Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, and this affords me an opportunity to congratulate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on her staggering victory in the recent elections. We are, and remain, the biggest bilateral donor to Rakhine. We are disappointed of course—we have said this repeatedly—that the Rohingya were debarred from taking part in the election. I raised this most recently with the Burmese Foreign Minister when I was in New York. Daw Suu has many things on her plate—not least only eight out of a possible 16 ceasefires with some of the ethnic groups—but dealing with the problem in Rakhine and dealing with the Rohingya people in a fair and inclusive way must be at the top of that agenda, and we will continue to assist her in any way we can to that end.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary think it would be in the UK’s national interest to have the “fax democracy” of Norway, whereby we would be sent the rules and regulations of the single market, abide by the freedom of movement principle, and pay into the EU budget but have no seat around the negotiating table?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

That model has never seemed very attractive to me. Some people have talked about the Norwegian model in the domestic debate here, but perhaps they have failed to understand how it works. As the hon. Lady has just said, it involves accepting all the rules and paying all the subs but getting no vote and no seat at the table. That does not look like a good plan to me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure my hon. Friend that those issues are right up there at the front of our renegotiation strategy. Whether they like it or not, our partners across Europe understand that those are the primary concerns that the British people are expressing in opinion poll after opinion poll and during the recent general election campaign. If Britain is to be able to embrace a reformed European Union, those issues will have to be addressed in the settlement.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

If progress is made in all of the four areas that the Prime Minister has put forward, is the Foreign Secretary minded to vote for our EU membership?

[Mr Hammond]

Clearly, what I seek is a package of reform that will allow me and the British people to embrace enthusiastically Britain’s future in the European Union. The British people will, however, approach this process with a sceptical frame of mind. They will be looking for real and substantial reform, which is binding and enforceable and irreversible in the future. That is what we are seeking.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As our discussion today reminds us, the importance of that contribution is understood across all parties in the House. Sikhs in Britain make an enormous contribution to this country, as is widely recognised in our national life, and it is something we want to continue and see flourish in the future. In our minds in this House, none of these controversies detracts from the importance of that contribution, and nor should they ever.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

There is real concern, distress and grief among the Sikh community in my constituency over the horrific events in June 1984. The correspondence released last month indicated that the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe, agreed to advise the Indian Government, and the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that today. While my Sikh constituents were shocked that that advice was given, they are also seeking further clarity about the contact between the British and Indian Governments at the time. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary commit to disclose the full transcript of the Cabinet Secretary’s interview with Lord Howe?

[Mr Hague]

The Cabinet Secretary decided what to disclose in his report, and that included additional documents that would not normally be disclosed and which gave additional details confirming the picture set out in his report and my statement. While preparing the report, he and his officials had discussions with officials and senior Ministers, and it was for him to set out to the Prime Minister, as he did in his report, what he recommended for publication. I think that that provides a full, transparent picture, and that he made the right judgment in what he said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If talks take place with Spain in the way that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and I have set out, we will concentrate on the localised issues but, of course, people cannot help making exactly the observation that my hon. Friend has just made.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is of deep concern to Members on both sides of this House that the border crisis seems to be escalating, with recent reports that a Spanish demonstration would attempt to cross the border into Gibraltar. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that he is working closely with the European Union to ensure that Spain is forced to respect its EU treaty obligations?

[Mr Hague]

We are working closely with the European Union. The Prime Minister spoke directly to the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, about the issue. We have asked the Commission to send a fact-finding mission to the border to investigate the delays and we welcome Mr Barroso’s confirmation that such a mission will soon be deployed. It is very good that it will come and look at the facts and we look to it to help us uphold the law.

European Union (Referendum) Bill (Money)

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said on Second Reading, any decisions about the European Union and about an in/out referendum should be taken in the national interest, and the Opposition do not believe that such a referendum in 2017, as proposed in the Bill, is in the national interest. The Prime Minister, in January, chose an arbitrary date in order to keep his Back Benchers on side. The Bill also sets out the 2017 date, which does not reflect any realistic timetable of treaty change, given that the French and Dutch Governments, and many others, including even the German Government, have now gone cool on the idea. The Bill sets an arbitrary date that does not represent a clear negotiating strategy, and I fear it has been motivated by a desire to paper over the deep divisions in the Conservative party on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union. It seems that the Bill has been introduced because Conservative Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), simply do not trust their own party leader and Prime Minister to deliver on his January speech.

Although the Opposition will not oppose the money resolution attached to the Bill, the Government still need to answer serious and significant questions about the expenditure implications of the Bill. The shadow Europe Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Minister for Europe—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Soon to be shadow.

[Emma Reynolds]

Soon to be shadow, I hope.

The Minister for Europe said that he could not give a number for, or approximate cost of, the expenditure needed for a referendum. He has, however, some questions to answer on whether particular groups will be included in this specific referendum. Will the good people of Gibraltar, who have a right to vote in European parliamentary elections, be included in this franchise? Will British people living abroad have the right to vote? Will 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in this referendum, as they will have in next year’s Scottish referendum? Finally, and importantly, will British service personnel serving abroad have the right to vote in the referendum foreseen by this Bill? I fear that the Government have not answered any of those questions today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I accept that there is an important piece of legislation to consider after this, but it is important to highlight the fact that the British taxpayer will be faced with a bill of £75 million, as the Minister said, for what is basically an internal debate within the Conservative party. I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) earlier, because I would like to know what he would do if he were given £75 million to spend in his constituency. I am sure that there are many projects there that have been cut by the Government and that could more justifiably be argued for than the proposed referendum.

The Minister said that the referendum would cost £75 million, provided that the Bill was used in relation to the voting system, but it could cost a lot more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has already demonstrated. If we include Gibraltar, and I can see no reason why we should not—I do not know what the hon. Member for Stockton South has against it—because it votes in European referendums, that would add to the cost. We also should not forget the overseas territories, which have the access rights that others have in the EU. Why should they not be consulted on their future status? I argue that they should, but again that would add to the costs.

Another debate, which I know is taking place in Scotland, is whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote. If they are, that would add more costs. Another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred to is the fact that in 1975 the Government provided money to the yes and no campaigns. Is it proposed that Government money will be given to the yes and no campaigns for this referendum? If it is, that will mean the cost will be more than £75 million. We can clearly see that, in addition to his point about whether the referendum will be on the same day as other elections, that will lead to a great deal more than £75 million.

The important point for the hon. Member for Stockton South is this: can he really say to his constituents—I know Stockton South very well, as he knows—that in excess of £100 million of Government money should be spent on this referendum, and all to solve an internal debate in the Tory party, rather than our relationship with Europe? Can he or any other Member who supports the referendum really justify spending more than £100 million on it? I know what I would do with the money in my constituency: I would replace the money that has been taken out of the Building Schools for the Future programme. Once we explain to people that the Bill will use well in excess of £100 million, I am sure that most of them would agree that it could be spent a hell of a lot better.

[Emma Reynolds]

Does my hon. Friend find it surprising, given that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said the day before his name was drawn at the top of the ballot that there were issues much more pressing than an EU referendum, such as the economy and jobs, that he suddenly changed his mind 24 hours later?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Stockton South has a small majority, so he might be promoting this Bill to endear himself to the selection panels of future safe Tory seats, rather than to the electors of Stockton South who, as my hon. Friend is right to say, would have many more priorities for spending in excess of £100 million.

Will a referendum solve the problem? No, it will not and some hon. Members try to paper over the real issues that will face the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, has argued in favour of membership of the EU, but the big question for him is which way he will vote—yes or no. Will he support state funding for this referendum? We will then see cracks opening up in the Conservative party between those who are pragmatists in Europe and those who represent the more extreme section of his party. That is the question that will face the Prime Minister, and it will not change between now and 2017.

A lot of questions will obviously—and rightly—be explored in Committee, but as the Minister for Europe said, the Bill has passed Second Reading and private Member’s Bill money resolutions are usually supported. There is nothing wrong with agreeing to such a process, but I conclude with a question. The cost will be in excess of £100 million. I know that many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, will ask how we could spend £100 million in a better way. There are many ways better than wasting it on this Bill which, as I have said, is about the internal politics of the Conservative party, rather than what is in Britain’s best interest.

Question put and agreed to.



Marriage (Same sex couples) bill: programme (no. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 5 February 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme)) and 20 May 2013 (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Robert Syms.)

Question agreed to.

National Parliaments and the EU

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

The ageing process has some charming aspects, one of which is that a new idea arrives and I sit and think, “I think I have heard this somewhere before.” If someone hangs around long enough, they may even find that not only have they heard the idea before but that they have heard it before before. I had that feeling when I heard of the latest strengthening of national Parliaments within the European Union context. At that stage I decided to break one of my basic rules: over the years I have never taken part in an EU debate without saying something that I have not said before. I recommend that practice to others, but on this occasion I thought I would pull together some thoughts on national Parliaments and some of the problems over the past few years.

Yet again, the role of national Parliaments is essentially being used as a fig leaf to hide accountability for decision making at the European level. The fig leaf is being used by national Governments, and we should not fall for it. I had a feeling of déjà vu 10 years ago, when I went to the Convention on the Future of Europe. One of the five working groups was on the role of national Parliaments, and an old hand sidled up to me and said, “Remember the dud they sold John Major?” I said, “No, I don’t remember the dud they sold John Major.” And the old hand said, “Well, during Maastricht they introduced the concept of subsidiarity and proportionality, which was supposed to appease the national Governments. There was also then a review of competences across Whitehall.”

It was funny—I thought I had heard that before. The dud they sold Major was on the principle that national Parliaments should be given a role on policing subsidiarity and proportionality—the Convention on the Future of Europe was in 2002 or 2003—so I said, “When has the principle ever been invoked?” I was then told that it had been invoked only once, during the British presidency, when there was the bright idea that we wanted to standardise the water temperature for sea lions in zoos. That was a step too far even for Britain and was deemed to be out of order on the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Subsidiarity and proportionality are being chucked at an interesting case that is currently going through—the representation of women on company boards. I find that quite extraordinary. The rights of women are now seen to be something at the behest of national Governments. I thought we had already reached equality. Please give me equality, but not because of subsidiarity.

I will give a bit of history. In 1994, after Maastricht, national Parliaments were supposed to come to the rescue; and in 2002-03, they were supposed to come to the rescue again with a card system of yellow cards, red cards, vetoes and all those kinds of things. Yet again, we hear that national Parliaments are supposed to be strengthened, but in this place we are talking less about Europe than ever before. Previously, a small, select group of people would gather on Wednesdays ahead of a European Council meeting, and occasionally we would tell each other something that we had not said before. We considered the programme of the European Council. There were afternoon debates, and Ministers had to tell the Commons what was about to happen. Regularly, on the following Monday, the Prime Minister would give a statement on the results. Some Members will remember that we used to have great fun at those pre-Council meetings, because the Danes would usually have published the Council conclusions on their website ahead of the Council meeting. We made fun of that, but at least we talked about it.

What happens now is that debates ahead of a Council meeting are deemed to be Back-Bench business. I spent three consecutive Thursdays complaining about that to the Leader of the House, and I kept getting the same answer—that it is part of the Wright recommendations. We have overturned other parts of the Wright recommendations, so why are they suddenly sacrosanct? On top of that, the Prime Minister did not give a Council statement back in June because he said it was so boring, and he has combined the subsequent Council statements with hefty, serious foreign policy statements on other issues. The last Council statement was combined with a statement on Afghanistan. Both issues would have deserved a statement in their own right. National Parliaments are supposed to be coming to the rescue, yet Parliament is speaking less about the matter.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that retrograde step is particularly regrettable given that other Parliaments have actually started to improve their scrutiny? She mentioned the Danish Parliament, but the German Parliament now scrutinises the German Government’s negotiating strategy more closely ahead of European Council meetings.

[Ms Stuart]

Indeed. Ten years ago, the British Parliament was seen as having some of the toughest and most extensive scrutiny functions. We were also the first Parliament to open an office in the European Parliament so that we had representation there. Ten years ago we were a model that other people looked towards, and now we have fallen behind. We are doing less than others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, in a debate that is of great interest to you. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate and on a characteristically thorough and forensic speech, which drew on not only 17 years in the House, but many weeks and months—I do not know how many—on the Convention on the Future of Europe. She is a real expert and it was a great pleasure to hear her this morning.

I agree in particular with my hon. Friend’s overall argument that national Parliaments need to play a much greater role in holding to account not only the European Union, but our own Government’s decisions on Europe and the formulation of European legislation and policy. She and many other right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom are here this morning, want parliamentary scrutiny of the EU and what our Government do in Europe to be enhanced and improved. That objective unites pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics, and hon. Members from different parties alike.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s specific point that it is regrettable that one of the first actions of the Government when they came into power in 2010 was to do away with pre-European Council debates. It is unsurprising that she, and others present and beyond our debate today, complained repeatedly about the decision, but unfortunately it was to no avail. While other member states are improving their scrutiny of their Governments’ decision-making and negotiating strategy ahead of European Councils, our Government have taken a retrograde step and have in effect decreased scrutiny. The Government have not simply done away with the pre-Council debates, but the post-Council debates are now combined with major issues of concern—whether Afghanistan or the horrific murder in Woolwich. Such subjects and the post-European Council report need to be separate. They are too important to be combined. Notwithstanding the scrutiny of the European Scrutiny Committee, it is vital that scrutiny also takes place on the Floor of the House, as she set out, so that all right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise how the Government represent the UK in the EU.

The starting point from which I approach the debate is perhaps different from that of some hon. Members who have spoken. I am a passionate believer in our membership of the EU. I am both pro-European and passionately in favour of reform. Just because I believe in our membership, that does not mean that I think the EU is perfect—far from it. I spent six years of my life working and living in Brussels; I have seen at first hand the many imperfections of the EU. A vital part of EU reform lies in the issue that we are focusing on today: strengthening the accountability that national Parliaments have over European decision-making.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), in a speech in January this year, set out proposals for a red card system. It took the Government five months to come to the same conclusion, but we were encouraged—better late than never. As hon. Members are acutely aware, the current yellow card system was introduced by the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government negotiated. It gives national Parliaments the ability to force the European Commission to reconsider its proposals if they believe that a proposal violates the subsidiarity principle.

[Mr Cash]

I do not think that anyone could honestly say that the yellow card system has been a stunning success, given the number of occasions we have reached the threshold. That is also a problem with respect to any possibility of a red card system, leaving aside the federalisation they both imply.

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not claim that the yellow card system has been a stunning success. As the hon. Gentleman set out, it has been used successfully on only one occasion —the so-called Monti II proposals, which were then withdrawn by the European Commission. Just because the yellow card system is not a success at the moment, that does not mean that it could not be made to work better. I will move on to that and better co-ordination of national parliamentarians in a moment.

The Labour party is committed to pushing for a red card system when in government. It would, in effect, turn the yellow card into a red card, by stating clearly that a third of national Parliaments being against a proposal is a veto. It would not force the European Commission to reconsider, but would say, “No. Stop. Stop that proposal. One-third of national Parliaments have great concerns, therefore withdraw it.”

Even within the current treaties, the yellow card system could be made to work better, which brings me to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform—a think-tank that is well reputed and thorough on such matters—has suggested creating a national parliamentary forum in Brussels of MPs from different member states. I would be interested to know whether the Minister for Europe has considered that proposal. I regret to hear that European Commissioner Viviane Reding did not turn up to the meeting when the hon. Gentleman was in Dublin. Perhaps a new forum, made up of MPs—not necessarily including Chairs of Scrutiny Committees—meeting in Brussels could better hold to account European Governments, who have permanent representations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston suggested, there should be better political oversight of such representations.

[Mr Cash]

Holding a gathering of MPs to talk about issues is not the same as holding people to account. Holding people to account means that there is a vote, within a constitutional structure that requires people to answer questions, and if the people who have the numbers on their side do not like a proposal, the Government’s position changes, as happened last night. The hon. Lady is suggesting a Parliament of fools.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman has not even allowed me to finish my point. If he considers the proposals from the Centre for European Reform, he will see that they are not about a talking shop. With great respect, I know that he sits on COSAC, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston mentioned, and that committee needs to be vastly improved from its current formulation and in its make-up. Mr Grant says that it does not give MPs a big enough stake, is only consultative and is often treated “disdainfully” by MEPs—his word, not mine.

There is clearly a great—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) at least give me the courtesy of listening to my response to his intervention? There is clearly a great problem with the current set-up, and having a presence in Brussels of national parliamentarians who could have a vote and scrutinise more closely the decisions taken by our and other Governments deserves closer consideration, rather than just saying that it would be a gathering of fools—a statement with which I profoundly disagree.

I recently met the Speaker of the Dutch House of Representatives, and she has an appetite, as do colleagues in other member states with whom I have discussed the matter, for Parliaments to work more closely together. The Government could give greater consideration to the successes in the Dutch, Danish and German Parliaments. For example, in the Netherlands, the standing committees—akin, I think, to our Select Committees—choose proposals from within the Commission work programme that they see as priorities and about which they might have concerns, and they refer them to their European affairs committee.

Our departmental Select Committees are not involved enough in proposals at an early stage, or even at later stages, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about what the Government could do to drive greater consideration and scrutiny on a policy-by-policy basis, given that, as has been said, a lot of European policy is not foreign policy—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is an anomaly that it is often treated as such. Our departmental Select Committees could learn from the experience of the Netherlands.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

My hon. Friend reminds me of another idea, which at some stage was discussed. What does she think of the suggestion that, rather than us going to Brussels, the Commissioners come here at the beginning of the work programme? They could give evidence to a Select Committee, or be here in Westminster Hall and answer MPs’ questions about the forward programme.

[Emma Reynolds]

I welcome that suggestion, and the idea should be considered. European Commissioners do come to our Parliament, but not systematically.

In Denmark, before European Council meetings the Prime Minister has to go before the European committee to discuss her negotiating strategy, and in the German system, the Bundestag now has much greater power to scrutinise the Government’s negotiating strategy for those meetings. Our Prime Minister, when he had just been elected as party leader, told the party to “stop banging on” about Europe, and there are rumours in today’s press that the first report on the balance of competences, which we all await with bated breath, has been put off until after the summer, apparently because Ministers are fearful of their own Back Benchers. I would be interested to hear why a dispassionate, objective assessment of the balance of competences should be put off in that way. The Government again seem to be putting the party interest before the national one. We are worried that they feel compelled to delay the initial report, and we are greatly interested in what the Minister has to say about that.

This debate comes at a particularly important time, because the eurozone member states are likely to pursue further integration among the eurozone 17. Their Parliaments, and those in non-eurozone member states such as ours—there are 10 others, including Croatia—will need to scrutinise better what happens and what the dynamic is between non-eurozone and eurozone member states.

In conclusion, it deserves to be repeated that it is regrettable that the Government have abolished the pre-Council debates. I would like to see them reintroduced. Scrutiny in Committees, such as the one chaired by the hon. Member for Stone, is all well and good but nothing substitutes scrutiny on the Floor of the House. The Government should learn from the Dutch, Danish and German examples, drive better and closer co-ordination between national Parliaments from across the 28 member states, make the yellow card system work better and consider introducing a red card system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right that the Government of Turkey have been elected three times with a decisive majority of votes from the people of Turkey. The electoral remedy is, indeed, available. It is also right to expect any democratic Government to abide by the national constitutional rules and international standards on human rights to which the country adheres.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Many people will be concerned about the generality of the Minister’s answers. Will he comment specifically on the recent reports that 38 young protesters in one city alone in Turkey have allegedly been arrested for comments made on Twitter? What representations has he made to the Turkish Government about upholding freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate? In particular, has he voiced concerns about the recent comments of the Turkish Interior Minister, who said that arrests would be initiated on the basis of protesters’ use of social media?

European Elections 2014

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity that the European Scrutiny Committee has given the House to scrutinise these documents from the European Commission, one a communication and the other a recommendation, which make suggestions about the conduct and organisation of European elections by member states. The stated objective of the European Commission is to increase the democratic legitimacy of the EU and boost turnout in European elections. Fortunately, European communications and recommendations, as their names suggest, do not have legal force and, as the Minister stressed, the documents are not binding on member states. That is the only good thing about them.

The Opposition are pragmatically pro-European, but we do not agree with every directive, proposal or suggestion that comes out of European institutions. In this case, in particular, we disagree with the suggestions made by the European Commission and hope that our Government, when they are in Brussels negotiating on these and other documents, will put forward their opposition. I agree with the words in the motion.

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

On the question of democratic legitimacy, does the hon. Lady agree that one problem is that European elections are held according to the strange d’Hondt form of proportional representation? The vast majority of British electors have no idea how it operates, which might well be part of the reason why turnout is so low in this country.

[Emma Reynolds]

Turnout is low for many reasons, and I agree that that is one of them. I would have preferred us to keep the system we had before 1999, under which we had constituencies that were bigger than the Westminster constituencies, as we have fewer MEPs than we have MPs but they retained the link with their constituency and their local party—the constituency Labour party for us, or the Conservative association for Conservative MEPs. I am not quite sure what the Liberal Democrats call their local parties—

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

They are not sure, either.

[Emma Reynolds]

They might not be sure.

The MEP would not only have a home constituency to look after but would have a political home to which they could refer, which was manageable and of a manageable size.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I must say that I am delighted by what my hon. Friend has just said about first past the post as opposed to list system PR. Does she think that our party might possibly make a commitment at the next election to restore first past the post for European elections in Britain?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Much as the hon. Lady might be tempted by that question, can we stick specifically to the European document before us? Manifestos can be written elsewhere.

[Emma Reynolds]

My overall objective in this House is obviously to make my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) happy, but I will defer to your instructions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not go down that line of argument.

In this case, and in others, the European Commission seems to have disregarded a very important principle that applies to European co-operation—that is, the subsidiarity principle. It is clear and obvious to me and Members across the House that it should be the decision of democratic political parties in the UK to decide how to approach European elections and how to campaign for them, and that it is up to Ministers in our Government and to this Parliament to decide on which day we should hold those elections. One of the most concerning elements of the proposals is the one to hold the European elections on the same day across the European Union. The Commission argues that member states should agree on

“a common day for elections to the European Parliament, with polling stations closing at the same time.”

That argument is problematic in two different ways. First, as has already been stated, we have a tradition in the UK of voting on a Thursday that, I understand, goes back to the 1930s. It is now fixed in law that local and general elections must take place on a Thursday. The date of European elections is not fixed in law but, according to section 4 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, European elections should be held on a date fixed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Nevertheless, here as well, the convention is that European elections take place on a Thursday, in line with other elections, as I described.

There are different traditions in different member states of the European Union. We, the Danes and the Dutch usually vote on a Thursday, the Irish vote on a Friday, and some other member states tend to vote on a Saturday or a Sunday. I strongly believe that it should continue to be a decision made by member states’ Governments as to which day of the week elections should be held. Here in the UK it is essential that there is uniformity across the different sets of elections, so general, local and European elections should all take place on a Thursday.

There is already a problem with low turnout in European elections. I would like to see a higher turnout in those elections. The Commission states that it wants to boost turnout and increase democratic legitimacy. I fear that its proposal to hold elections on the same day throughout the EU would do exactly the opposite of the stated objective. It might further decrease voter turnout and would therefore do nothing to improve democratic legitimacy.

Secondly, the idea that polling stations should close at the same time is also problematic because of the differences in time zones across the EU. Polls that close at 10 pm in the UK would close earlier in Greece, for example. As early as 1960, the European Parliament adopted proposals for a “uniform procedure” for its member states’ elections, to be used by all member states, but in reality, five decades later, there is no uniformity in virtually any aspect of European elections. In most member states, including the UK, voters choose from a party list, whereas in other member states the single transferable vote is used. Voting ages vary as well, so there is no uniformity in these aspects of European elections. Artificially imposing the same election day would be problematic and, as I said, counter-productive.

The Commission also proposes that national political parties make clear their affiliation to pan-European political parties. Again, the European Commission has disregarded the principle of subsidiarity. It is none of the Commission’s business how my party—the Labour party—or the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or others want to campaign in the European parliamentary elections. It is up to the respective national parties to decide how best to campaign in those elections. We strongly believe that it should be for national parties also to determine the content of their party broadcasts, without suggestions from the European Commission.

There are some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. Have the Government informed the Commission of their concerns about the Commission’s suggestions, as set out in the motion? What is the Government’s view on how the Commission is likely to follow up these two documents? What is the view of the other European institutions—the European Parliament and the rest of the Council of Ministers?

Increasing participation in European elections and improving the democratic legitimacy of the European Union are objectives that we share, but the proposals that we are debating today will not achieve that aim. They are counter-productive and ignore the fact that according to the principle of subsidiarity, member states and not the European Commission should have responsibility for administering elections within their borders. We agree, as the Minister set out, that national Parliaments should have a greater role and we congratulate the Foreign Secretary on adopting the proposal of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), for a red card system, which my right hon. Friend proposed in January this year. It took the Foreign Secretary a few months to come round to the idea, but we are glad that he is there. Such proposals should increase the democratic legitimacy of European Union decision making.

We are therefore content to support the Government’s motion on the European Commission documents, and urge the Government to make the strongest possible representations to the Commission that these proposals should be taken no further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The second point is that there is an expression of what I used to call the Thatcher doctrine, which is to complain about the lack of democracy in the European Union but oppose all practical steps to increase democratic accountability because that would be seen as giving more legitimacy to the European tier of government. I think that is a regrettable approach.

[Emma Reynolds]

With regard to the motion, which mentions European political parties and their freedom to support candidates for Commission President, does the hon. Gentleman stand by the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement that the group the Conservatives joined in the European Parliament was made up of “nutters, anti-Semites and homophobes”?

[Martin Horwood]

I think that we are trying to raise the tone of the debate and not to refer to things that were said in the heat of the moment. I think that the Thatcherite idea that we should not give more democratic legitimacy is quite a destructive way to approach the European level of government. I am in favour of more democracy, more openness and more accountability.

Court of Justice of the European Union

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

We welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed increase in the number of advocates-general at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court performs a central role within the European Union. It has the responsibility of interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across the member states.

As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned—the Minister also referred to this point—although it may be true that when Labour was in government we did not always agree with the Court’s rulings and sometimes found them problematic, the Court and indeed the General Court play a crucial role in upholding EU law as set out in the treaties, and in ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market in particular. ECJ rulings have proven successful in enforcing competition rules and in ruling against protectionism, which is to the benefit of British businesses and British consumers. It is therefore necessary that the Court has the capacity to carry out those important functions allocated to it under the treaties. In particular, it is important that it is able to issue judgments in an effective and timely manner.

As has been said, a significant backlog of cases continues to build and there are many reasons for that. As the Minister said last July, much of the recent delay at the European Courts is down to increased litigation by private parties, particularly on single market matters. In addition, the enlargements of the EU in 2004 and 2007 have brought a raft of new cases before the Court, substantially increasing its workload. That trend is likely to continue, as Croatia is to join in only a few weeks’ time, on 1 July. Unsurprisingly, these new member states have made greater use of the preliminary ruling procedure, which allows national courts to refer cases to the ECJ for guidance on EU law. Enlargement has also meant that there has been an increase in the number of appeals against decisions of the General Court which are taken to the ECJ. In 2008, just seven competition cases were appealed to the ECJ, whereas the figure had risen to 52 in 2012. Another factor is the changes introduced by the Lisbon treaty, particularly in the area of justice and home affairs. The ECJ now has enhanced responsibilities in that field, and the changes were not just prospective, but retrospective with regard to the body of law in this area already in place. Moreover, the increasing complexity of cases brought before the Court has added to the burden.

The cumulative effect of all those factors is that the advocates-general, in their current numbers, have sometimes been unable to deliver an opinion within an acceptable time limit. At present, as the Minister has explained, eight advocates-general advise the Court on all matters of European Union legislation. However, it is in only about 50% of cases that an advocate-general is able to issue an opinion. As has been pointed out in evidence given to the House of the Lords by a representative of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, the absence of an opinion by an advocate-general

“increases the risk of uneven or, on occasions, contradictory caselaw.”

So it would seem sensible to increase the number of advocates-general, which would in turn increase the capacity of the ECJ to process cases in a timely manner.

The Court proposes, and the Council has indicated it will agree to, an increase in the number of advocates-general from eight to 11, and the Minister has today reiterated the Government’s support for that change. As he has explained, the increase will be staggered, with one new advocate-general starting, we hope, on 1 July this year, and the other two appointed later. According to an explanatory memorandum from the Minister given to the European Scrutiny Committee in March, the proposed new advocates-general are predicted to cost an extra €4 million. We agree with him that at a time of greater public spending restraint and economic difficulty it is important that that money is found from within existing budgets.

The ECJ has a budget of almost €354 million for 2013, so it is to be expected that the money to pay for at least the first new advocate-general may be found without the need for an increase in the budget. Will the Minister update the House? He mentioned the negotiations in preparation for next year on the financial implications of this change. Will he say a little more about which allies the UK Government have found in other member states, and what he thinks the chances are of ensuring that the change is cost-neutral?

Both the European Court of Justice and the General Court have important responsibilities in terms of upholding not only EU legislation, but the four freedoms—freedom of movement of people, goods, capital and services. Just this year, the General Court ruled that in the event of the cancellation of an air flight, the carrier is required to provide compensation even when the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances such as the eruption of the volcano in Iceland in 2010. So the decisions of both the General Court and the European Court of Justice have implications for British business, British consumers and British workers, and in many cases those implications are positive.

The changes that we are debating in the motion will ensure that the European Court of Justice is better able to carry out those duties, so we are content to support it.

Syria (EU Restrictive Measures)

Emma Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria and specifically amendments to the EU arms embargo. I commend the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this important debate.

Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned and horrified by the violent and brutal conflict and loss of life in Syria. The death toll has now reached 80,000 people, and the refugee crisis is intensifying, with more than 1.3 million people having fled to neighbouring countries. As the Minister outlined, this is a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen in decades.

I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for giving the House an opportunity to consider specifically, in detail, the decision made by the Council of Ministers in February to amend the existing EU arms embargo to allow the transfer of non-lethal military equipment to certain groups in Syria.

The debate is timely, given that the EU-wide embargo is due for renewal at the meeting of the Council of Ministers next week. As a result of the Council’s agreement in February, the Foreign Secretary announced to the House on 6 March that the British Government would increase their support for the Syrian opposition and that that would include equipment that had previously been banned under the EU embargo. The change in both the scale and the type of material support from the United Kingdom clearly marked a new stage in the Government’s engagement with the opposition forces.

Since that date, and specifically on 15 April, the Government have informed the House that, among other items, a number of vehicles with ballistic protection, packs of body armour and hundreds of radios have been transferred to the Syrian opposition as gifts from the Government. Equally important, we have received details about the ongoing training of Syrian opposition members in which the UK has been involved. I am grateful for further details provided by the Minister today and by the Foreign Secretary in his statement yesterday.

We welcome measures taken by the Government that help to unite members of the fragmented opposition in Syria, help them to communicate better with each other, help them to gain a better understanding of international law and help them to protect themselves and civilians from the violence being inflicted on them by the Assad regime. However, we are extremely concerned about the suggestion that the EU arms embargo should be amended further, or rolled back completely.

In the light of the February Council decision and the forthcoming Council discussion early next week, I seek further clarification of the Government’s position from the Minister. Will he tell us precisely what the Government will be calling for with respect to any alteration in the embargo next week? It has been suggested that they are considering two options. The first is to seek an exemption from the embargo for the national coalition of Syrian and opposition forces, and the second is to remove the “non-lethal” language to allow lethal equipment. That would effectively render the embargo null and void. Which of those options will the Government seek to secure on Monday and Tuesday next week in Brussels?

What support, beyond that of France, have the Government secured in the other 25 member states of the European Union? It seems clear that Germany and Austria, among others, are opposed to the lifting of the embargo. If no agreement is forthcoming, will the Government veto the continuation of the embargo? Yesterday, in response to an excellent question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) about the possible use of the veto, the Foreign Secretary said:

“We will meet as Foreign Ministers in Brussels next Monday to look at those discussions in detail. I can say to my hon. Friend that we are prepared to do that if necessary, but of course we are looking for agreement with other EU member states.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 911.]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are prepared to veto the renewal of the arms embargo next week? I think that, if they intend to do so, there are further fundamental questions that they need to answer.

First, the Government have spoken of the need to tip the balance in favour of the opposition. Can the Minister give us his assessment of the amount of weaponry that would be required to tip the balance against Assad, taking into account the support that we believe that he continues to receive from other states? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the weapons supplied do not fall into the hands of extremists groups such as al-Nusra, which is aligned with al-Qaeda? Thirdly, given that the Foreign Secretary said that he could only offer his “best endeavours” to prevent British-supplied matérial from going to groups in Syria for which it is not intended, will the Minister tell us whether the Government would be willing to supply arms without any end-use guarantees? I am sure that the whole House would be cautious—several Members have demonstrated their concern today—about any step towards arming Syria’s opposition without a range of solid assessments and analyses from the Minister and his colleagues in the Foreign Office in regard to the end users of any British-supplied arms.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Is not the weakness in the argument that the arms may fall into the hands of the wrong people the fact not just that we can never give such guarantees, but, above all, that the wrong people already have plenty of sophisticated arms, which are being supplied perfectly legally from Russia, Qatar, Iran and everywhere else because there is no UN arms embargo?

[Emma Reynolds]

History teaches us to be extremely cautious. In the past, the west—ourselves, the US and others—has supplied arms to forces that then turned against us, so we need to learn the lessons of history and be extremely cautious.

[Mr Newmark]

I totally respect the hon. Lady’s position, but history has also taught us that when we stood aside and did nothing in Rwanda, 800,000 people got slaughtered, and it took us four years to go into Bosnia, while, again, hundreds of thousands of people got slaughtered.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the loss of life in Syria. The problem with the solution that the Government seem to be offering us is that it could lead to an escalation, not a de-escalation, of the conflict by fuelling the fires of the conflict, rather than encouraging a solution.

The opposition in Syria is fragmented. What more can the Government do to help the moderate elements of the opposition unite and work together?

If the Government believe that arming the opposition in Syria is now the best option available to the EU, how will that help halt the violence and secure a peace that lasts? Are there not significant risks now and in post-conflict Syria, and what would be the implications for peace and reconciliation between the country’s diverse religious and ethnic groups after the conflict?

The Prime Minister was in Washington last week, yet in yesterday’s statement by the Foreign Secretary, we heard little detail about what the Prime Minister has discovered about President Obama’s thinking on arming the opposition. Can the Minister enlighten the House on that point? Moreover, can the Minister provide the House with more detail about the format of the US-Russian peace conference and what role our Government will play in it?

Finally, if the Government veto the continuation of the arms embargo next week and after that decide to arm the opposition, will the Minister commit to bringing that future decision before the House, so Members on both sides can vote on what the Foreign Secretary yesterday called a moral issue?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The hon. Lady has returned to the veto. Has she, like me, sought to establish whether on any previous occasion the United Kingdom has exercised a veto within the European Union in relation to the imposition of sanctions? If we were to do so in this case, what does she think the political outcome would be?

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not know of any circumstance in which the veto has been used in this area. I agree with the implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question and his concern: there could be implications for other parts of the world, such as, perhaps, Iran, where we have EU sanctions. That is a point worth making.

I hope what is said in today’s debate and the caution urged by Members across the House will be reflected in the approach the Government take at the Council meetings on Monday and Tuesday. There is real concern across the House that arming the opposition will not guarantee peace in a country where sectarian, tribal and democratic impulses are all present. We are all united in our wish to see an end to the bloodshed in Syria, but serious questions remain about whether the Government’s change in policy will secure that peace. The test of the Government’s action will be whether it leads to a de-escalation, rather than an escalation, of the ongoing conflict and bloodshed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—