Exiting the European Union

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am advised that that is either being published as we speak or will be published imminently.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the Government are clearly reluctant for the Attorney General to come before the House. Is that because the rumours are correct that he has strong reservations about tonight’s agreements?

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Like many Members—and, I am sure, the Leader of the House—I have been appalled by the Foreign Secretary’s crass comments. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has three options: she can sack him, gag him or educate him. If she decides to educate him, can the whole House have a role in that process?

[Mr Lidington]

When I think of our relationship with France, I think about how we stood with the free French forces and the resistance fighters against Nazism; how we and France stood together against Soviet tyranny; and the very active work that we carry out with France today against international terrorism. We look for a relationship after we leave the European Union that enables us to build on those historical strengths and to continue to work as active, complementary partners on a whole range of issues.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As I said earlier, there will be a Backbench Business debate on gender equality that may give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to raise this case. If he is having any problems corresponding with Government Departments, I am always ready to try to help any Member to get a prompt reply.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister how she could justify the scrapping of the Navy’s heavy duty surface-to-surface missiles with no replacement. The Prime Minister replied that she did not recognise the situation I described, but it is the case that at the end of 2018 the GWS 60 Harpoon Block C anti-ship missile will be scrapped and there will be no replacement. This is against the very strong advice of the Navy. May we have a debate about naval defence in the Prime Minister’s post-truth era?

[Mr Lidington]

Although the Ministry of Defence has a significant budget in Whitehall terms, it still has to take difficult decisions, including decisions at times to phase out and to replace particular weapons systems or weapons platforms. I will make sure that Defence Ministers are aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but this subject may be an appropriate Backbench Business debate or he may wish to raise it on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Dutch vote was a consultative referendum on a Dutch parliamentary decision to ratify the European Union-Ukraine association agreement. It is a matter entirely for the Dutch Government and the Dutch Parliament. The United Kingdom remains a strong supporter of the efforts being made by Ukraine to defend its national sovereignty and integrity in the face of Russian aggression, and to implement much-needed, far-reaching political and economic reforms that will benefit everyone in Ukraine.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the only thing that Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Vladimir Putin have in common is that they want Britain to leave the European Union? Does that not say a lot about the consequences of our possible departure from the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

There are indeed some strange bedfellows in that particular camp, and none of those three gentlemen is one from whom I would want to take advice about where the best interests of the British people lie.

Government Referendum Leaflet

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend puts his point well, and I am still waiting to hear from the leave campaigners a consistent and coherent view of the alternative to European Union membership.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that the leaflet distributed by the leave campaign, “The UK and the European Union: The Facts” is thoroughly misleading and reprehensible. Does he also share my concern that in large parts of Wales, that leaflet was distributed by post inside a good leaflet from the Electoral Commission that explains the voting system for the Welsh Assembly and police and crime commissioner elections? We are trying to get to the root of how that happened, but if Royal Mail was responsible, will the Minister join me in condemning that?

[Mr Lidington]

I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly I would want to understand what exactly has gone on and whether what he has observed is the result of a policy decision or something that has been done by an individual deliverer, but I will certainly draw the attention of the Electoral Commission to what he has described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

9. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the proposals for EU reform in the Prime Minister’s letter of 10 November 2015 to the President of the European Council.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had productive rounds of talks with every European leader and with the Presidents of the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and I also maintain regular contact with our counterparts right across Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

We believe that our flexibility opt-out from the 48-hour week under the working time directive is important for keeping employment levels in this country high, compared with the tragic levels of unemployment in many other European nations, and we shall certainly be fighting very hard to ensure that we keep that opt-out.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister confirm that no treaty changes will be secured before the referendum?

[Mr Lidington]

I set out the position on that in my statement and my subsequent answers a week ago. It is important that we secure a package of changes that will be seen by all as irreversible and as legally binding.

Europe: Renegotiation

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I was very pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s letter that he hopes to be in a position to campaign with all his “heart and soul” to keep Britain in the European Union, but any negotiation requires priorities. What are the Prime Minister’s priorities?

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister’s priorities are the four policy objectives that he set out this morning, and that I repeated in my statement today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We will continue to speak up publicly as a Government and through the European Union and other international organisations of which we are a member to draw attention to the continuing abuse of human rights within Belarus, to urge the Belarusian authorities to take the path towards European and democratic values of pluralism and the rule of law, and to speak up for individual Belarusian human rights defenders—men such as Mikola Statkevich, still in prison in Belarus today—and demand that those prisoners be not only released but fully rehabilitated.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

If Britain were to leave the European convention on human rights, what sort of message would that send to human rights supporters in Belarus?

[Mr Lidington]

Of course, Belarus is not party to the European convention on human rights and is not subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Whether we are looking at the European convention on human rights or the international covenant on civil and political rights, it is important to continue to urge the Belarusian authorities to end their flagrant abuse of normal human rights and democratic standards. That is something on which I hope the whole House will be united.

Commission Work Programme 2014

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

This is an important study, which makes a large number of recommendations. The recommendations in my hon. Friend’s report have a bearing on business, which is the responsibility of pretty much every Government Department. The discussions that we are having at both official and ministerial level reflect the breadth of the areas of policy covered by my hon. Friend’s Committee.

The Committee noted, in its report recommending today’s debate, that—

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

One second.

The Committee recommended that the debate on the work programme should provide a useful starting point in the upstream scrutiny of EU proposals, and should help Parliament to make an early assessment of those dossiers in which parliamentarians are likely to take particular interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to intervene immediately after the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), because we read in the press that the Prime Minister had received a letter signed by 95 Conservative MPs supporting what the European Scrutiny Committee had said. Has the Prime Minister in fact received that letter, and do we know who those 95 people are?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that I do not inspect the Prime Minister’s correspondence on a daily basis. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out more about that letter he could go and talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, or my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), or others who helped to draft that letter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

There will indeed be measures in the REFIT package, as in other Commission proposals, with which we disagree. We have made it clear that we will continue to resist both the proposals to which my hon. Friend alludes.

It is also fair to say, though, that at a time when the Government are urging the Commission to act on the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s EU business taskforce, the Commission has already introduced some measures that implement what this Government, either off their own bat or by means of the business taskforce report, have been recommending. We have seen practical and proportionate rules on country of origin labelling for food and a member state agreement to a streamlined approach to the clinical trials regulation, with formal agreement due later this year. In addition, the Commission has committed itself to withdrawing the access to justice in environmental matters directive, as the business taskforce explicitly called on it to do.

We now want further action on the 30 specific recommendations in the business taskforce’s report, including on the REACH—registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—directive to lessen its burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular. Such radical, business-friendly reform is in the interests of job creation and business growth not just here in the United Kingdom but throughout the continent as a whole. We welcome the Commission’s commitment not to table new health and safety rules for hairdressers or to introduce new rules on ergonomics, and its commitment to withdraw a number of other proposals that we have long opposed on the grounds that they would impose unnecessary costs on business.

However, with regard to the REFIT package, it is disappointing that the majority of the repeals and withdrawals in the work programme relate to obsolete measures. We think that future withdrawals should focus on EU measures that impose the biggest burdens on businesses and do not deliver significant and commensurate benefits. We will not only continue to press this with the Commission but look for every opportunity to build alliances with other EU member states and, for that matter, with enlightened and supportive members in the European Parliament such as our colleague Mr Malcolm Harbour, to ensure that the efforts to drive down business costs and increase the competiveness of European businesses are maintained.

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am going to make progress because I have been speaking for quite a long time.

[Wayne David]

When the Minister says that aspects of the EU work programme are disappointing, does he not really mean that the Government have failed to influence the Commission successfully?

[Mr Lidington]

No. I do not think that any member state would be able to say that it unreservedly welcomes and endorses, absolutely everything in the Commission’s work programme. Of the measures described in the work programme, there are some that we positively welcome, others where we think the proposal seems okay at first sight but we very much want to examine the detail of the promised measure before we come to a final conclusion, and others where we are quite open in saying that we think the Commission’s suggestion is mistaken. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we have already expressed considerable concerns about the data protection package, and we will continue to negotiate to try to ensure that it does not over-burden business while providing adequate protection for personal data.

Nor can we welcome the draft regulation to establish a European public prosecutor’s office. We believe that the Commission’s evidence for this proposal is weak, and we will continue to challenge it on its unacceptable, rather summary response to the yellow card that national Parliaments raised about it.

European Council

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is mistaken in his analysis of the EDA. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who has responsibility for defence procurement, took a very hard line and successfully won a flat-cash settlement for the EDA this year. We held out and it required unanimity for that budget to be agreed. It is simply not the case that we can be overridden by a QMV vote.[Official Report, 15 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 11MC.]

The Commission has a role under the treaties with regard to industrial policy and, of course, the operation of the single market. However, the single market as regards defence is qualified in the treaties by articles that make it clear that certain matters are reserved from normal single market arrangements because they are critical to national security. Embodied in the European Council conclusions is a very clear direction from all 28 Heads of State and Government that the Commission should stick to what is given under the treaties, that there should be no attempt at competence creep and that there should be no move towards national European champions or a circumvention of the freedom of member states to strike sensible defence partnerships with countries outside Europe, and instead that the Commission should work on ways to make Europe’s defence industries more competitive and its defence markets more open in a way that, incidentally, would provide great opportunities for the United Kingdom’s first-class defence suppliers. That move towards greater openness in areas of defence procurement is something that United Kingdom companies have been pressing Ministers to achieve.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The conclusions of the European Council state:

“The European Council welcomes the signature this week of the biggest ever single EU humanitarian financial allocation”

to Syria. Why did the Prime Minister not make any reference to that in his written statement? Indeed, why has the Minister not mentioned it in his response this afternoon?

[Mr Lidington]

There is a lot in the European Council conclusions. I do not think it would serve a huge purpose if a written statement simply rehearsed every single item when there is a link in the statement on the Council conclusions to the full text itself. I am also somewhat constrained—quite properly—by the time permitted to respond to the urgent question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), however, is right: this was a very important breakthrough. There was a commitment by all 28 Heads of State and Government for European countries to do more to help people in Syria who have been displaced and are in need and those who have taken refuge in neighbouring countries who face huge problems. What is also needed—we have supported the efforts of other EU countries on this—is some declaration, if we cannot get a resolution, at the United Nations Security Council to provide safe passage for humanitarian organisations to reach people in Syria who are in desperate need and find it impossible to get access to the aid available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities? Of course this is a return to European activity from the days when Tony Blair appointed him as one of his champions of the single currency in the Labour party. Having served his time in quarantine, he is now being allowed out again.

The hon. Gentleman may not have been here yesterday, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he stood ready to speak to President Putin whenever that would best help the welfare of those who are being detained and lead to a satisfactory outcome for them. The search for a satisfactory outcome to this case remains at the top of the Government’s priorities, and it determines how we handle individual representations.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

T2. Which competences will the Government seek to repatriate from the European Union?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

What the Government have already shown in their three and a half years in office is that they have been able to bring powers back to this country: through the reform of the fisheries policy, which has abolished the practice of discarding that the hon. Gentleman’s Government tried and failed to reform in their 13 years in office; in getting a cut on the budget for the European Union; and in getting us out of the bail-out mechanism to which his Government committed us. That is a fine track record on which to look forward with high hopes for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I very much welcome the considerable progress that Serbia and Kosovo have already made, including their historic agreement on 19 April this year. There is still more to do, but I am confident that if both sides remain committed, full normalisation will be achieved.

[Wayne David]

I am sure that the Minister for Europe will join me in congratulating both the United Nations and the EU High Representative on their efforts to bring a better relationship between Kosovo and Serbia, but what does he identify as the next crucial step in normalising the relationship between Pristina and Belgrade?

[Mr Lidington]

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about congratulating both the United Nations and the EU High Representative on their work to achieve progress. The next steps are the full implementation of what has been agreed under the dialogue and urgent efforts to take forward some of the key outstanding issues, such as telecommunications, energy and agreement on arrangements for municipal elections later this year. Of course, we have to ensure that conditionality on normalisation is hard-wired into the framework for Serbia’s accession negotiations.

Commission Work Programme 2013

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend finds it hard to contain his excitement at the prospect of the Prime Minister’s speech. He will, however, understand if I decline to be drawn into speculating about the contents of that speech today. I am very confident indeed that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes his promised speech on European policy, it will address the important issues facing both the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole, and will chart a way forward that is in the interests of the people of this country in particular and the peoples of Europe more broadly.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

As the Minister is waxing eloquent about the Prime Minister’s forthcoming speech, could he tell me whether the Prime Minister intends to consult the Deputy Prime Minister and his own Back Benchers?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not know whether that was a bid from the hon. Gentleman to be involved in the No. 10 drafting team. The Prime Minister will prepare his speech in the way he normally prepares such speeches within Government. The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long to see the speech and I am sure that he will be first in the queue to express enthusiasm and a warm welcome for what my right hon. Friend has to say.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I simply do not think that we can have 27 countries agreeing unanimously on a treaty text and committing themselves to ratifying it, only for 26 countries to ratify it while one country chooses to do so up to a point and not ratify one particular element. My hon. Friend was right in his earlier intervention that it is legally and constitutionally possible for a separate protocol or derogation to be negotiated at the time of an accession treaty to exempt one or more member states from particular obligations. However, that has not happened with any other accession treaty hitherto.

The United Kingdom, under successive Governments, has been committed to the enlargement of the European Union since Margaret Thatcher championed the idea when the iron curtain began to crumble. I remain, in that respect, an enthusiastic Thatcherite. The entrenchment of not just free and open markets, but, even more importantly, the rule of law and democratic institutions in eastern and central Europe that has been brought by enlargement has been of benefit to the long-term strategic interests of the UK, as well as being in the interests of Europe as a whole.

[Wayne David]

The Minister has made an important point. He should not hide his light under a bushel. I urge him to make that point more forcefully and regularly to his Back Benchers.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friends know where I stand on these issues. We always have a good-tempered but serious debate. The points that my hon. Friends have raised this afternoon reflect concerns that are expressed by many thousands of people—

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful for that rescue, Mr Speaker. I want to move on to one other element of the Committee’s criticisms.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I understand that there has been a long-standing dispute about moneys held in the Ljubljanska banca in Slovenia which, it is suggested, belong to Croatia. Has that issue been resolved?

[Mr Lidington]

I discussed that with both the Slovenian and Croatian Governments when I was visiting Ljubljana and Zagreb earlier this year. We encourage both countries to find a bilateral solution. It is clearly not for the United Kingdom to lay down how that should be done, but they need to find a bilateral agreement that is in accord with the various international treaties to which the two countries are party. We hope that they succeed in the very near future.

The Committee was critical of the Government’s assessment that Croatia was making good progress with the reform of the judiciary and the courts. I am conscious that I have given way a lot and that other Members want to speak, but I want to deal with the most egregious element of the problems with the legal system in Croatia: the backlog of civil cases, to which the Committee drew particular attention.

The backlog in criminal cases in Croatia has fallen for some time and continues to fall, and we ought to pay tribute to the work that the Croatians have done to achieve that. They are still finding it a battle to reduce the backlog in civil cases, but it is important that we should not be misled by grand totals of the number of civil cases before the courts.

According to the figures that I have for the first half of 2012, roughly 844,000 new civil cases reached the Croatian courts; in the same period, roughly 836,000 cases were resolved. Although the total number of cases pending increased slightly, it would be wrong to think that 800,000-plus cases simply sat there in the “pending” tray and never moved. The truth is far from that. There has been a reduction in the backlogs in respect of the older cases—those over 10 years old or over three years old. The Croatians have also assigned a significant number of additional judges to focus on the backlog. Again, although we accept that further work needs to be done, we think that Croatia has made good progress and is committed to completing it. We do not believe that that is a reason to delay its accession.

I move on to migration. Croatia has a modest population of about 4.5 million. The potential impact of Croatian migration is relatively small, but we know that appropriate immigration controls are crucial for stability in our labour market, particularly in the current economic climate. Recently, the Home Office published its intention to impose transitional controls on Croatian workers in line with the Government’s policy to impose such controls on workers from all new member states, under the terms provided for in their accession treaties.

The accession treaty for Croatia sets out the framework within which member states may apply transitional controls to Croatian nationals who wish to work in their country. That framework is as follows. During the first two years following accession, the existing 27 member states can apply either national immigration controls or those resulting from bilateral agreements to regulate access to their labour market by Croatian nationals.

From the third year to the fifth year, member states have the option either to continue to apply the same controls as in the previous two years or, if they choose, to grant Croatian nationals the right to move and work freely, in accordance with European Union law. For the fifth year, member states must grant Croatian nationals the right to move and work freely in accordance with EU law. However, if member states find that they are subject to serious disturbance of their domestic labour markets—this has to be an evidence-based assessment of the kind that we seek from the Migration Advisory Committee—those member states may choose to continue to apply controls for a further two years, taking us up to a seven-year maximum period after accession, having first notified the European Commission.

The Home Office will be bringing forward detailed regulations on the transitional controls early in 2013, so the House will have the chance to debate the detail of those ahead of Croatia’s planned accession date. However, the Government’s intention is that for the first two years at least we would continue with the current arrangements under which Croatian nationals who would qualify to come and work here under the points-based system would be allowed to do so, although we do not envisage further relaxation beyond that.

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

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill and why legislation is required. It is required by section 3 of the European Union Act 2011, under which primary legislation must be passed to confirm parliamentary approval of certain European Council decisions. The provisions of section 3 relate to Council decisions made under article 48(6) of the treaty on European Union, and the reason for that provision in the Act was that such decisions allow for the revision of European Union treaties. The procedure under article 48(6) is known as the simplified revision procedure. In taking through the 2011 Act, the Government enhanced the role of Parliament in the approval of any such revision of the European Union treaties. The Bill marks the first use of those new provisions.

The purpose of the Bill, as set out in subsection (2), is to approve the

“European Council decision of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.

That decision seeks to add a new paragraph to article 136, which recognises that EU member states whose currency is the euro—I stress that the proposed new paragraph applies only to eurozone members—may establish a financial stability mechanism. In other words, it confirms that the eurozone member states can set up a permanent stability mechanism to support fellow eurozone members that are in financial difficulty.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), stated in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee that

“we do not believe that it is legally necessary for the Article 136 change to be made before the ESM comes into force. It is desirable, but I do not think that it is necessary.”

Have the Government changed their position since that statement, or was the Financial Secretary wrong?

[Mr Lidington]

It has been our position since the proposal was first made in autumn 2010 that such an amendment of article 136 would give eurozone member states firmer constitutional and legal certainty than if they simply proceeded to establish the permanent stability mechanism without recourse to such a treaty amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will let the hon. Gentleman come in again, but then I want to make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

The Minister is very kind. I am pleased that he has been reappointed. It is good to have a sensible Europe Minister—relatively sensible, anyhow—in place.

May I go back to the point about when the Government established their position? I notice that the former Financial Secretary gave his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee relatively recently, in March. Is the Minister for Europe right or was the former Financial Secretary right?

[Mr Lidington]

I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said in response to his earlier intervention. The amendment to article 136 will provide our friends and partners who are members of the eurozone with the additional certainty that they have sought ever since the proposal for a treaty change was first made in the autumn of 2010. He is searching for plots and mysteries where none exists. Over the past two and a half years, in every conversation that I have had with my opposite numbers from the eurozone member states, they have been anxious to find out what position the British Government were taking on the treaty amendment and keen that we should be committed to ratifying it, having agreed to it last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Love]

rose—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I want to make progress.

There would be an irony to accepting the amendment. I will not use the type of language used by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), but it would be a bit odd if we passed an amendment that constrained the freedom of the House of Commons to ratify a treaty that the Government had agreed to. It would have the consequence of allowing the German constitutional court, the European Court of Justice or other courts to determine when our legislation, which we judge to be definitely in the interests of the UK, should come into force. I do not think that delaying this legislation would serve any purpose or help our national interests, and it may do some harm. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

17. The Minister mentioned the OSCE report. It also said that irregularities occurred in up to a third of the polling stations in the Russian Federation. What representations have the Government made to the European Union for it, in turn, to put pressure on Russia to address the situation?

[Mr Lidington]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he needs to acknowledge that there are limits to the leverage that the UK alone and the EU collectively have with Russia. However, we always ensure, both bilaterally and in European conversations, that the central importance of human rights and respect for democratic processes is brought home to our Russian interlocutors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear at the most recent ECOFIN meeting that we would reject an EU financial transfer tax, and he was supported in his opposition by 11 other member states.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us what practical actions his Government have taken to encourage our European partners to complete the single European market?

[Mr Lidington]

I have discussed this in the past two weeks with senior members of the Commission, and I have encouraged them to introduce measures under the Single European Act. Yesterday, in Berlin, other Ministers and I talked to our German counterparts about joint action both to deepen the single market and to reduce the cost of regulations, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

When I was in Sarajevo last month, the issue of corruption and, in particular, the failure of judicial and police institutions came up again and again in conversations with representatives of civil society. If Bosnia and Herzegovina is to make progress towards EU membership, it is vital that these matters are fully addressed. A detailed menu of reforms is laid out in the Commission’s report published at the end of last year. We continue to urge the Governments in Sarajevo and in Banja Luka—the two entities—to make progress. In the first place, they have to form a state-level Government. Until that is in place, it is difficult to see the required progress being made.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It has been 16 years since the massacre at Srebrenica. Will the Government indicate what is being done at home and abroad to make sure that young people learn about this atrocity?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi attended the anniversary commemorations in Srebrenica this year, and she made clear, in her public speech on behalf of the British Government and in her private conversations with civic and political leaders of the different communities, the importance of community reconciliation and of making sure that atrocities such as that of Srebrenica are not forgotten but serve as a reminder to everybody from all traditions, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the wider Balkans, that the horrors of the past must be put behind us and that we need to work for reconciliation for the future.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As the House debated in Committee and on Report, in the Bill it is the creation of a common European defence entity that goes beyond what is defined as a common security and defence policy, which as my hon. Friend knows is very limited in scope within the treaties as they stand. If there was to be a common European defence, that would clearly have to be defined in treaty terms, but sometimes, as he would be the first to note, language that appears quite generalised in scope, once written into a treaty, provides the basis on which numerous detailed measures can then be brought forward because there has been an overall extension of competence to the EU institutions. It could—I am not saying that it always would—spell the end of an independent UK defence policy, which was one of the previous Government’s red lines during their negotiations on the Lisbon treaty.

The amendments would also remove any decision to participate in a European public prosecutor from the referendum requirement. Hon. Members will recall the sensitivity and divergence in views across Europe over the idea of a European public prosecutor who would be able to launch prosecutions in the United Kingdom and other member states in areas affecting the EU’s financial interests. When we considered this issue earlier this year it was accepted that people should be asked for their approval before any Government could agree to participate and allow cases to be prosecuted independently in the UK’s legal system.

We have always guarded jealously—rightly, I think—the principle that decisions on whether to prosecute any individual or corporate entity should be taken by the designated independent prosecutors. To give those powers to some new European body that could come in and state whether a prosecution would or would not take place, irrespective of what the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs said about a particular case, would be a very serious shift of power and competence away from this country to Brussels. It would be right for the British people to be asked to assent to that before a Government were allowed to ratify such a decision.

Before I move on from the Lords amendments to clause 6, I should like to express my amazement that, when the House of Lords voted for an amendment to remove from the referendum lock a decision to end the requirement for unanimity in agreement to the EU’s multi-annual financial frameworks, the official Opposition voted in favour of that proposal. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will explain on the record where the Opposition now stand on the matter. Everyone in the House, whatever their views on the EU, knows that in the next couple of years a key issue facing every Government in the EU and all the Brussels institutions is the negotiation on the new MFF which will effectively set budgetary decisions and ceilings for the next five or seven years in the EU’s life and development. It is vital that that remains subject to unanimity and that the British Government, whoever is in office, continue to have a right of veto.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so he must explain why members of his party—not just Labour Back Benchers but official spokesmen in the House of Lords—trooped through the Lobby to say that they wanted to scrap the British veto and allow the fate, for example, of the UK’s rebate to be subject not to consensus but to qualified majority voting. That would be the impact of the measure. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would remove from the referendum lock a decision to switch from unanimity to QMV on that matter.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Opposition need to own up to where they are coming from. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly wants to intervene and say that his Front-Bench colleagues in the House of Lords had gone rogue and he was unable to control them, that he was sorry and he did not really mean it, a plea for forgiveness might be entertained. But if he really supports the proposal to remove decisions on the MFF from the referendum lock, he should say so clearly to the House, because the Labour party did not say that when the Bill was debated in the House of Commons.

[Mr David]

I will make a deal with the Minister. I am more than happy to explain the Labour party’s decision when I speak to the Lords amendments, but will he explain to the House the comments of Members of the other place such as Lord Brittan, or the actions of Lord Heseltine, both of whom expressed complete disagreement with fundamental aspects of the Bill?

[Mr Lidington]

I have huge respect for Lord Brittan, Lord Heseltine and those senior Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords who have devoted their political lives to support for European integration—they have a consistent and honourable point of view on this. I do not agree with them. There is a key difference—and the hon. Gentleman may wish to challenge me—between the way in which Lords Brittan and Heseltine spoke and voted and the way in which his colleagues did so. My noble Friends gave distinguished service in government, but many years ago, and they are no longer ministerial spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman must explain why the Labour party’s official spokesmen in the House of Lords spoke and voted in the Lobby for an amendment that he appears very unwilling to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on the subject matter of the third group of amendments. I hope that he will forgive me if I delay commenting in that fashion until we reach those amendments.

This Bill places Parliament at the heart of every decision to be considered. Each decision will need parliamentary approval, whether by Act or by resolution. The sunset clause would take that power away from Parliament, and until such time as part 1 was revived, none of the controls in part 1—not just the referendum lock but none of them—would apply. Some colleagues in the other place claim that the Government are binding future Governments and not themselves. However, we have already said that we will use the Bill to ratify the current treaty change on the eurozone stability mechanism, and we will also use it to consider the treaty change required for Croatia’s accession. Once the legislation is enacted, this Government, too, will be bound by it.

There is another reason why a sunset clause is unnecessary. The previous Government set up a system of post-legislative scrutiny under which the Government of the day are required to publish a memorandum to Parliament on the operation of each Act of Parliament up to five years after the commencement of that Act. This is examined by relevant parliamentary Committees, which can decide whether to conduct a detailed examination of that legislation. I am happy to put on record that we think that this is a good idea and that a future Government must publish a full report on how this Bill has been used within five years of its becoming law. That will result in the clarity and the reflection that colleagues in the other place seek, but without arbitrarily depriving the British people of their say.

The case for this Bill is simple: it is to give the British people the chance to have their rightful say over future changes to the EU treaties, whether through formal revision or use of the passerelles that transfer competence or power from this country to the EU. The Bill does not substitute the British people for Parliament, for Parliament will continue to have a central and strengthened role in approving such key decisions, but it provides a vital opportunity to address the disconnection that has developed over the years between the British people and the decisions taken in their name by Parliament and Government. This group of Lords amendments would not help us to achieve these goals—indeed, they would seriously jeopardise our chances of doing so—and that is why I hope that this House will disagree with them.

[Mr David]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the only reason the Supreme Court has power to adjudicate here on European Union matters is because Parliament has provided for directly effective and directly applicable EU law to have effect in the United Kingdom legal order by virtue of passing statutes that give European law that direct effect and application here. Secondly, as I think my hon. Friend knows—he is being a bit mischievous—he is trying to tempt me again on to a much broader issue, which is the important philosophical question of whether ultimate legislative supremacy lies with Parliament or whether parliamentary sovereignty is a construct of the common law controlled by judges. Speaking as an elected parliamentarian, I am quite clear and argue quite naturally that Parliament as the elected limb of body politic must have the ultimate say, but in making that case we are entering into a philosophical debate that goes way beyond the parameters of the European Union Bill, let alone Lords amendment 14.

Let me return to the Lords amendment. I am mindful of the arguments advanced by Lord Mackay of Clashfern and his supporters in the House of Lords, and I greatly appreciate their legal expertise. We considered Lord Mackay’s arguments very carefully both before the debate in the other place and following the Lords acceptance of the amendment. I sought further legal advice on this point, and the Government’s view remains that although the European Communities Act 1972 is indeed the principal means by which directly effective or directly applicable EU law takes effect in the UK, a number of other Acts of Parliament also give effect to EU law independently of the 1972 Act. For example, provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 put Ministers from the devolved Administrations under an obligation to act in accordance with EU law. Some of those settlements define EU obligations in a manner similar to the language used in section 2(1) of the 1972 Act—but, significantly, they do so not by reference to that Act.

The Government are therefore concerned that, were this House to agree with the Lords amendment as it stands, it could create the risk that the courts interpret this clause as restricting the ability of legislation other than the 1972 Act to incorporate directly applicable or directly effective EU law into UK law. That, in turn, could ultimately mean that clause 18 could be interpreted as being more than declaratory, which would rather undermine what we are trying to do with this Bill. This would not, in our view, reflect the law accurately, and so we seek to disagree with the Lords amendment as currently framed.

In that sense, I agree entirely with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), but I also recognise Lord Mackay’s point that the 1972 Act is the primary conduit for directly effective and directly applicable EU law to take effect in the United Kingdom. In recognition of this concern, the Government propose a change of wording to the Lords amendment that would retain the reference to the European Communities Act 1972 but, importantly, also refer to the existence of other Acts of Parliament that also give effect to EU law.

[Mr David]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I have sympathy with his argument. Crucial to the argument, it seems to me, are the words

“by virtue of an Act of Parliament”.

What is the difference between putting those words at the end rather than at the start of the clause, where they were initially?

[Mr Lidington]

I decided to include the words on the basis of the best legal advice available to me across Government at the time. When preparing the Bill for introduction into this House, I examined the wording and the question of whether a reference to the 1972 Act alone would be appropriate. I was given very clear legal advice that, because of the other statutes that make reference to the application of EU law, a simple reference to the 1972 legislation would not suffice. That explains the original wording of the Bill that came before the House of Commons.

What we have sought to do in framing our amendments to the Lords amendment is to recognise the view that the other place took that clause 18 should incorporate language that recognises the particular importance of the 1972 legislation. We see no reason why we should not amend the clause to make a specific reference to the 1972 Act so long as the clause also makes reference to those other Acts that give effect to EU law. This reflects the Government’s consistent position that other Acts of Parliament— independently of the European Communities Act 1972—might also allow for the incorporation of directly effective and directly applicable EU law into the UK legal order.

[Mr Lidington]

We believe that the original drafting met the tests that we had set to implement our policy of having a declaratory clause. What we are trying to do is to express through Government amendments the point made in the House of Lords that the 1972 legislation is of particular importance, while preserving the point of principle that we believe was incorporated in the original language as debated by the House of Commons.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I want to make some progress.

It is not only the devolution legislation that mentions European Union law. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Chiropractors Act 1994 and the Competition Act 1998 are further examples of legislation that allows European Union law to have direct effect in this country. Section 9A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act requires the United Kingdom to make a disqualification order against a person in certain circumstances, including circumstances in which an undertaking commits a breach of competition law under either article 81 or article 82 of the EC treaty—now articles 101 and 102 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That Act refers directly to the treaty provisions without referring to the 1972 Act.

The amendment accepted by the other place removed the reference that makes it explicit that only by virtue of such Acts does directly effective and directly applicable EU law take effect in this country. Removing that reference leaves open the possibility of arguments that directly effective and directly applicable EU law could enter our law by other means, thus undermining the rationale behind the clause. The amendments that the Government propose seek to restore that important qualification, and to remove any doubt about whether directly effective or applicable EU law could enter United Kingdom law by other means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for their participation in the debate and I shall be brief in my response. I want to deal with the point of principle as well as the important point of detail about the interaction between this clause, the Government amendment and the Interpretation Act 1978.

[Mr David]

Before the Minister goes on, may I cast his mind back to the trenchant criticism from the European Scrutiny Committee about the explanatory notes that accompanied the Bill and, in particular, those on clause 18? I seem to recall the Minister giving the House a commitment that the explanatory notes would be examined and, if necessary, redrafted. Has that redrafting occurred and will there be further redrafting in the context of his amendment tonight?

[Mr Lidington]

The explanatory notes were changed when they were reprinted before the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, just as I gave the House an undertaking that they would be. We amended the notes to make it clear that the references to common law in the relevant section were meant in contradistinction to statute law and that we were not commenting, as a Government and in either the Bill or the notes, on the important but much broader philosophical debate about the origins of parliamentary sovereignty.

Let me deal first with the point of general principle to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in particular, referred. It has always been the Government’s position that clause 18 is declaratory of the existing state of our law in making it clear that European Union law has direct effect and application in this country for one reason and one reason only: namely, Parliament has given it that effect through primary legislation. I differ from my hon. Friend in that I continue to believe that it is valuable for us to have this declaratory clause on the statute book to serve as a clear expression of Parliament’s will and as an abiding point of reference for the courts if they are invited in future to consider again the sort of arguments that have previously been brought before them, most notably by the prosecution in the metric martyrs case, to the effect that European law has acquired over time an autonomous authority of its own that does not derive from Acts of Parliament.

BBC World Service

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, is choosing to overlook the fact that the FCO is responsible for well over 100 operations in different countries overseas and that in those circumstances the requirements of currency operations and IT add up to quite a considerable overhead. I welcome the public commitment of the World Service to a significant reduction in its administrative costs, and I am sure that the House looks forward to seeing how it proposes to deliver that.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will make progress, because I want to be fair to the many hon. Members who want to take part in the next debate.

[Mr David]

I hear what the Minister says, and of course we all want to see efficiency savings and economies. However, it is important to bear in mind that the cost of producing a message or sending out a programme is lower in the BBC World Service than in any other international broadcaster.

[Mr Lidington]

It is certainly important to bear such things in mind, but many parts of the public sector in this country can point to how their best practice matches that in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the financial state in which this country finds itself as a consequence of the inheritance bequeathed to us by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member is so grave that we have no alternative but to ask every part of our public services, no matter how well and efficiently they perform, to drive those efficiencies further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and indeed the report, criticised the Government’s decision to reduce the budget of the World Service by 16% and argued that it was disproportionate. To set the matter in context, as the House knows the Government inherited a massive fiscal deficit when they came to power. We made it clear from the start that it would be the Government’s overriding priority to take swift and effective action to reduce that deficit. Every member of the Government has always made it clear that rebalancing the nation’s finances will not be without pain and that every taxpayer-funded organisations will have to play its part, as will the private sector. Frankly, if as a country we fail to deal with the overriding challenge of our deficit, all our hopes, whether for prosperity, improved public services or enhanced international influence for the United Kingdom, will come to naught.

The World Service was asked to reduce its budget by 16%. The Foreign Affairs Committee has argued that that is disproportionate. I say candidly, but politely, to my hon. Friend that I disagree with that verdict. At the beginning of the previous comprehensive spending round in 2007-08, the World Service budget was 13% of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget. By the end of 2014-15, its budget will be 14.4% of the FCO budget. The proportion of its budget at the end of this Government’s tenure will therefore be slightly higher than it was before. To respond to the particular case put to me by my hon. Friend, in 2007-08 the World Service received £222 million, and in 2013-14 it will again receive £222 million. However, the FCO budget will fall from £1.7 billion in 2007-08 to £1.55 billion in 2013-14. It is those figures that lie behind the percentages that I quoted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend talks about the EEAS’s role in consular representation. Of course, under the treaties, that competence is given explicitly to member states rather than to European institutions, but it is quite right that the EEAS should, in line with the treaties, support the work of EU member states, especially by signposting EU nationals who are unrepresented to embassies or high commissions of another member state where they can obtain representation.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

During the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to the European External Action Service. Does he agree that recent experience in north Africa and elsewhere in the world demonstrates the need for positive co-operation with our European partners?

[Mr Lidington]

Neither I nor my party has ever quibbled with the idea that there should be effective European co-operation between member states. The test of whether the External Action Service is effective will be, in large measure, whether the High Representative and her staff can work effectively with member states’ Foreign Ministers, because only when member states reach a genuine common position does the High Representative have a mandate to act.

European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I hope that I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance he seeks. First, I will make a bit of progress and describe how the provisions in the European Union Bill will bite on this measure and any future measures that are modelled on it.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

A very important question has just been asked by a Back Bencher and the Minister has made no attempt to respond to it. Would it not be technically possible to have the new procedures introduced by the European Union Bill as well as the current procedures? One is post and the other is pre.

[Mr Lidington]

I had better invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Hansard record of the debates on the European Union Bill in which he took part—both in Committee and on Report. If he does read them, he will see that the Government introduced an amendment precisely to make explicit the requirement for this proposed treaty change to be subject to more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny than would have been permitted if the current statutory procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 had been allowed to stand and to suffice. I hope that he was not asleep when we debated that amendment. If he examines Hansard, he will find that we have covered that point in some detail.

The previous Government left the country with a system of control that was grossly inadequate. Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 requires that when a draft decision under the simplified revision procedure—under article 48(6) of the treaty on European Union—is proposed, a Minister must introduce a motion and have it passed by both Houses without amendment before the Prime Minister can signal his agreement to its adoption at a subsequent European Council. That is the point in the decision-making process that we have reached tonight.

There is an option, under the 2008 Act, for the Government of the day to insert a disapplication provision into this type of motion. Such a provision would enable the Government to agree to subsequent amendments to the draft decision to amend the treaty without having to come back to the House for approval. The options were put before me by my officials and I was absolutely clear from the moment I read the papers that to introduce a disapplication provision of that kind would be completely unacceptable and would give Parliament absurdly little control over such an important matter. For that reason, there is no such provision in the motion.

Let me make it clear: if the House approves the motion, it is authorising the Prime Minister to agree to this draft decision—this text alone—at the European Council. Should there be any suggestion of amending the draft decision at the European Council—there is no such suggestion from any quarter at present—the Prime Minister could not legally agree to it at the European Council without first coming back to this House and the other place for additional approval after a further debate. The draft decision that is referred to in the motion will be the version that is agreed at the Council and there can be no other version of the treaty change without the further approval of the House in a debate such as this.

The European Scrutiny Committee has rightly assessed the draft decision as politically important and has recommended it for debate on the Floor of the House. We are scrutinising the draft decision, as the Committee has requested, and debating whether the Prime Minister may signal his support for its adoption at the Council on 24 and 25 March.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

We inherited from our predecessors a legislative measure that was brought in under an existing competence and treaty base and that was, from that time, legally binding. My hon. Friend will understand that I am not going to be drawn into speculating about the position of other individual member states. My understanding, on the basis of the most recent information that I have, is that no other member state has been asking the EU authorities for additional financial help.

As the Prime Minister has made clear many times in this House, securing a tight and disciplined budget for the future is the highest priority for the European Union. At the last European Council meeting, Britain led an alliance of member states to unprecedented success in limiting the 2011 EU budget increase to 2.91%—a very marked improvement on our predecessors’ performance in the previous year. Crucially, in moving forwards, working alongside key partners such as France, Germany, Netherlands and Finland, we are committed to a real-terms freeze in the EU budget in the new perspective, which we expect to run from 2014 to 2020, and we have written collectively to the President of the European Commission setting out our position.

[Mr David]

The Minister claims that a great victory was achieved by our Prime Minister with regard to the 2.91% increase. Will he confirm to the House, however, that just a few months earlier he was opposing that?

[Mr Lidington]

That is no secret. It is a matter of public record that we would have preferred a complete freeze on the 2011 budget, and we voted for that in the Council of Ministers. I regret that we were one country short of achieving the blocking minority. [Interruption.] That kind of protest from the shadow Minister is rank double standards. The Labour Government not only conceded increases in the annual budget that went way ahead of anything like 2.91% but, even more significantly, negotiated an agreement on the current multi-annual financial framework in which they agreed to give up a significant slice of this country’s hard-won rebate from the EU budget in return for no more than a half-promise of a review of agricultural policy, and they did not even manage to get that at the end of the day. We know that they were dysfunctional. According to the memoirs of the then Prime Minister’s chief of staff, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer could so little stand the sight of one another that they refused even to share the figures that they were using in parallel negotiations about an EU budget, the settlement of which was absolutely central to the interests of the United Kingdom. Having let down this country so badly in the past, it ill behoves the Labour spokesman to come and lecture us this evening.

Should this House not approve the motion unamended, I have to say to my hon. Friends that the consequences could be serious and damaging for Britain. The Prime Minster would not be able to signal support for the draft decision in March, and since the decision cannot be adopted without unanimity, it would fall. That would mean, for example, that this country would remain, for the indefinite future, indirectly liable for eurozone bail-outs through the EFSM since there would be no ESM to replace it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I would indeed welcome clarification on that subject. Indeed, I intervened on the Minister earlier and received no clarification. It is my understanding that the new procedure will supersede the procedure that we are using this evening, and that the procedure will be post-decision rather than pre-decision. I invite the Minister to clarify that.

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to provide clarification. The present decision is unique, in that it is being handled under the 2008 arrangements but will also become subject to the arrangements in the European Union Bill—assuming that it becomes law. The Bill, which we debated for seven days, will extinguish the 2008 arrangements, but it will ensure that after the adoption of the decision, in order for ratification to take place, the text agreed by Heads of State and Government at their final adoption meeting must go through all stages of primary legislation in both Houses.

[Mr David]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, but although there might be extensive post-decision debate, after the implementation of the Bill we will no longer be in a position effectively to give the Prime Minister a mandate. That is a step backwards and a negation of democracy.

[Mr David]

I have already referred to that point. The former Chancellor and Government were facing exceptional circumstances, and my guess is that if the current Government had taken over the reins at that point, they would have done exactly the same thing.

[Mr Lidington]

The idea that the new system that will be introduced in the Bill is somehow weaker than the current one is laughable. An Act of Parliament is a much tougher form of scrutiny and accountability than a single vote before the initial decision is taken. Under the 2008 Act there would be no need for primary legislation before ratification took place. Furthermore, in extinguishing the 2008 provisions the Bill will extinguish the possibility of a disapplication procedure, which exists under the 2008 Act and would allow the Government of the day, by means of a motion such as the one before us this evening, to decide that its Head of Government could agree a change to a text without ever coming back to Parliament to give it a further opportunity to comment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I think that statement was really made for the Minister’s benefit, and it would be useful to have his response to it.

[Mr Lidington]

What my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said is absolutely true.

[Mr David]

I am glad that for once there is unanimity on the Conservative Benches.

I have two concerns that I should like to dwell upon related to the broader situation in which we find ourselves. The first is the fact that the countries of the eurozone have apparently established a new decision-making structure. The reasons they have done that are perfectly understandable, but it is worrying that the Government do not acknowledge that decisions taken by the eurozone countries could have profound implications for the UK. Take, for example, the issue of the single market. The development and completion of the market is of critical importance to Britain, but we have to be aware that there could be a temptation for the eurozone countries to see the single market in eurozone terms only.

In fairness, the conclusions of the Heads of State and Government of the euro area summit last week state that the new pact for competitiveness and convergence will respect the integrity of the single market in the euro area and the EU as a whole, and the involvement of the European Commission in the work of the euro area group should be a safeguard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I think that the previous Minister for Europe was sold a pup, although he was not helped by the fact that at the time his Chancellor and Prime Minister were not talking to each other, even about the figures that they used in those negotiations. I can assure my hon. Friend that in the negotiations on the new multi-annual financial framework, the Government will defend the British rebate, which we believe remains completely justified.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the importance of the eurozone to Britain, what are the Government doing to ensure that Britain is not excluded from decision-making processes that will have a direct impact on our economy?

[Mr Lidington]

We are ensuring that we engage fully on a bilateral basis with those of our partners who are members of the eurozone and with the European institutions. We also remain in regular contact with EU member states that are not part of the eurozone. I find, from talking to eurozone and non-eurozone members alike, that there is a common acceptance of and support for the participation of the UK and other non-eurozone members in discussions and decisions about the single market and the direction of European economic policy. There is no wish to relegate us to a side room.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

Before the Minister finally moves on, I point out that I have been thinking long and hard about what to buy the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for Christmas, and now I am going to buy him a drum kit.

I welcome the tone and content of the Minister’s comments about having more scrutiny in the House. May I suggest to him that we really need to reinstate the twice-yearly debate about Europe before the Council meetings? Before he responds that that is an issue for the Backbench Business Committee, I once again implore him to ensure that Government time is provided for those debates.

[Mr Lidington]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has at least been consistent in pushing that line, but I have to remind him that his party, when it was in office, and all other parties, agreed unanimously to changes to our procedures and the organisation of parliamentary time that explicitly gave responsibility for those biannual debates on European matters to the Backbench Business Committee rather than the Government.

We have heard this afternoon about the importance of decisions in the EU to everybody in the country, and it would be a good expression of Parliament’s understanding of that point if Back Benchers of all parties put pressure on the Backbench Business Committee to make a debate on Europe a priority, instead of debates on the other matters that the Committee has chosen in response to Back Benchers’ demands. Back Benchers’ priorities should be debated in Back-Bench time, and I believe that most of us present this evening would like the Committee to feel that a debate on Europe was what Back Benchers wanted. I hope the hon. Gentleman will persuade his colleagues of that.

Russia (Exclusion of Journalist)

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes good and sensible points. We consistently raise both individual cases and the broader issues to which he rightly ascribes importance with Russian visitors to the United Kingdom, but they are also raised by British Ministers and officials when visiting Russia, and we will continue that practice.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for tabling this urgent question. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will be extremely concerned about the detention and then the expulsion from Russia of Luke Harding. Freedom of the press should be one of the cornerstones of a modern democratic country. Therefore, this incident can only reflect badly on the Russian Government, especially as it is, unfortunately, not an isolated instance of the negation of press freedom. It is, indeed, of great concern that such a respected and highly regarded journalist as Mr Harding should be treated in such a way.

I am glad that the Government share the Opposition’s concern about what is happening in Russia, and I urge the Government to continue to make urgent and vigorous representations to the Russian Government. I also urge the Government to ask for specific reassurances regarding British journalists. Moreover, can the Minister urge the Prime Minister to raise the case of Mr Harding when he visits Russia later this year?

[Mr Lidington]

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will raise human rights issues when he talks to Russian leaders, whether during his visit to Moscow that we hope will take place later this year, or at the margins of other international gatherings where he might meet members of the Russian leadership. It is very much in the interests of the Russian Government that they start to demonstrate that they respect international norms on human rights and media freedoms, not least because Russia itself has signed up to the various European and international conventions that embody those principles.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We are, of course, in a rather unusual situation with European Parliament elections, in that Gibraltar is included, and Gibraltar shares Members of the European Parliament with the south-west of England. What methods for determining the electors in Gibraltar have been used in the calculations?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that is a matter for the Electoral Commission. It advises that it has used the Sainte-Laguë method throughout, and in comparing electorates for each region it would have taken the Gibraltar electorate into account when making its calculation for the south-west. I undertake to double-check what I have just told the hon. Gentleman; if I have inadvertently led him up the garden path, I will of course correct that on the record, but I have confidence that the Electoral Commission has done its job properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I think the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is demonstrating that he has political ambitions as yet unfulfilled.

I can now assure the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) that expert advice has reached me confirming that my trust in the Electoral Commission was well placed and that the electorate of Gibraltar were indeed considered in the context of the south-west region and assessed in accordance with the Sainte-Laguë system.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East asked me about the different options for selecting the additional MEPs. The protocol allows member states to choose between three options. First, member states could use the 2009 European parliamentary election results and elect the additional MEPs as if the additional seats had existed at the time of those 2009 elections. That is the method that we have chosen.

The second option would be to hold a by-election. In this case, that would mean holding a by-election in the west midlands region for a single MEP at an estimated cost of perhaps £10 million. The third option would be for member states to appoint temporarily one of their national parliamentarians to become the new MEP for the remainder of the current European parliamentary term. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East indicates that the hon. Member for Luton North or perhaps the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) might be candidates in such circumstances.

The previous Government decided in February 2010 that the UK’s additional MEP would be elected by reference to the results of the most recent European parliamentary elections, as though the additional seat had existed at that time. The present Government have continued our predecessor’s chosen approach, and the clauses are framed in that way. That is also the method used by the great majority of other member states that are gaining MEPs. In fact, some member states elected additional MEPs during the 2009 elections on the basis that they could take up their seats only once the transitional protocol had come into force.

Our chosen method avoids the delay and the cost associated with a by-election and would allow us to return the additional MEP as soon as possible after the approval of the relevant provision in the Bill. It also has the merit of being exactly the same method that we use in any case to fill a vacant British seat in the European Parliament after the death or resignation of an elected MEP. Again, these clauses and schedule 2 would apply only until the additional seat had been filled and until the next European parliamentary election, which is scheduled for 2014.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Election of additional MEP

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

[Mr David]

May I briefly ask the Minister an additional question on the extra MEP, simply to gain some broader context? He mentions correctly that other member states have additional MEPs. Of course, as he points out, all member states must agree to adopt the necessary legislative procedures to bring about such MEPs, but what is the time scale? We are dealing with the situation now. I wonder whether other EU member states have had an opportunity to alter their legislation to bring out such MEPs. Are we waiting for them to do so? What is the time scale? That obviously has a bearing on when the MEP from the west midlands can take her seat.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise for having overlooked that question when it came from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). The most sensible thing for me to do would be to write to the hon. Gentleman with a full list and to deposit a copy of that letter in the Library for the information of all Members. However, the latest information available to me is that in respect of the other member states that are gaining MEPs—or, indeed, other member states generally, because the protocol must be ratified by all 27 of them, whether they gain or lose MEPs, or whether there is no difference in the number of MEPs from a country—something like two thirds to three quarters of member states have reached the stage of notifying their accession to the proposal, but others have not done so. Germany, for example, has debated the measure in the Bundestag, but my understanding is that Germany has not yet ratified it. We are awaiting news on where France is going. Some of the others, including Hungary, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Malta, have gone a considerable distance towards ratification already, but we are not right at the back of the pack, by any means. My expectation is that this measure will probably be ratified by all 27 member states later this year, but it could slip into 2012, because each member state can decide how high a priority it gives to this measure. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman an adequate holding answer for now, but I undertake to write to him with chapter and verse as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Election of additional MEP

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress, I will explain where potential costs might conceivably arise. Any costs would consist of the minimal costs arising from the administrative expenditure of the returning officer of the west midlands electoral region. The costs involved there will depend on what those administrative costs are, but they are costs that would have to be budgeted for in the normal way. The returning officer does not have a blank cheque that he can draw on. If the seat could not be filled in accordance with schedule 2 and a by-election had to be held, there would be costs associated with that by-election, for which clause 19 makes provision. On our best current estimate, a by-election would cost about £10 million to run.

[Mr David]

If there were a by-election, would it be held under the first-past-the-post or the alternative vote system?

[Mr Lidington]

If a by-election were to be held, my understanding is that it would be held on the basis of the first-past-the-post system, if only one candidate could be elected. Again, if I am mistaken, I will correct the record.

[Mr David]

May I press the Minister a little further on that? I am sure that what he is saying is correct, but would it not be strange if all the other MEPs from Britain—in fact, I would guess all the other MEPs from every other European country—were elected under a form of proportional representation, yet this one individual was the only one elected under first past the post?

[Mr Lidington]

The fact that this is a transitional arrangement means that it is sui generis. As the hon. Gentleman will know, normally the European Parliament has a rule that a legislator cannot have a dual mandate and be a member of both a national legislature and the European Parliament. Here we have insisted that people had to leave active membership of the House of Lords in order to take a part in the European Parliament, and Members here have had to make a choice in the past when they have held a dual mandate in the House of Commons and the European Parliament about which they wished to pursue after a particular election. Special arrangements are being made because this matter is transitional.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

That was possible for a long time, but the rules were changed and the right hon. and noble Lord Bannside, as he now is, decided to leave the European Parliament at the appropriate election because he wished to remain a Member of the House of Commons.

The other costs covered by clause 19 arise by virtue of clause 13, which provides that the Electoral Commission shall

“take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness… and… may take steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness of the subject-matter”

in connection with any referendums held, pursuant to part 1 of the Bill. Clause 19 provides for any additional costs incurred as a result of that activity.

It is also worth underlining the fact that since 14 July 2009 the salaries of Members of the European Parliament are paid from the European Parliament’s budget. The United Kingdom will make no direct payments as a result of the implementation of the transitional protocol on MEPs, so clause 19 makes no provision for any such payments.

[Mr David]

I would like to refer to one point relating to financial provisions. The Minister has referred to clause 13, which we debated last week, although in insufficient detail in my view. What possible costs could be incurred by provisions of the Bill relating to possible referendums, because the Electoral Commission is given tremendous scope? For example, clause 13(b) states that the Electoral Commission “may”—I stress that word—

“take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness of the subject-matter of the referendum.”

We have also discussed the fact that there could be referendums on extremely complex and almost esoteric issues, and the Government of the day would have to make an enormous effort to ensure that there was a reasonable debate among the public on the issue under consideration, rather than some other issue. Will the Minister spell out what sort of cap there could be on the Electoral Commission’s expenditure? We have also touched on the possibility that public money would be given to the campaign in favour of a change that a Government want and to the campaign against it. What sort of cap will be included for two opposing campaigns that could be initiated as a result of this legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

On current prices, a referendum, if held on its own, could cost between £80 million and £100 million. If it were combined with other elections on the same day, the figure might well be considerably less. However, these things would have to be calculated in detail at the time. It depends on factors such as whether another election is being held on the same day, so all the apparatus of paying for staff to set up polling stations and to count ballot papers is already being provided for, or it is being done as a one-off solely as a referendum on a European subject.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I was trying to respond to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but I will give way.

[Mr David]

These are very important issues. At a time of austerity, as the Government say, it is of great concern that there is such a lax approach to quite considerable sums. Does the figure that the Minister mentioned include merely funding for the conduct of a referendum, or does it also include the grants to organisations to enable them to put the respective arguments in a referendum?

[Mr Lidington]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman having taken advice on that point. I would say gently to him, however, that giving the people their say, in the way they would expect, about the transfer of significant powers to act and make policy from this Parliament and this country to Brussels ought to be a high priority for Government expenditure. The reputation, not just of his party but of British politics in general, would have been a lot higher had the previous Government given a higher priority to spending money on the referendum that they had promised on the Lisbon treaty, rather than making a saving on that while spending billions of pounds on other objectives, many of which were of significantly less importance to the people whom we represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I am pleased that the Minister has gone out of his way to emphasise that there has been consultation and agreement with Gibraltar—I am sure that you, Mr Hoyle, will be especially pleased about that. However, will the Minister clarify further what consultation there has been with the devolved Administrations? I am thinking of the Scottish Parliament and Executive in particular, because I noted in evidence submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee that concern was expressed that elements of the Bill might impinge upon devolved areas. Certainly, when the evidence was submitted, those concerned were not entirely satisfied that the Government had taken that fully into account. Will he give a cast-iron commitment—if I can use that phrase—that there has been consultation, and that all parties are happy?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, we consulted the devolved Administrations in 2010, at the same time as final policy approval was sought from Departments. The text of the Bill was circulated to the devolved Administrations as soon as it had been drafted and was available for circulation in Whitehall. We have tried to keep them as much in the picture as possible and as soon as was practical. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the Government took office in May last year, and arranging policy clearance and then the drafting of the Bill has been an intensive piece of work. However, I do not think that the devolved Administrations have been treated in any way unfairly. I have assured them that the Government remain completely committed to what the Prime Minister has termed the “respect agenda”, and that we are committed to honouring in full the various memorandums of understanding between the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved Administrations. I am happy to make clear that commitment once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I should like to say a few words about the clause. The whole issue of when the Bill comes into effect causes us some concern, because it has been our contention from the start of our deliberations that the Bill is essentially window dressing. It is not an attempt to introduce genuine participation and accountability, but is instead, as a Minister has said, a rather crude attempt to tie future Governments.

Certainly, in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, I welcome what the Minister has said today and previously. Logically, many of things that the Government have announced in the Bill and in recent written statements are to be welcomed. We are firmly in favour of as much parliamentary accountability and involvement as practicable. Indeed, that was the whole tenor of the Opposition’s amendment at the start of our Committee deliberations. However, it worries me that we still have the important issue of the justice and home affairs opt-ins, particularly the European Court of Justice provisions, which will have to be considered during this Parliament. The Minister has been absolutely firm in his determination to ensure that although we will have additional scrutiny considerations regarding whatever a Government may decide to do, there will not be a referendum on this extremely important issue. These matters worry us greatly, because we contend that there is a certain amount of illogicality in the Bill. It is contradictory, it does not hold together and there is not a great deal of intellectual sense behind it. That is clearly illustrated by the whole issue of the ECJ opt-in provisions.

If the Government were true to their rhetoric, they would insist that the legislation would be introduced and that a referendum would be held during this Parliament if they decided to opt into those provisions, as some suggest they would like. That is why the whole issue of when different parts of the Bill commence and have legal effect is of tremendous importance. I want to register and reinforce the Opposition’s concern that the Government are approaching this matter in what we consider to be a totally ham-fisted way.

[Mr Lidington]

I shall be brief. I think the hon. Gentleman has a bit of a nerve. It was actually the Government whom he supported and served who agreed to the treaty that collapsed the third pillar, which communitised justice and home affairs, bringing those areas of policy under European Court of Justice jurisdiction when previously they had been intergovernmental. As we debated last week, we have as a Government announced that we shall be discussing with the scrutiny Committees and others the ways in which we can strengthen parliamentary scrutiny over justice and home affairs and give greater accountability of the Government to Parliament for those decisions.

We have said publicly, on the record, that the decision that must be made by 2014 on whether to opt out of or remain party to the pre-Lisbon corpus of justice and home affairs measures will be subject to a debate and to a vote in each House of Parliament. The previous Government made no provision for such an arrangement. They were content for the 2014 decision, which the hon. Gentleman now describes as of great magnitude, to be subject simply to the normal scrutiny provisions and for the Committee to determine whether to call it in for debate. I note that, despite all the hon. Gentleman’s strictures about there being no need for this Bill, he did not suggest that a hypothetical future Labour Government would seek to repeal the legislation. He knows the penalty that would accrue to any political party that tried to deny the people the democratic rights that they are being given under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

There are some elements of EU membership that could be put into such a calculus, but we cannot measure, in the way my hon. Friend wishes, things such as the diplomatic leverage that we obtain by being able to work in partnership with other European countries. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Some will differ from me in that analysis, but the fact that we were active members of the European Union helped us to achieve a package of sanctions against the Iranian nuclear programme last year that was tougher and more effective than either the United States or the Government of Iran believed possible. We were there at the table, so we were able to exert a powerful influence, in partnership with others, in the defence and enhancement of our national interest in securing sanctions against that programme, and we were able to overcome opposition from a number of other member states that weighed in the balance some very big commercial interests in Iran. That sort of advantage does not lend itself easily to the calculation that my hon. Friend invites me to make.

There are all sorts of things wrong with the EU as well, and we can find other occasions to debate its flaws, but the Government’s position is that membership of the European Union is one of the key ways in which we seek to advance the United Kingdom’s influence in the world.

[Mr David]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some very important points, but would it not be far better if he spent time talking, as he has, about the benefits of the European Union, rather than about this stupid, nonsensical Bill?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not regard as insignificant or risible giving the people of the United Kingdom a final say over treaty changes that transfer new powers and competences from this Parliament to Brussels. We would have much more public confidence in politics, and a much better chance of positively putting the case for British membership of the European Union, if the public did not feel so betrayed by the absence of any endorsement, by means of a referendum, of past treaty changes.

On new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Witham moved, my response to our hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) indicates why some of what it seeks is not suitable. Subsection (2)(a), for example, would require a report on

“any statements in the previous 12 months under section 5”—

both the statement about whether such a treaty or decision transfers power or competence, and the statement on whether any transfer under Clause 4(1)(i) or (j) is significant.

It would not be onerous to include that requirement in an annual report, but there are unlikely to be so many treaties or decisions in any one year, so there would not be any real value in that information being collected and set out in an annual report. Under the Bill, there will be a minimum requirement for a written ministerial statement and an Act of Parliament before any such measures can be agreed, and that seems to represent sufficient transparency.

On repatriation, I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham, who put her argument very powerfully and cogently. She knows that, under the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to examining the existing balance of competences and what they mean for Britain, and we continue to look at that issue.

The new clause raises some very important issues, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s aims of seeking much better value for money, more transparency and vigilance against competence creep within the European Union. Those matters are not for the Bill, however, which deals with treaty changes and ratchet clauses transferring powers or competences to the EU. We need to focus immediately on the individual issues to which she refers, measure by measure, as they arise in the Commission or as individual items of legislation, rather than taking up time preparing retrospective reports that I fear would be of largely historical interest.

What is relevant and important to the work of Ministers throughout Whitehall is for the Government to pursue with Parliament ways in which we can improve the scrutiny of EU issues and the opportunities for Parliament to hold Ministers to account for their stewardship of the United Kingdom’s interests in European discussions. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I do not wish to intrude upon private grief among Conservative Members, but I agree with you absolutely, Ms Primarolo, and you are absolutely correct that there is no question of the proposal being out of order.

The Minister gave a very interesting summation of the Bill, but he did not mention one crucial aspect of it. He did not say that referendums will not apply in this Parliament.

[Mr Lidington]

Assuming that the Bill gains parliamentary approval and Royal Assent in the normal way, it will apply during this Parliament from the time when it comes into effect. As I said earlier today, one illustration of that is that the treaty change proposed by Germany and being taken through EU institutions at the moment will have to be ratified by primary legislation rather than simply by a resolution of both Houses, as would be the case under the current legislation, which was introduced by the previous Government in 2008. What distinguishes this Parliament is that the Government have said, as part of their coalition agreement, that we do not intend to agree at European level to any proposal to amend the treaties or invoke passarelle clauses that would require a referendum under the terms of the legislation that we have been debating for a numbers of days now.

The referendums authorised under the Bill are intended to be final decisions. They will give people the opportunity to judge whether a particular proposal to give new powers to the European Union is in the national interest. One of the things that is troubling about the new clause is that it implicitly assumes that those who vote no to a particular proposition also want to challenge the UK’s membership of the EU, but I do not think that that can be taken for granted. As other hon. Members have said, there is a risk that some people could be influenced in how they vote on the substance of a proposal by a calculation of whether it would be likely to produce the end result of an in/out referendum. Such electors might take into account his or her views on the in/out proposal and not just the pros and cons of the measure on which they are being invited to cast a vote.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough overlooks the problem of a possible succession of referendums on Britain’s membership of the EU. It is possible to imagine that under a future Government—not this one—referendums on moving to qualified majority voting for common foreign and security policy and on joining the euro might be scheduled for two successive years. The new clause would leave open the possibility of an in/out referendum after one—or, indeed, both—of those referendums, because under his new clause a rejection of the first proposition would trigger an in/out referendum, which might result in the public deciding to stay in the EU. A second referendum on a treaty change might come forward 12 months later and also be rejected, and then, in the course of less than a year, we would find ourselves with two successive referendums on the UK’s membership of the EU. That is not a sensible way in which to conduct our relationship with the countries of the EU.

Nor does the new clause address what would happen if there were two questions on a ballot paper in one day, which we debated earlier. Why should a positive vote for one treaty change proposition and a negative vote for a second trigger a referendum? One cannot read into how people cast their votes on treaty change proposals what their view would be of the desirability of a referendum on membership. More fundamentally, however, the new clause does not capture the range of opinions held by the British people. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), whom I completely respect on these matters, said that she wanted people to be able to express a view on the direction that the EU was taking. However, that is not what people are being offered through the new clause, of course. They are being offered the opportunity not to express their view on the direction of the EU, but to say whether the UK should remain a member.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

I thank the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for providing an indication of what his Committee’s recent report says. We have heard over the last few days how important his reports have been in the consideration of this Bill. I also thank him for providing a useful context to the developing relationship between British law and European law.

During the last couple of days, we have heard a great deal from the Government about so-called direct democracy—enabling the people to make decisions themselves. However, it is worth remembering that the Conservative party has never been the party of devolution in Britain and it has always had a very limited definition of the European concept of subsidiarity. During the last few days, we have also discussed the exemption clause and the significance test—ways in which the Govt are substantially qualifying their apparent commitment to referendums. This afternoon, we go on to discuss the Government’s proposals for those issues that they deem, to quote the Minister for Europe, are “not of sufficient significance” to require a referendum.

Clause 7 sets out where primary legislation is required in such areas. It is interesting that the Government see Parliament playing a key role, but only on what it considers to be second tier issues—issues that do not require, to quote the Minister again, a “full-blown referendum”. Leaving aside the difference between a full-blown and a half-blown referendum, this differentiation between what is deemed appropriate for direct democratic decision making and for parliamentary decision-making well illustrates the incoherence and contradictions at the heart of this Bill.

For example, yesterday we heard from the Minister how under schedule 1 to the Bill any change to the appointment procedure of the advocates-general of the ECJ would attract a referendum. However, according to the letter that the Minister sent to his Back Benchers in November, a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting for decisions concerning the number of advocates-general would not attract a referendum, but would be covered by clause 7. Perhaps he will be kind enough to explain to the Committee why there are to be different procedures on those two related issues. It would be difficult in the extreme for any Government to explain why a referendum would be held on the one issue, but not the other.

It should be stressed that clause 7 is not about stopping changes at either the Council of Ministers or the European Council, because any member state can block a change to an internal passerelle clause. Clause 7 is only about providing parliamentary approval if the Government have already agreed to use one of the decisions set out in the clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out yesterday, it would be extremely difficult for a Council decision to abolish unanimity in respect of the adoption of any future acts. Indeed, Sir John Grant, the former United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Union put the matter extremely well in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee when he said that

“everybody’s got to agree that some of them are going to be outvoted.”

It is extremely unlikely that such a scenario would arise, so in reality the impact of clause 7 will be very small indeed.

After clause 7 we have clause 8, which would give Parliament a greater role over the so-called flexibility clause in the Lisbon treaty, and after that there is clause 9, which deals with justice and home affairs issues. Yesterday we discussed how some justice and home affairs issues would be covered by a referendum; today we discuss some justice and home affairs issues that will not. In particular, I want to refer to opt-ins to measures

“under the area of freedom, security and justice”.

Interestingly, the Bill does not really deal with one extremely important area. Britain has a temporary opt-out in the Lisbon treaty with regard to certain justice and home affairs measures. Under that protocol there are transitional provisions that provide for the United Kingdom to participate—or not—in certain European Union justice and home affairs measures. For example, the Government decided not to opt in to the draft EU directive on human trafficking. They decided not to opt in to that directive at the start of the legislative process, making the same decision during that process and at its conclusion, although I understand that they are to review the position when it comes to the adoption of the directive.

We believe that this is an important issue—an issue that clearly has to be addressed on an international and a European basis. I understand that the Government have decided to opt in to the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography directive—and quite right too—but what about the issue of international human trafficking? Our view is clear: it is an important issue that Britain should be tackling in co-operation with our European partners. However, the issue before us today is whether it is sensible, according to the Government’s own logic, to agree to their proposal that such opt-in provisions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but not a referendum. We fully believe that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we agreed to an enhanced role for national Parliaments in the Lisbon treaty. However, given that the Government have been arguing for referendums on important issues, why are they not proposing a referendum on such an important issue?

According to the protocol to the Lisbon treaty, the United Kingdom has an opt-in provision that will last for four and a half years. After that, Britain will be fully part of the justice and home affairs decision-making process. Last night we heard that the Government had absolutely no intention whatever of allowing referendums to take place before 2015 at the earliest. The question that I ask is: why? According to the Government’s own logic, if there are to be referendums on important changes that affect the United Kingdom, there should surely be a referendum on this justice and home affairs opt-in during the course of this Parliament. Nothing better shows the inconsistency and incoherence of the Bill than this. It is a muddled clause in a very muddled Bill.

So much for clause 9. Next is clause 10. If what we have been discussing does not make things complicated enough, clause 10 sets out a further six decisions that require parliamentary approval. It is as though the Government have gone out of their way to create a piece of legislation that is deliberately confusing, obsessively complex and designed to confound every constitutional expert in the land.

Let me be clear: we strongly support greater parliamentary involvement and greater parliamentary scrutiny. That is why Baroness Ashton, when she was Leader of the House of Lords under the previous Government, made a statement setting out commitments by the then Government for more parliamentary scrutiny on actions arising from the justice and home affairs protocols. Last week, this Government made a statement that reaffirmed those commitments, and I welcome that. However, we are genuinely concerned about the lack of clarity. This is an obtuse and even eccentric way of addressing serious constitutional issues. They are issues that affect the people of this country on a day-to-day basis, and the country and the House deserve better than the Bill before us today.

[Mr Lidington]

May I first respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)? He spoke with his characteristic dignity, courtesy and thoroughness about the issue of EU accession. I am sure that he will understand that I want to look carefully at the report from his Committee, rather than responding on the hoof this afternoon. As he would expect, a subject of this significance needs to be discussed by Ministers collectively in order for the Government to come up with the thorough and considered response that every member of his Committee deserves.

Clause 7 fulfils the pledge made in the coalition programme for government that

“the use of any passerelle”—

or ratchet clause—

“would require primary legislation.”

It sets out that the Government may not agree to the use of a number of passerelles, or ratchet clauses, in the EU treaties unless the approval from this House is specified in an Act of Parliament.

As the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear in the past, there is no straightforward legal or treaty definition of a ratchet clause. The European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 listed 10 such clauses and limited the definition to use of the simplified revision procedure and to nine articles that allow for the giving up of the British veto in specific areas. When we considered that commitment in the coalition programme, we decided that that definition was insufficient. So for a start, we have put a referendum lock on many of the passerelles listed in the 2008 Act. We debated those matters earlier in our Committee proceedings. Others we have subjected to a primary legislation lock under clause 7. So the use of article 48(7) to give up the UK veto in an area that we did not include in schedule 1 to the Bill would, none the less, still require full parliamentary approval in an Act of Parliament. The same principle applies to any proposal to move to qualified majority voting in an area of enhanced co-operation in which the UK is a participant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am conscious of the pressure on time and I am going to try to make some progress.

Let me respond to the challenge from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) about the numbers of advocates-general. There are not 27 advocates-general, so we are not in the position of having one for every member state, but it is important that we retain the veto on this, and we have no intention of giving it up.

It is important for the United Kingdom to be able to approve the appointments of judges and advocates-general, and we felt that it was sufficiently important to be included in schedule 1.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

There will be other opportunities for us to debate the number of advocates-general, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough to identify them. He and his hon. Friends have managed to weave the issue into every speech they have made so far at every stage of the Bill’s progress.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that I am going to deny myself the pleasure of hearing a further explanation from the hon. Gentleman.

The other articles listed in clause 7—covering decisions on provisions for elections to the European Parliament, on the system of own resources of the EU, and on the adoption of provisions to replace the excessive deficit procedure—already require primary legislation before this country can agree to them, and clause 7 replicates those earlier requirements. Decisions under the articles listed in clause 7(2) would require approval in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state before the member state confirmed its approval of a decision. The four articles that I mentioned are also subject to enhanced parliamentary control in Germany following the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on the Lisbon treaty.

For the other decisions listed in subsection (4), primary legislation will be needed before this country votes in the Council of Ministers or the European Council. In other words, the Act will be needed before the United Kingdom can cast its vote. We intend that to happen before the final political decision to use the ratchet clause is made at European Union level but after official-level negotiations have been completed, so that it is clear to Parliament that that is the final text and it can make a decision on what is proposed without the risk of further changes.

Unlike the 2008 Act, the Bill does not contain a disapplication provision giving Ministers discretion to approve a decision that has been amended since being approved by Parliament. That is deliberate. We want Parliament to approve the final version, although it will of course be examining the proposals from an early stage under the existing arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation.

I should emphasise that these provisions will apply only when the Government intend to agree to a measure. If the Government of the day did not support the exercise of any of the ratchet clauses, they would simply block their adoption. However, the pledge in the coalition agreement and the commitment in the Bill provide that when the Government would be in favour of such a decision, Parliament must approve it first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I have some sympathy in policy terms with the Government on the issue of the European investigation order, but would it not have been possible to have had informal consultation with, let us say, the outgoing Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, rather than having no consultation with Parliament at all?

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot recall without advice whether the Committee had just been appointed but had not met, or whether it had not yet been constituted, but the lesson that I draw from that episode—and the Government were far from happy with the fact that we had to take a decision at the end of the three-month period without a formal scrutiny process—is that we have, in the forthcoming discussions, to find a way to address the real difficulty that arises during a Dissolution of Parliament and the period after that before the scrutiny Committees are fully reconstituted. What the new Government found on coming into office was that the EU’s legislative timetable on justice and home affairs had not stopped and there was an accumulation of measures, each with a non-extendable three-month timetable, at the end of which we had to decide whether to make the initial opt-in. A large chunk of that time had already been devoured by the period of Dissolution, and there were no scrutiny Committees in place to do the job that we would want and expect Parliament to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I disagree with my hon. Friend’s statement either that we face an impossible dilemma or that the situation is untenable. We have a situation in which two political parties with differences of perspective and tradition on a number of issues are finding a way in which to work together in the interests of the nation as a whole. I think that the coalition is providing stable government. It is new in recent British political experience, but I find that it is hugely welcomed by many people of all political persuasions and no strong political persuasion.

[Mr David]

When the Minister says “people of all political persuasions”, he certainly should not include those on the Opposition Benches. I found his recent comment very interesting indeed. We understand how keen and enthusiastic he was to become a Minister, and this is the first time that he has revealed why he really, really wanted to be one. Also, this is the first time that he—or any other Minister—has acknowledged that the Bill is basically a compromise. It is the result of negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is important that that point is now firmly on record. This is the first time in this whole debate that it has been said. In the interests of transparency and openness, will he elaborate, so that we can find out the exact nature of the negotiating process that led to this rag-bag of a Bill?

[Mr Lidington]

It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to intervene in that fashion. He and I know that, in regard to policy on Europe or on any other matter, Governments of a single party in recent history—Conservative and Labour—have had to compromise a great deal, given the different points of view in the broad churches that those parties represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

We are due to debate the measures later.

The Government will have three options. They can decide to opt in to all the measures en bloc, or they can decide to opt out of them en bloc. The judgment that Ministers will have to make—I emphasise that no decision has yet been made, and that we are nowhere near making one or making a recommendation—is that these are measures in which the United Kingdom freely decided that it wanted to participate, because it served our national interest to do so, during the “third pillar” process that existed before the Lisbon treaty.

The Government of the time—Labour or Conservative—decided that each measure was right and that it was in the British national interest to participate; but, of course, that decision was made on the basis that those were intergovernmental matters which did not fall within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is a material difference. If we opt in to all these measures in 2014, we must accept that we are opting in to matters all of which will, from that point, be subject to ECJ jurisdiction.

[Mr David]

This is a very important point. One legal opinion says that if we reach that point in 2014 and the Government do not take a decision, Britain will have, in effect, opted in. Is that correct?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, the default position is that we stay opted in. We have to take a decision one way or the other, and the Government are not going to hide in the corner and hope that nobody notices a decision to opt in. We are going to make a public announcement at the due time and have the debate in Parliament.

The third option for the Government would be to opt out of the measures en bloc and then seek to opt back in where we continue to believe that the balance of advantage to our national interest lies in participation. A complicated analysis is involved and we are talking about 90 such measures coming up for determination in or before 2014. As this is, again, a matter within existing competence, it is best dealt with through the enhanced scrutiny arrangements that I am proposing and it should certainly require a vote in the House. The Government have explicitly committed themselves to that and it will, of course, happen before the end of this Parliament in 2015.

The two amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and others tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry propose to subject all opt-in decisions to a requirement for an approval motion in both Houses, not simply those on which there is a significant level of parliamentary interest. Because of the practicalities of such a move on all opt-in decisions, that requirement would risk preventing the Government from being able to secure Parliament’s approval in time to opt in to any new JHA proposal within the three-month time limit set down in article 3 of protocol 21 in order to enable us to participate in negotiations at EU level. That would have a knock-on effect on our ability to help shape the proposal effectively in negotiation, and sometimes that is of great importance. Our votes made it possible to clinch an agreement on the EU-US terrorist finance tracking measure that suited our national interest and ensured that the Americans were content too. That deal became available during a parliamentary recess, when it would not have been possible to go through the formal procedures that the amendments seek to apply to each and every opt-in. That is one reason why in the discussions about enhancing scrutiny we have to find a way to handle the real difficulties that can sometimes arise, both during recesses and in periods of and following parliamentary Dissolution.

May I say in passing to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that, although the detail will be the subject of discussions with the relevant Committees and business managers, the possibility of a parliamentary vote would apply to any opt-in decision under the proposals that I made in my written statement. Included in that would be measures following the adoption of a measure by other member states and decisions not to opt out of Schengen measures where there is strong parliamentary interest in the measure or where the measure is of the importance that I have indicated in my written statement. The process proposed in the amendments does not lend itself to timely decision making when a rapid decision needs to be taken. I have outlined the practical reasons why this approach would not be proportionate and I hope that my hon. Friends will therefore be prepared not to press their amendments to a Division.

Amendment 47 would require parliamentary approval before we could opt in to a measure brought forward under article 83(2) of TFEU, which allows for the establishment of minimum rules regarding the definition of criminal offences and sanctions if such approximation of member state criminal laws and regulations is judged to be essential to ensure effective implementation of policy areas in which the EU has already harmonised standards. For example, if the EU set rules about environmental protection and a criminal sanction proved essential to make those rules effective, the EU could consequently set a minimum standard for a criminal offence in that area.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, but I do not believe that article 83(2) is a ratchet clause in the way that articles 81(3), 82(2)(d) or 81(1) are so considered. Article 83(2) makes provision for Europe to be able to act under its existing competence without the need to be able to expand EU action in the same way, for example, as article 83(1) provides for the ability to expand the list of areas of serious cross-border crime in which the EU can act. I do not therefore think that it should be subject to the enhanced level of parliamentary control set out in the Bill to which the ratchet clauses are to be subject, given the relative differences in effect.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It would be helpful if, by way of introduction, I gave a brief explanation of our approach to how the referendum provisions in the Bill would work—the referendum mechanics, in other words. I stress that provision for the conduct of UK referendums on all issues, including those in the Bill, is set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That statute covers the overall regulatory framework applying to referendums and sets conditions in relation to the referendum period, the date of the poll, the wording of questions, the role of the Electoral Commission in commenting on the intelligibility of those questions to ensure that questions are “clear, simple and neutral”, and the conditions to be set in relation to the registration of campaign organisations and for financial and other assistance to be given to designated individuals or organisations. For this purpose, the Act allows the Electoral Commission to designate one individual or organisation for each possible outcome of a particular referendum, which could include political parties, and to award them a public grant of up to £600,000 and other benefits.

In addition, the provisions of the PPERA impose financial controls on the expenditure and income of campaigning individuals or organisations that are not political parties. They place controls on referendum publications by Government and others, and make provision for enabling secondary legislation to be made for the conduct of referendum polls. Those provisions in the PPERA would apply to any referendum conducted under the terms of the Bill and, as the Committee knows, the referendum proposed in the Bill on the parliamentary voting system. Similarly, any amendment to, or replacement of, the PPERA in the future would correspondingly apply to any referendums held under the Bill.

The PPERA, however, does not cover matters that are inherently specific to a particular referendum. Those include the precise wording of the question, the date of the referendum, its franchise, or the precise length of what is termed the referendum period, which is that period during which campaign expenditure is regulated. The Act does not cover how challenges to the referendum result are to be handled, the payment of counting officers, or the conduct of the referendum—for example, decisions on locations, opening hours of polling stations, permitted size of posters and any electoral offences related to the holding of a referendum.

When considering how many of these specific issues to address in the Bill and how many to leave for a specific Bill at the time of a particular referendum, the Government took account of our commitment in the coalition agreement that there would be no further transfer of competence or power from the United Kingdom to the EU over the course of this Parliament. Logically, therefore, there will be no referendums about the transfer of competence or power until 2015 at the earliest, as there would be no such transfers on which the British people should be asked to opine. But as I made clear in earlier debates on the Bill, any proposed treaty change even during this Parliament would none the less be subject to the rigours of this legislation—a statement would have to be laid before Parliament setting out the Government’s analysis on competence and whether any transfers of power would result, and that treaty change would still require Parliament’s clear approval through primary legislation.

[Mr David]

May I take the Minister back to what he was saying about the Electoral Commission and possible financial support to those putting forward a case for or against an issue under consideration? A referendum is due to take place in Wales on 3 March and, because there is no recognised body advocating a no vote, no finances are being given in that direction, but that means that no finances have been given to those who support a yes vote. Could a similar thing happen to any referendums that the Minister is outlining?

[Mr Lidington]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

The other point that a future Government would have to bear in mind in determining a referendum date would be whether there was any particular urgency to a treaty or passerelle proposal that required a referendum. In normal circumstances the various national ratification procedures take quite a bit of time, and if there were a proposal under the ordinary revision proposal, it is probable that more than one member state would have to have a referendum. There would therefore be quite a long period between agreement at European Council level and ratification by all 27 member states, or more by then, I hope. However, it is conceivable that there may be a particular need for urgency, and the Government of the day would have to bear that in mind.

The other point that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made was about the relationship with the devolved Administrations. The Government take that seriously, and we have regular formal meetings with them about Europe through the joint ministerial committee on Europe. I am also in contact with Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations. I can assure her and the Committee that they never hesitate to bring their concerns to me. We would certainly want to continue that process of consultation, bearing their interests in mind.

[Mr David]

I welcome the Minister’s partial reassurance, but may I press him on it? The important thing is for this Government proactively to lead consultation with the devolved Administrations. He should not simply wait for them to make representations to him.

[Mr Lidington]

We try to do both. We in the Government can pride ourselves on enjoying a rather better relationship with the devolved Administrations than the previous Government were usually able to manage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

As far as I am aware, there is no particular reason for it. However, the Electoral Commission will have a duty to comment on the question that the Government of the day have chosen, and I am sure that, if the Commission felt that placing yes above no gave an unfair advantage in some way, it would so opine and the Government would take account of that. It is quite difficult to envisage a ballot paper that did not have either yes or no at the top of the paper. At the end of the day, it comes down to a choice by the people: they have two options available to them, and I think that they will know which side they are on when it comes to the vote.

[Mr David]

I am tempted to ask the Minister whether Welsh will appear above English on the ballot papers in Wales, but I will not. Is there anything in the legislation that would prevent the Government from going back to the electorate if a no vote had been secured when the Government clearly wanted a yes vote? Could the question be put to the electorate for a second time, and, if so, what period would have to elapse before that could happen?

[Mr Lidington]

The Bill makes it very clear that the referendum condition has to be satisfied, in the circumstances in which the law requires a referendum to be held, before the Government are able to ratify the proposed treaty. I simply do not believe that any British Government who had been defeated at a referendum would then come forward and say to their electorate, “No, you’ve got it wrong. Let’s dissolve the people and have a new one!” That really does not make political sense.

[Mr David]

This is an important, although admittedly hypothetical, point. However, let us not forget what happened recently in Ireland.

[Mr Lidington]

What happened in Ireland was that the Irish Government went back to their EU partners and received various assurances, which were incorporated into a protocol to the treaties. We can debate whether the Irish Government were right or wrong to be satisfied by those assurances, but I actually think that it is a matter for the Irish people, not for me, to decide. In such slightly far-fetched, hypothetical circumstances, were a British Government to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests, they would have to bring the protocol back here and go through the entire process again, including the assessment of the ministerial declaration and the Act of Parliament. There would then have to be a new referendum. I just think that any Government who tried to do that would be punished so severely by the people every time they got the opportunity to go to the ballot box that it would be the last thing on any Minister’s mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Clause 13 covers the role of the independent Electoral Commission in the administering of any future referendums held under the Bill. The clause would supplement the existing provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Neill committee originally suggested the establishment of such a commission to supervise the restrictions on spending by, and donations to, both political parties and third parties.

As I have explained, we have not sought to disapply or replace any of the general provisions of PPERA. There is, of course, nothing to prevent Parliament doing so in any legislation that might be needed for a referendum in future, in order to reflect the context and the circumstances in which that referendum would be held. Significantly, however, the Act contains no provision to confer on the Electoral Commission power to promote public awareness and understanding of the subject matter of referendums.

We feel that, as part of the Government’s firm commitment to helping to rebuild trust and reconnect the British people to decisions made in their name on the European Union, it is important that the administration of any future referendum to be held under this Bill facilitate the understanding and clarity required to enable the British people to make informed decisions on whether or not to approve a treaty change or decision that would transfer power or competence from Britain to Brussels. Clause 13 provides that if a referendum is triggered under the EU Bill, the Electoral Commission has an obligation to take whatever steps it thinks appropriate to promote public awareness of the referendum and how to vote in it.

[Mr David]

I hear what the Minister says about an appropriate public debate and a high degree of awareness, but the clause states that the Electoral Commission

“may take whatever steps they think appropriate”.

If the Minister thinks that public awareness is so important, why did he not ensure that the word “will” was used rather than the word “may”?

[Mr Lidington]

The Electoral Commission was rightly established as an independent body. I think it important for the Government not to issue instructions to it, and to be seen not to do so. Given that the commission’s value to our political process is by virtue of its being a completely independent statutory body, I consider it right for us to give it these new powers without laying down rules requiring it to use them in a particular way. It is for the commission to make its own judgments. How it chooses to promote awareness is rightly a matter for it, but we are giving it a statutory duty to promote awareness before any referendum held under the provisions of the Bill.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

I have argued consistently that that was not the case, but the new Committee, drawn from both Houses, would consider all changes that occur inside the European Union and that have a direct impact on the United Kingdom. We can discuss what is significant and what is not, but my point is that the proposed Committee would come to a considered view on what was important and what should warrant a referendum.

I emphasise this point because we are concerned about the extent to which the Government will have discretion to decide what goes to a referendum. We are concerned because we fear that the Government’s rhetoric does not match the reality of their Bill. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely sincere in his intention to give the electorate the maximum ability to vote on a range of European minutiae, but let us just suppose that the Bill is smoke and mirrors. The nature of the proposals before us could turn out to be more apparent than real.

By common agreement, the Bill is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation to come before the House of Commons for many years. As we all know, in legislation the devil is always in the detail, and this Bill contains one heck of a lot of detail. Some Members, including those on the European Scrutiny Committee, have suggested that the Government may be looking for wriggle room. In particular, there has been reference to clause 3(4), the so-called “significance” subsection, which allows the Government to avoid a referendum if they believe that certain EU sanctions or obligations are insignificant. If I were a Government Member, I should consider that very ominous, as little detail is provided.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Given the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed, will he please explain why the Opposition amendments, and in particular new clause 9, would extend the significance test so that the Committee that he proposes would consider whether a decision to join the euro, or a decision to scrap British border controls, was significant enough to warrant a referendum at all?

[Mr David]

The answer is simple. I have faith in Parliament; I do not have faith in this Government. That is the issue that is at stake. I think that many Members have twigged that the subsection is very significant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to go way beyond the scope of the Bill. At the moment, any legal aid application would be subject to the normal rules that apply to legal aid, which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, and not of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The Bill comprehensively goes through the nuts and bolts of the treaties to identify how power and competence could be shifted from this country to the European Union. We have deliberately and determinedly taken steps to limit the wriggle room for any Government or Minister in this regard. We are committed to ensuring, as best we can, that the Bill is watertight, with no omissions or loopholes that would allow a future Government to avoid giving either Parliament or the people the control that they deserve.

Let me spell out in a little more detail how we plan to achieve this. Following the agreement of any future treaty change under the ordinary revision procedure—that is, the process involving an intergovernmental conference and, probably, since the Lisbon treaty, a convention of the European and national Parliaments as well as of national Governments—three conditions must be fulfilled before the United Kingdom could ratify such a treaty change. First, the Minister must lay a statement before Parliament. That statement would give the Minister’s decision as to whether the proposed treaty change would involve one or more of the criteria in clause 4 of the Bill, and therefore whether a referendum would be required or not. A change that would transfer power or competence from this country to the EU would be subject to a referendum of the British people.

If the proposal were considered by the Minister not to involve one or more of the criteria in clause 4, it would be considered to meet the exemption condition—in other words, it would not require a referendum to be held. The important point is this: the Minister cannot simply conjure his decision out of the air. He has to obey the law. He has to follow the criteria set out in the Bill, especially those in clause 4 and schedule 1. His statement will have to demonstrate how he has applied those criteria in coming to his decision. He will simply not have the scope in law to make some arbitrary decision in defiance of what is spelled out in the legislation.

[Mr David]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but his points are deliberately vague. How does he respond to that?

[Mr Lidington]

The points are not vague. I invite the hon. Gentleman to have another look at clause 4 and schedule 1, both of which define in clear terms the various ways in which competences could, within the terms set out in the treaties, be enlarged, transferred or expanded, while schedule 1 sets out in detail a list of national vetoes, the removal of which would automatically trigger a referendum. I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies the Bill a little bit harder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that.

I wish now to discuss the significance test. New clause 9 would submit all referendum criteria, all treaty changes and all uses of article 48(6) to a significance test, but even the narrow use of the significance test, as set out in the Bill, has been the subject of a great deal of concern, so I wish to be clear about what it means for the Bill as it stands and to explain why it is needed. The significance test can be used only in very specific circumstances. Clause 4 identifies 13 instances when a treaty change transferring competence or power to the EU would attract a referendum. The significance test applies not to 13, but to two of those instances. Moreover, it can be used only when a decision under article 48(6) is being taken. It cannot be used for treaty amendments adopted under the ordinary revision procedure.

Article 48(6) decisions could seek to confer on a European institution a power to require this country to act in a particular way, or to impose sanctions on the UK for our failure to act in a particular way. Although that could be done only within existing areas of competence, and not within new ones, it would enable EU institutions or bodies to use those existing competences in a different way. A future proposal under article 48(6) to do either of these things would, as a matter of general principle, require a referendum to be held.

Let me give the Committee a hypothetical example. There might be a proposal to allow an EU agency to impose sanctions on a national regulator or to act in a way that compelled British businesses to do something that would increase significantly the burdens on British business and harm the competitiveness of this country. That sort of decision would, in my view, be classed as significant and should attract the referendum lock, but there might equally be instances in the future—my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was right—where article 48(6) might be used to give a new power to a body in an area that is not significant to this country. For example, it might require a national regulator or some other British organisation to provide an EU agency with a set of statistics annually.

Let us consider, for example, the European Maritime Safety Agency. It was set up to provide member states of the Commission with technical and scientific assistance in the field of maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships. If, in the future, it was decided to change the treaty so that that agency could issue binding directions to national regulators and that that would be a permanent cession of authority and powers, that would be a significant power within the meaning of clause 4(1)(i) or (j). If, however, the proposal was to change the treaty to allow the agency to require national regulators to provide it with an annual digest of statistics, I do not think that that would be a significant power under the Bill. That is why we have provided for the significance test.

Amendments 3 and 5 would remove the significance condition from the Bill, so it would in practice require a national referendum on such things as the provision of statistics. I think that most people in this country would accept that such technical changes should be left to the Government, under the scrutiny of Parliament, who of course would still have to authorise the minor treaty change through primary legislation—a formal Act of Parliament subject to detailed scrutiny and capable of amendment in either House. In all those instances the proposal would need to be thoroughly analysed and we have ensured that any use of the significance test would be subject to strong scrutiny and accountability.

When he spoke about amendment 11, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere took a different approach to parliamentary scrutiny. His amendment would require a Minister to seek parliamentary approval not to hold a referendum on the basis of the significance test, through both Houses agreeing to a motion without amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy for where my hon. Friend is coming from and I do not for one moment challenge his passionate commitment to the duty of Parliament to hold Ministers to account or his wish to see the powers of Parliament over European Union business and ministerial decisions on Europe strengthened and improved. If I felt that his amendment would secure that objective better than the provisions in the Bill, I would be with him on the detail. However, I want to explain why I do not believe that it does that.

First, when a Minister makes the statement required by clause 5 on whether a proposed amendment requires a referendum, they must give reasons why the proposed change does or does not meet the significance test. Those reasons will need to refer to the criteria set out in clause 4, so their reasoning will need to be clearly set out. There is a first measure of protection already in the Bill.

Secondly, the Bill ensures that every proposed treaty change, regardless of whether the significance test applies, would require the approval of Parliament through primary legislation. That would allow sufficient time for Parliament to scrutinise the use of the test to legislate for a referendum if it deemed such a provision necessary.

Thirdly, there is the risk that having a separate debate on significance in the way that amendment 11 proposes could weaken Parliament’s scrutiny of the primary legislation that the Bill requires. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in an intervention. In view of the dynamic of the House of Commons, it would be tempting for a Government who wanted to rush through a particular treaty change to schedule an early debate on the motion not to require a referendum and then, when the ratification Bill came forward and Members of Parliament had had the opportunity to look at the detail, perhaps consider the evidence of a Select Committee, and listen to what outside experts had to say on the matter, they would find their Whips coming up and saying, “We’ve already voted on this. You personally went through our Lobby to support the proposition that a referendum was not required. How can you change your mind and try to insert the requirement for a referendum at this stage?”

The unintended consequence of amendment 11 could be to strengthen the hand of the business managers and to weaken the independence of judgment that Members would be able to exercise under the requirement for primary legislation laid out in the Bill. Amendment 11 would also weaken any prospect of a successful judicial review. Judicial review is not a panacea, but the House should see it as a significant step to give the citizen the right to challenge a Minister’s decision, where that decision is irrational or unreasonable.

There are two important distinctions between what we are proposing here and what we saw in the Wheeler case, to which a number of Members referred in the debate. First, the Minister has to give reasons, and give reasons by reference to the Bill. That opens up the possibility that a court might wish to consider a challenge to the reasonableness of the Minister’s decision. Secondly, whereas in Mr Wheeler’s case the Court was invited to judge the wording of the constitutional treaty against the wording of the treaty of Lisbon and declined to do so, in this case we are talking about a possible invitation to the Court to judge the actions and decision of a Government Minister in his Executive capacity against the statutory duties on that Minister set out in the language of the Bill. Those are important distinctions.

[Mr David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

No. I want to do justice to the amendments tabled by the Opposition. They have been presented as increasing the role of Parliament. In fact, they do the reverse. The effect of the Opposition amendments, especially new clause 9, is to subject every referendum criterion to a significance test. If accepted, the Opposition’s amendments would leave it open as to whether a move to join the euro was significant, a move to give new competences to the European Union was significant, a move to give up our border controls and take part entirely in a European immigration system was significant, or a move to join a European public prosecutor system was significant.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) is trying to persuade us that he is offering new powers to Parliament, when it is clear to anybody who studies the wording of his amendments and his new clause that the intentions are the reverse. The Opposition’s amendments would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. They would deny both Parliament and the people the additional powers and controls which I believe Parliament and people in this country want to see. The Bill is designed to be tough. As academic experts have said when giving evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, it delivers the referendum lock that we have promised. I will not yield by weakening the Bill in the way that the Opposition propose.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

Just for clarification, is the Minister saying that there is a difference in legal opinion between the lawyers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the rest of Government?

[Mr Lidington]

Certainly not. I am saying that we made sure we took legal advice from all the relevant Departments across Whitehall. The views I am expressing—what is in the Bill—reflect the legal advice that has been given, as well as the political decisions that Ministers have taken about what should be included in the legislation.

As I said on Second Reading, clause 18 is declaratory or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said, it is a codification. The clause creates a statutory point of reference to which any future court that considers an argument about the source of authority for European law in this country must have regard. It reflects the dualist nature of our constitutional system, under which international obligations—including those assumed by the UK through our membership of the European Union—are not self-executing within the UK legal system. The fact that the UK is dualist means that European Union law is enforceable here only because this Parliament has legislated to make it so. The clause makes it clear that such European law has authority only by virtue of the fact that Parliament has, through its Acts, decided to import it into the domestic legal order.

In the event of any litigation arising where a party sought to claim that directly applicable or effective EU law had an autonomous legal existence in the UK, the other party would be able to counter that argument by referring to clause 18 and, similarly, judges would take this into account in addressing the arguments raised in their judgments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

If one follows the logic that my hon. Friend and others have adduced this evening about the ambitions and activism of certain members of the senior judiciary, and if one considers the arguments that would be made by counsel and parties on both sides if a case were pleaded before a court—they would inevitably draw attention to the absence of any definition of parliamentary sovereignty—one sees that my hon. Friend underestimates the risk that the amendment would encourage judicial activism rather than provide an antidote to it. The concerns about definition apply to other amendments and new clauses, as well.

I wish to say a brief word about the explanatory notes, which have been mentioned in a number of speeches. I note that the European Scrutiny Committee’s report recommended that they should reflect the balance of opinion on the matter. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Second Reading, references to the common law are meant simply as a contradistinction to statute, given that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is defined nowhere in statute. They are not meant to be determinative of the origin of the principle, which goes far beyond the scope of the Bill.

Although I do not believe that one phrase in seven substantial paragraphs of the explanatory notes bears the weight that some of my hon. Friends have placed upon it, I will respond to the concerns that have been addressed. The coalition will amend the explanatory notes before the Bill enters the Lords, to address satisfactorily the concerns that the European Scrutiny Committee has raised. That will in no sense change the effect of the clause, which is couched in terms of the status of EU law in the UK legal order, and does not refer explicitly to parliamentary sovereignty or take a position on the origins of that principle.

[Mr David]

Given that the Minister had clearly agreed to change the explanatory notes before the debate, would not it have been courteous to tell the Opposition about his decision?

[Mr Lidington]

I have had no private conversations with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—the hon. Member who expressed concern. The hon. Gentleman is in his place. Like every other hon. Member, he has had the opportunity to hear about the proposed change.

New clause 1 deals with section 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. By virtue of that Act, jurisdiction has been conferred on our courts to determine and adjudicate on disputes arising under EU law. That jurisdiction does not arise from the treaties, nor have the courts conferred it on themselves. Courts here possess that power because Parliament has determined that it is appropriate for them to do so and has legislated accordingly.

Section 3(1) of the European Communities Act provides that, for the purposes of legal proceedings in the UK courts, any question about the meaning or effect of the treaties is to be treated as a matter of law and requires the UK courts to take judicial notice of the treaties, the Official Journal and any decision of the European Court of Justice. Together with section 2, it is a cornerstone of the European Communities Act and, like the rest of the measure, subject to appeal or amendment by Parliament if we choose.

New clause 1 would restrict the exercise by the courts of their jurisdiction to interpret and address issues of EU law by ensuring that it does not extend to construction or interpretation by the courts of the nature or legal effect of parliamentary sovereignty.

European Union Bill

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Government have made it clear that we would not assent to a transfer of competence or powers during the lifetime of this Parliament. It follows, therefore, that we do not expect a referendum in the lifetime of this Parliament, but unforeseen events might arise. The Bill, once it becomes law, will be binding on this Government as well as on any future Administration, whatever circumstances might arise.

[Mr David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

No, I want to deal with the objections and criticisms that have been made to and of the referendum lock. Serious questions have been asked on both sides during the debate and I want to respond to them. One set of objections came from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who made it clear that he objected to all referendums as a matter of principle—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

The second line of criticism was rather more subtle than that presented by the hon. Member for Rhondda. It was articulated by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who argued that the Bill left too much discretion to Ministers. My hon. Friends the Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Witham echoed that argument.

My response is that a number of options were available to us. One was to draft a test phrased in fairly general terms, saying that an important measure would require a referendum, but leaving it to the Government of the day to determine whether that test had been met. We took the view that that would have left far too much discretionary power in the hands of Ministers. What we have done instead is to introduce a Bill that quite deliberately limits ministerial discretion by specifying those changes that would trigger a referendum and also those limited categories of treaty change that would be exempt from the referendum requirement.

Several hon. Friends talked about the significance test, which applies only to a change brought forward under the simplified revision procedure. Within that category of treaty change, it applies only if the sole reason for its falling within the referendum lock is that it falls under clause 4(1)(i) or (j). Any proposal that is covered by clause 4(1)(a) to (h) or clause 4(1)(k) to (m) automatically attracts a referendum. In reply to a direct question put to me, yes, if this Bill had been law at the time, the Lisbon treaty negotiated under the ordinary rules of procedure would have required a referendum before it had been ratified. I only wish we had had such a provision on the statute book when the Labour party betrayed this country’s interests and reneged on the promises it had given.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) argued that the significance was subject only to judicial review and not to Parliament. Of course it is true that any Executive decision by any Minister is liable to judicial review. I dispute his argument, however. Irrespective of whether the significance test applies and whether a referendum is required, any treaty change, however minor, will require an Act of Parliament for its ratification. Such an Act will be subject to full debate and scrutiny and will be capable of amendment in whatever way Parliament wishes.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

Through this Bill we are making the Government more accountable to the British people for what they do in Europe. We are ensuring that any new proposal to take powers from this place to Brussels will involve the people in having the final say. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Wayne David

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Our ambassador is in regular contact with the authorities in Kyrgyzstan. We are deeply concerned by recent events in that country where the situation remains fragile. Both we and our international partners believe that the political process now under way represents the best chance that we have to ensure peace, the rule of law and democracy for all the people of Kyrgyzstan.

[Mr David]

Clearly, the situation in Kyrgyzstan remains difficult, but does the Minister agree that it is vital that we have maximum co-operation between the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the United Nations and the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that next week, when I attend the OSCE ministerial meeting in Kazakhstan, I will be able to talk to colleagues from all those parts of the world about the way forward.