European Union (Referendum) Bill

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on achieving third place in the ballot and on introducing this Bill to the Chamber again.

Labour believes that any judgment about a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union has to be based on what is in the national interest. We do not believe that a Bill calling for an in/out referendum in 2017 on an arbitrary date unrelated to the likely timetable of major treaty change, putting jobs and investment in Britain at risk, is in our national interest. That is why Labour does not support this Bill. Instead, Labour will legislate in government for a lock that guarantees that there cannot be any transfer of powers from Britain to the European Union without an in/out referendum.

The promoter of the Bill answered the question from the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) by saying that the Bill is about trust. Let us deal with that issue directly. This Bill has not been brought before the House because the Prime Minister suddenly woke up with a democratic impulse or because Conservative Back Benchers trust the public; it is being debated because Conservative Back Benchers do not trust the Prime Minister.

[Mrs Main]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not support the Bill, and given that with some Liberal Democrat colleagues Labour Members could defeat it, why are they abstaining and allowing their cronies in the House of Lords to do their dirty work? Why do they not put their vote where their mouth is on this question?

[Mr Alexander]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, she has never been my lodestar of political judgment, and I therefore think that Labour Members shall make the judgments in relation to the legislative passage of any Bill.

This Bill is being presented for a second time.

[Robert Halfon]

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says are the reasons for bringing this Bill to the House, surely, as a party of principle, Labour should support workers’ rights, given, as I said, the negative impact that the EU has had on workers’ wages and its impact on jobs. Labour should take a position of principle and say, “We trust the people and we support an in/out referendum on the EU.”

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great eloquence about workers’ rights. I am sure that he is familiar with the Beecroft report, commissioned by this Government, which really let the cat out of the bag. The rationale for repatriation being supported by so many of his colleagues is that it would bring powers home in order to take away workers’ rights. We know that, and Conservative Back Benchers know that, yet it is significant that the Prime Minister chose not to—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would like to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary in the same way as I wanted to hear the Foreign Secretary, but I cannot hear him if people keep shouting.

[Mr Alexander]

It is significant in terms of the credibility of the Prime Minister’s word on these matters that, if I recollect correctly, the word “repatriation” did not appear in the Bloomberg speech of which the Foreign Secretary spoke so eloquently a few moments ago.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to give way again.

As I stand here again, a year on, after yet another Friday morning meeting in Downing street to rally the beleaguered troops—I venture to suggest that never have so many bacon rolls died in vain—looking at Conservative Members, or at least what is left of them, gathered to talk about their favourite subject of Europe, I have to say that I feel a certain sense of déjà vu. The only thing that seems different this morning is the absence of the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister.

Even if the Bill has not changed, some things have changed since we last gathered a year ago. Back in January 2013, when the Prime Minister gave at Bloomberg what his aides rather optimistically, as it turns out, briefed would be

“his last speech on Europe in the parliament”,

I was, on balance, prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if some of his own Back Benchers, even at that time, were undoubtedly not willing to do so. I believe that when he committed to holding a referendum in 2017, he assumed sincerely that, given the push at the time towards closer eurozone integration, there would be a major EU treaty change within the time frame that he set out. Since that speech at Bloomberg last year, however, the prospect of extensive treaty changes by 2017 has receded rather than grown. He knows that, we know that, Conservative Members know that, and, most worryingly for the Prime Minister, the Back Benchers who are concerned about whether he can deliver on his promise know that.

Only this month, the French Prime Minister—perhaps one of the individuals that the Foreign Secretary has had those obscure and rather elliptical conversations with—said that EU treaty change would be “perilous” and ruled out a “shake-up of its treaties” any time soon. In January, the French President said during a visit to London that treaty change was “not urgent” and “not a priority”. After the signing of the German coalition agreement in November last year—without, I point out, a single reference to treaty change—Chancellor Merkel said in February this year that the Conservatives’ hopes would end in “disappointment”. For full measure, her Foreign Minister then said that it would be “an exaggeration” to assert that Germany and the United Kingdom were on the same page when it came to treaty reform in the EU. We have heard a little more exaggeration from the Foreign Secretary this morning.

Nearly two years on from the Prime Minister’s announcement of a 2017 referendum, the ground beneath his feet has shifted. It has left him asserting, ever less convincingly, that he can initiate, negotiate and secure the unanimous support of 27 European Heads of Government for a fundamental redesign of the European Union within 19 months of May 2015.

How likely a prospect is that for our Prime Minister, given his recent track record of negotiations in Europe? This boast is made by a Prime Minister who just this year managed to turn a Europe divided over Jean-Claude Juncker into a Europe virtually united against the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was certainly not the first British Prime Minister to take a tough negotiating stance in Brussels, but he will go down in history as the first British Prime Minister ever to lose a vote in the European Council. He went to Brussels with, incidentally, a cross-party mandate—the Liberals and, indeed, the Labour party were behind him—to secure consensus on the best candidate for Commission President, but he failed to build alliances.

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

The right hon. Gentleman says that our Prime Minister lost a vote in Europe, but does he not realise that the rest of the country takes that as a sign that our Prime Minister is standing up for this country?

[Mr Alexander]

I do not want to intrude on private grief, but the Prime Minister lost, and lost badly. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have it on his leaflets that 27-0—actually, to be fair, it was 26-2—in the European Council is a sign of success and effectiveness and of statesmanship by a British Prime Minister, good luck to him.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

It’s called principle.

[Mr Alexander]

It’s called losing, actually, and I do not think that Britain wants a Prime Minister who keeps losing.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman has expressed the utter supineness of the socialists, who give in to everything Europe wants when our Prime Minister is willing to put the British case, even when sometimes that does not succeed. It was courageous and it was the right, firm approach for dealing with renegotiation.

[Mr Alexander]

There speaks the authentic voice of the 18th century! Our dispute seems to be about the efficacy of principle and the effectiveness of statesmanship. The hon. Gentleman argues that the Prime Minister was efficacious in upholding a principle, but I maintain that he was hopelessly ineffective at securing statesmanship on the international stage. Let us remember that the Prime Minister failed to use the weeks following the European elections to work to build a coalition that could have been built with countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Hungary and Italy.

Let us treat that as a textbook example of what the Foreign Secretary has just asserted can be achieved in the months after 2015. If the Prime Minister failed to prevent a not universally popular candidate from becoming Commission President, what hope is there that he could secure unanimous support for a fundamental redesign of Europe on an arbitrary timetable that other European Governments simply do not accept?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does the shadow Foreign Secretary agree that it is always possible to win a vote if we give in? For example, on the Thatcher rebate, under Tony Blair £6 billion a year was given away with nothing in return, and guess what? Yeah, he won the vote.

[Mr Alexander]

I am not sure that was worth taking as an intervention. First, it is a matter of record that the A10 accession—the significant enlargement of the European Union—that preceded those discussions was a matter of cross-party consensus. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would not dispute that.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Small change.

[Mr Alexander]

Well, any reasonable judgment of the budgetary settlement recognised that the budget was going to change as a consequence of 10 new members coming into the European Union. I hope there is common ground on that.

Secondly, if I recollect accurately, as a consequence of those budgetary negotiations undertaken by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, there is now, for the first time, parity between the contributions of France and the United Kingdom. I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman supported that.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is one of those who believe that the crisis in the eurozone has passed, or does he recognise that there will need to be fundamental structural reform in Europe in order to ensure the success of the euro currency?

[Mr Alexander]

Of course there needs to be continuing fundamental and serious change in the eurozone, not least given the challenges that the peripheral countries face in relation to productivity and the frankly worrying current levels of growth across the eurozone. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says it is a fundamental point in relation to treaty change, so I offer him the opportunity to step back up to the Dispatch Box and name one member of the eurozone that is publicly advocating treaty change between now and 2017. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says, “Not publicly.” If it is accepted that there is a need for fundamental reform of the eurozone, what, at this point in the discussions, would be to the disadvantage of any one member of the eurozone—just one, not even two or three—to say that there is going to have to be fundamental treaty change in order to make the eurozone work effectively by 2017? I would be very happy to give way if the Foreign Secretary would like to intervene and name a country. His silence speaks volumes and that explains why, with every passing month, the credibility of Conservative Front Benchers diminishes with that of its Back Benchers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I want to make some progress and then I will be happy to give way.

On the eurozone and the economy, the Foreign Secretary complacently dismissed powerful interventions by my hon. Friends on the very real concerns of British business. One aspect of the debate that has not changed since the Bill was last debated is the view of British business. It continues to speak out and speak up, warning against the risks of stumbling or sleepwalking out of Europe, which is a real prospect, given the abject failure both of the Prime Minister to set out a reform agenda and of the Foreign Secretary to offer a credible negotiating strategy to deliver that fundamental redesign with unanimity by 2017.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I want to make some progress.

Earlier this year, Sir Richard Branson said, in no uncertain terms, that

“the last thing the UK should do is leave”

the EU,

“as it would then have no say on how to improve it and make it more productive for all countries involved.”

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is for the Chair, as you, as a member of the Panel of Chairs well know, to make that decision. That is not a point of order.

[Mr Alexander]

I know that this debate is proving uncomfortable for Conservative Members.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Conservative Members do not seem to want to listen to my right hon. Friend’s arguments, but he is making a powerful speech. Perhaps they will listen to their own Lord Heseltine, who has said:

“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble”.

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which points to two truths. The first is the importance of economic stability and certainty in relation to investment and the opportunities that British business needs not just to invest and employ, but to export in the future. The second is that it shows just how far the Conservative party has travelled.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

Who better to describe the journey the modern Conservative party is taking than the hon. Gentleman? I am happy to give way.

[Mr Bone]

I congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary on his excellent and powerful speech, and I look forward to his putting his name forward in the next few weeks to become the next leader of the Labour party. I think we agree on the major point that the Labour party is clearly against an in/out referendum, and I am grateful to him for clarifying that. We also agree that it is very unlikely that the European Union will give the reforms that the Prime Minister wants. The difference is that, finally, at the end of the journey, it will be the British people who decide. That is the right way forward. Why will the Labour party not agree to that?

[Mr Alexander]

Flattering though the hon. Gentleman’s introduction to his question was, I fear that we diverge on at least two substantive points. First, Labour takes a conditions-based approach to an EU referendum. We think that the right point to have a referendum would be that which the Conservative party used to favour—indeed, it was in the Conservative manifesto. The party that has shifted its position is not the Labour party, but the Conservative party. The second point on which we take a different position is that we continue to believe that it is in Britain’s strategic, long-term interest to remain part of a changed and reformed European Union. It is not that the character of Europe is incapable of reform; it is that the competence of this Prime Minister means that he has failed abjectly to deliver reform. He has spent four years burning bridges rather than building alliances. That is why we have ended up with the paltry list of so-called reforms that were suggested by the Foreign Secretary today, against a backdrop in which he is literally incapable of articulating what the reform agenda would be.

The common ground between the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I is that both of us would like more clarity from Conservative Front Benchers on what the reform proposals are, what the red lines are and even how the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary would vote in a referendum. Indeed, if the Foreign Secretary would like to step up to the Dispatch Box and tell us something that he omitted to mention during his speech, he might answer this question: is he prepared, if he does not get the changes that he is hoping for in the reform discussions, to recommend a no vote? Once again, the silence speaks volumes. That might be a judgment based on loyalty to the Prime Minister that costs him many votes in a future leadership contest.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is showing his customary generosity. Does he agree that his comment that there is no support among our partner countries in Europe for treaty change is simply wrong? The German coalition agreement includes that provision. Does he have it there? Has he read it?

[Mr Alexander]

I have read the German coalition agreement. I simply invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to name a member of the German Government who supports treaty change before 2017 and which specific change they recommend.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It is in the document. The German coalition agreement includes a provision that calls for treaty change, so it is signed up to by all of them.

[Mr Alexander]

With the greatest of respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if I had a choice between the words of the German Chancellor and his view on what the German coalition is likely to do, I would, on balance, put more weight on the views of Chancellor Merkel. When she came to this place during an important state visit last year, I expected her to offer perhaps just a single line in her remarks that would give a ledge on which the Prime Minister could stand and say to his Back Benchers, “See, we have made some progress. The Germans are going to be with us and we will get what we need.” It was hugely significant that she did not feel the obligation to give even a carapace of cover to the Prime Minister. She left having given absolutely no credence to the rather desperate assertion, which we have heard again today, that the Germans will somehow rescue the Prime Minister from his negotiating inadequacies. There is simply no foundation for that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is all terribly interesting, but it is slightly irrelevant to what we are talking about today. Even if the Prime Minister fails to get anything substantial, the British people will make their choice. What I cannot understand about the actions of the Labour party—I am scratching my head about this—is that surely it wants to win the general election. Is it not quite a popular thing to do to offer a referendum by a certain date? Would it not be a good idea to shoot the Government’s foxes if it is trying to win the next general election?

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy, if it is what the hon. Gentleman wants, to move on to advice on electoral politics. It is the Conservative party, not this party, that has just lost two Members of Parliament to UKIP. It is the Conservative party that has not won a majority in a UK general election for 20 years. When the Prime Minister gave his speech at the Tory party conference nine years ago, it was back in the days when people believed that the Conservatives could win a majority. That was a long time ago. The Conservative strategy of first insulting UKIP, then ignoring UKIP and then imitating UKIP has proved to be an abject electoral failure. That is why there is rising panic among so many Conservative Back Benchers that, far from being able to secure a minority Government after the general election, they will be faced with an existential threat posed by their colleagues in UKIP.

[Richard Graham]

There is surely some reward for persistence in this House. I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary. He has talked about the effectiveness of statesmanship. Earlier, he said that the referendum would not be in the national interest. Will he therefore confirm two things for the record, for all those who might be thinking of voting Labour: first, that his party does not think that the Bill is in the national interest and that it does not want a referendum, and secondly, that his party will not vote against the Bill?

[Mr Alexander]

That was a valiant effort, but let us be clear that there is a difference between taking a conditions-based approach to a referendum by saying that when there is a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels, there should be an in/out referendum—

[Richard Graham]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is what it said in the manifesto on which he was elected. Indeed, he walked through the Division Lobby in favour of that exact policy, with the caveat that the referendum would take place at that point. We have said that that should be strengthened, because we recognise that there would be a question over Britain’s relationship with Europe at the point at which the sovereignty lock was initiated. We would therefore strengthen the position by saying that there would be a clear legal lock, so that when there was a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels, a referendum would take place. It is therefore wholly wrong to suggest that the Opposition are opposed to a referendum on Europe.

If I recollect correctly—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) will confirm this—the only party ever to give a referendum on European membership was Labour. We will go into the coming general election committed to providing an in/out referendum if there is a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels. That used to be the policy of the Conservative party. The party that has shifted under the weight of both internal political pressure and external electoral pressure is the Conservative party.

[Mrs Main]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I have been generous in giving way, so let me make a little progress.

Since we debated the last version of this Bill, the European context has altered. First, the prospect that the Prime Minister hoped for rather forlornly at the time of his speech to Bloomberg—that major treaty change by 2017 would be inevitable—has receded. That is an uncomfortable truth. Secondly, the economic concerns that have been expressed by John Cridland, Sir Richard Branson and many others across the British business community have endured. Thirdly, we have to have the humility to recognise, as was pointed out in an earlier intervention, that there is politics at work in the Bill, and the politics has moved on since the Bill was last debated as well.

Since we last debated the Bill, the Prime Minister has lost a Foreign Secretary who was apparently deemed by his Back Benchers to have gone native in the Foreign Office, to be replaced by a Foreign Secretary—I welcome him to his position on the Front Bench—who, on hearing the news that the then Secretary of State for Education, the current Chief Whip, had suggested that he would vote to leave the EU today, rushed to the television studios to match that Eurosceptic pledge. One would almost think that they were worrying about an election beyond the general election in May 2015. The truth is that one of the reasons why we are once again debating the Bill is that the centre of gravity of the Conservative party has shifted and continues to shift. The Bill is all about internal leadership challenges and external electoral challenges.

I do not want to intrude too much on private grief, although I could probably be tempted, but what has also changed is that the Conservative party has lost two Members of Parliament to UKIP in just the last two months. Who knows how many more will follow? Who knows how many more are now saying, “Never say never.”? That is the real reason for the Bill.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he intends to stand as a Conservative candidate.

[Simon Kirby]

I am still very confused. I thought that we were debating giving people the chance to have their say. I still do not understand what I should say to voters in Brighton, Kemptown about what the Labour party’s policy is. Why should their voices not be heard?

[Mr Alexander]

The confusion of the hon. Gentleman is a much longer topic of conversation, which extends beyond the parameters of this debate. Let us take a step back and recollect how far the Conservative party, of which he is a member, has journeyed. However, I note that he did not confirm that he will take the Conservative Whip, so he might be somebody else the Chief Whip needs to speak to in the coming days, along with so many others.

Back in the days when the Conservative party still believed that it could win a majority, the Prime Minister said that, “for too long”,

“Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most. While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life, we were banging on about Europe.”

Let us take this week as an example. On Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, Conservative Back Benchers asked more questions about Europe than any other subject, and here we are on Friday morning, once again witnessing the Conservative party banging on about Europe. It is talking to itself and not to the country all over again. It did not have to be like this. The tragedy for the country—this brings me back to my substantive point about statesmanship—is that the Prime Minister is trying to use a referendum Bill to cover over the cracks in the Conservative party, when he should be seizing the moment for reform in Europe.

In his speech in January last year the Prime Minister set out principles for EU reform, but 22 months later what more have we heard? There was a valiant attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) to elicit more information from the Foreign Secretary on that issue, but we heard only the sound of silence. Yesterday, what started as a screaming headline about free movement, became the squeak of “speculation” by the mid-morning Downing street briefing. Old spin techniques in place of new policy—exactly the kind of approach that leads to distrust in politics today.

Two years ago—let us be honest—the Prime Minister set out five principles of reform of such staggering blandness and generality that there was not really anything for any of us to oppose. Since then, however, we have heard absolutely nothing specific. That silence on the specifics—which we have heard again this morning—is not coincidental but utterly calculated, because the Prime Minister understands that the gap between what Europe will deliver and what his Back Benchers will demand remains unbridgeable 22 months on. He is hoping to sustain party unity through the device of obscurity. We are now in a position where, with months to go until the general election, the Opposition have a far more detailed agenda for reform on Europe than the Government.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give way—perhaps we can get some specifics.

[Mr Hammond]

Given that the right hon. Gentleman was the Europe Minister whose brilliant negotiating tactics lost £7 billion of our rebate, if he does not mind we will take no advice from him on how to negotiate the best deal for Britain in Europe.

[Mr Alexander]

It is always revealing when those on the Government Front Benches give up an argument and simply go for abuse. If that is the best the Foreign Secretary can do—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way again to hear a single specific example of powers that he will repatriate. Is he prepared to take to the Dispatch Box and tell the House which social, economic or employment rights he is seeking to repatriate? It is unconvincing for Labour Members, but—this is much more worrying for the Foreign Secretary—it is deeply unconvincing for Conservative Members when he pretends that he is having conversations in Europe that he is not willing to tell any of us about. That will not convince the British public, and I do not believe it will convince the House.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obscurity that we have just seen displayed is deeply concerning given the time scale set out in the Bill? If within 19 months after May next year the British public are to have an in/out vote on this issue, there are not 19 months to negotiate but a much shorter time, if the matter is to be debated realistically among the British people.

[Mr Alexander]

What honestly worries me about the Government’s approach to Europe is not that it is clever, wily and strategic, but that they are making it up as they go along. Many months after the Bloomberg speech we have absolutely no detail. I see the Europe Minister is in his place, so perhaps he would like to advise the incoming Foreign Secretary about those detailed proposals for reform. Would he like to set out repatriation proposals for us today? I would happily give way.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in 2017 there is supposed to be a six-month British presidency of the European Union, which begins on 1 July until 31 December. Does he think it wise for the middle of that British presidency to be disrupted by a referendum, or will the referendum have to be held in the first six months of 2017, before July?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but—let us be honest—this policy has been framed not in reference to European or foreign policy, but in terms of domestic politics. It is not because the Conservative party trusts the British public, but because the Back Benchers do not trust the Prime Minister. That is why they have given up any pretence of a credible reform agenda. We have had five principles and then many months of silence, and the Conservative party has given up any pretence that there is widespread support for the reform agenda it describes. The Foreign Secretary—his Back Benchers will have noted this—today failed to name a single country with which he has had discussions in recent months and which accepts that there will be a fundamental redesign of the European Union, by unanimity, by 2017.

We have a track record—we do not need to look in a crystal ball because we can look in the history books. This is the only British Prime Minister in history who lost in the European Council on a vote that he did not need to lose. Not only did he have support from the Liberal party and the Labour party, but there was significant support among other European countries. However, if someone spends their time driving and looking through the rear view mirror, they tend to crash the car. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing when he spends more time negotiating with his Back Benchers than with other European parties. That is disastrous for the Conservative party but bad for Britain as well, and it is about time we had a reform agenda that spoke to the country’s needs on immigration, institutional reform and UK scrutiny.

[Steve McCabe]

Let me pursue the point about what the Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister will be negotiating on. I think there have been something like 14 reports from the balance of competences review. Is it time that Back Benchers knew exactly what that was leading to?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Let us take the specific example—again, if the Foreign Secretary wishes to come to the Dispatch Box he can add some clarity—of what has happened to the balance of competences review on free movement? Where has it gone? Is it still locked in the Home Office? Why has it been locked there? Why have Conservative Back Benchers not been entitled to see that report? It is because it is judged too politically dangerous to publish. That is the state that the modern Conservative party has fallen into despite the best interests of the country—the Government are frightened to implement even the policies that they advocate because of their own Back Benchers. The balance of competences report on free movement is an example not of leadership but of followership. That is what we are seeing on Europe month after month from the Conservatives. The Opposition are clear that membership of the EU is both a strategic and an economic asset to Britain.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

It appears that not only did the right hon. Gentleman not read the German coalition agreement, but that he has not read Hansard either. Had he done so, he would have seen that the balance of competences report on the free movement of persons was published a couple of months ago.

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful to the Minister. Given that he is in an educative and co-operative mood, would he like to enlighten the House as to what the report recommends in terms of what the Prime Minister anticipated yesterday?

[Mr Lidington]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

Forgive me; let me finish the point. It is not what the Prime Minister promised his Back Benchers, which is a ramp for change, but instead a rather dry, factual series of reports that has left unabated the appetite of Conservative Back Benchers.

[Mr Lidington]

As with all balance of competences reports, it sets out in detail a number of arguments for specific reforms to how the EU currently does business. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to do justice to the report and the many people who contributed to it, he might at least have the grace to read it before he comments on it.

[Mr Alexander]

If the report contains a whole number of substantive and serious reforms, perhaps the Minister will explain why yesterday we had headlines promising change on the free movement of labour, but by the briefing from the No. 10 spokesman in the afternoon that had been dismissed as “speculation”. Will the right hon. Gentleman share some of the specific proposals he is advocating? Will he suggest some of the proposals that his Conservative Back Benchers are keen to hear before the Rochester by-election? I assure him that Labour Members are all ears.

Labour does not support this Bill because its real aim is not to empower the public, as we have heard, but to pacify the party, and it is not focused on the interests of hard-working families, British business, or the needs of our country. That is why when today’s spectacle—once again—of the Conservative party talking to itself about Europe is long forgotten, it will fall to Labour to continue making the case for Britain’s place in Europe, and for reform and change within Europe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—