSP. The European Parliament has a role—as acknowledged and recognised in the report—but an inter-parliamentary body better reflects the intergovernmental nature of the CFSP. The question was asked whether the European Parliament would take over the WEU’s role. The answer is no, that is not the case. European defence is an intergovernmental issue, and national parliamentarians must remain at the heart of scrutinising it, as proposed in the report that we are considering this afternoon. The Lisbon treaty provides for the European Parliament to be consulted on the CFSP, and therefore it will have a role in the new body, but operational EU security and defence decisions will remain for sovereign Governments only, as at present.

[Mr Chope]

Does the Minister accept that the proposals from the Belgian presidency which are to be put to the Speakers’ conference in April are wholly inconsistent with the Government’s objectives?

[Mr Browne]

We wish to ensure that there is a suitable body that can scrutinise co-operation between individual member states. That should be done by the Parliaments of member states, working in concert with the European Union in a way that is appropriate. That is the balance that we are trying to achieve and which we believe the report also tries to achieve. We also believe that any new arrangements should be better suited to supporting and informing the national scrutiny process. They should capitalise on the expertise of relevant parliamentarians in this policy area and allow for a free and open exchange of information among European states.

The new arrangements also need to demonstrate value for money for the taxpayer. Given the current financial pressures facing Europe, we support the proposal in the Foreign Affairs Committee report that any future mechanism for inter-parliamentary dialogue on the common security and defence policy should operate with the minimum of cost and bureaucracy. The UK’s current annual subscription payment to the WEU is €2.3 million. Although the WEU Assembly played a useful role in engaging views from across Europe, we and other WEU Council members believe this inter-parliamentary debating function can be delivered much more efficiently outside WEU structures. The new body will operate at a fraction of the current cost, as envisaged in the Foreign Affairs Committee report, and, more appropriately, be paid for by national Parliaments rather than Governments. Any move to create another standing body to manage future arrangements—as envisaged in the amendment, which was not selected for debate this afternoon—is contrary to UK and WEU members’ goals. One of the prime drivers behind the decision by the UK and WEU member states to wind up the WEU was its poor cost-effectiveness.

Finally, the Government believe that the new arrangement should include third states outside the 27 members of the EU. One of the major strengths of the CSDP is its ability to draw on support from outside the EU. The report acknowledges this and we welcome the extension of a standing invitation to EU candidate countries, but we remain convinced that non-EU European NATO members such as Norway should receive a standing invitation. European defence policy and NATO share common political and security interests. Norway in particular has provided valuable contributions to EU operations and is currently an associate member of the WEU. We see no reason why its inclusion in future arrangements should be anything other than permanent.

To sum up, in this policy area, the Government see real value in inter-parliamentary collective debate that informs the national scrutiny process of EU member states. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report represents an important step towards developing practical, low-cost, inclusive arrangements that will benefit parliamentarians across Europe, and I urge hon. Members to give the report their support this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I have served as a member of the WEU Parliamentary Assembly for several years, and I was recently given the honour of serving as leader of the Federated Group, which comprises like-minded parliamentary representatives from a whole range of countries, including non-EU countries that have the opportunity to participate in the Assembly.

I am very concerned that, in our debate today, there has been a conflict between the point of view put forward so ably by the president of the parliamentary assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) and others who have direct experience of serving on the Assembly, and those led by the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who have had no such experience.

I hope that when Mr Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), goes to the Speakers’ conference in April, he will reflect on the fact that great credence should be given to the points of view of those who have been serving in the WEU parliamentary assembly. Parliament will be assisted by the fact that he has served with distinction as a member of the Assembly, and as chairman of one of its technical committees dealing with aerospace and defence—

Mr Ottaway claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.