European Union (Referendum) Bill
Ian Davidson Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I find myself agreeing completely with what I believe to be the three motivating thrusts of those who have brought forward the proposal we are discussing today. The first is the clear need for renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s relationship with the European Union; the second is the need for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU on renegotiated terms; and the third is the question of whether we trust the British Government. I find myself agreeing with Conservative Back Benchers that the Government cannot be trusted, so it is necessary to put things down in legislation in order to allow them no wriggle-room whatever.
I remember being one of those Members who voted with the Foreign Secretary on the question of a referendum at the time of Lisbon. I remember the Conservatives saying that when they got to power, they would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, yet no referendum on Lisbon did they hold. I think that in those circumstances words are not sufficient so legislation is necessary.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I was not quite sure whether the Foreign Secretary was going to seek to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. May I remind him that what the Conservative Front-Bench team said in opposition was that they would hold a referendum in the event that the Lisbon treaty had not been ratified by the time we came into office? That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went round a number of European capitals, urging them “Please, do not ratify”—unlike what the United Kingdom had done—so that when we came to power we would be able to veto it and have a referendum for the British people. It is that misunderstanding that is so important. This was not a categorical undertaking for a referendum; it would happen only in certain defined circumstances.
Mr Davidson
It sounds like a get-out to me. The clear impression created was that the Conservatives were against the Lisbon treaty and that a referendum would be held. When they got into power, was a referendum held? No, it was not. That is what people will remember. That is what the people out there remember; they remember that the Conservative party could not be trusted to abide by its promise to have a referendum on Lisbon. That is why I support the proposals before us today.
Ms Gisela Stuart
A small group of us here have shared these debates. For the benefit of those who did not, Governments have found ways to get out of having to comply with their promises once they are in government —and with the Tories it was about when to ratify. With the Lib Dems, they got out of having a referendum on the Lisbon treaty by suddenly wanting an in/out referendum —and now that they can have that, they want something else. The real lesson is: once in government, people do not allow referendums; in opposition, they are much more likely to promise them.
Mr Davidson
Absolutely. I was rebuking the Conservatives, but don’t start me on the snivelling Liberals. Those points have already been made far better than I could make them. Shooting the Liberals in a barrel is just too easy and too self-indulgent.
Heather Wheeler
Will the hon. Gentleman like to expand in his short and pithy speech on how he is going to vote today? Otherwise, he is not trusting the people.
Mr Davidson
Well, the Whips have been to see me and they deployed the ultimate threat. They said, “If you think of voting for this, we will send round Len McClusky.” I said, “I know Len McClusky. Len McClusky is a friend of mine. I had Len McClusky’s support in the last general election. I had the support not only of Len McClusky but of the GMB, Unison, UCATT and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, while opposing me were only Conservatives, nationalists and snivelling Liberals. And I got 60% of the vote.”
Now, in those circumstances, Len McClusky does not frighten me. I am drawing to people’s attention—this is only fair—the fact that, as I understand it, Len McClusky and Unite are in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union. They find themselves in these circumstances in agreement with the snivellers opposite. It is not necessarily the case that Len McClusky and Unite are right on all questions, as Members will be aware. Before I move on, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on introducing this measure. He was obviously enjoying himself, and if he carries on like that he will undoubtedly be punished by being promoted to the Front Bench—sooner rather than later.
I also congratulate those who are really behind this proposal—and that is UKIP. [Interruption.] I am sorry, a sniveller. I give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).
Martin Horwood
Given the hon. Gentleman’s childish remarks about the Liberal Democrats, I can tell him that he has lost one member of Unite today. I am holding up my trade union membership card, which I have stuck to religiously since my days in the charity sector, but I can give it to him after the debate and he can do what he likes with it.
Mr Davidson
Well, I suggest the hon. Gentleman does not tempt me to do what I like with it, because what I might like to do with it is not necessarily what he would enjoy, unless he is not the man I think he is.
Mr Davidson
No, no; if you offer it to one, then you have to—Anyway, I will be having consultations in Room 220 in Portcullis house for those who wish to see me privately.
As we all know, it is really UKIP that has to be congratulated on this Bill. This would not be coming forward in this way if the Conservatives were not under pressure from UKIP. My side should not be unduly enjoying what is happening with the Conservatives and UKIP, because UKIP is also entirely capable of eating into our vote, as voting for UKIP is a vote against leadership and government by an elite that is seen to be out of touch. It is a revolt, in a sense, by those who see themselves as little people ignored by the existing system. While Europe has been the particular issue around which it has coagulated, that is not necessarily the only issue on which it sees itself as divorced from politics. However, the Conservatives have reacted to UKIP almost solely on this issue.
The Government’s position is much weaker than it appears. I was appalled to hear the Prime Minister say before the negotiations had started that he was going to be voting for Britain to stay in. That grossly undermines the Government’s negotiating position. Who goes into negotiations and says, “We will vote to accept the terms we are offered” before the negotiations have started? That seems to me to be an incredibly weak position.
After today’s votes and discussions, we ought to enter into a period of serious discussion of the terms on which we wish to seek renegotiation. What is it that we want to see? I want to spell out a number of points I think we ought to discuss, because, knockabout apart—and snivellers apart—these are serious issues that we have got to debate.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Clearly that discussion is going to start now and go on for four years until 2017. If there was a vote now, I would vote to come out, but now we are going to have this alternative plan. It is good that we have four years to try and get it right, so the British people can then say, “Actually we like the end result that the Prime Minister has negotiated”—or they say that they do not and we leave. In my view, this makes a pretty good fist of dealing with this problem.
Mr Davidson
I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, but it is grossly undermined by the fact that the Prime Minister has already indicated he intends to vote for the terms that are offered after renegotiation, irrespective of what those terms are. That is an absurd negotiating position, and the silence now among Members on the Government Benches speaks eloquently to their support for my position.
What points for renegotiation should we be focusing on? The first is the question of ever-closer union. It is clear to me that we have to make it clear—absolutely clear, crystal clear—that we reject totally the concept of ever-closer union and the idea that the EU is a ratchet which only ever turns in one direction. I support devolution for Scotland on the principle that I believe powers should be moved downwards. I support the concept of subsidiarity, too, as I believe that in principle we ought to say that all powers held at any given level should be moved to the level below, unless a very strong case can be made for retaining them where they are. The onus ought to be on those who wish to hold them centrally to justify that position, rather than the converse. That has not been the position of successive British Governments up until now, and it should be, and I think we ought to make it absolutely clear that that is our position going forward, so that the inexorable expansion of the EU’s powers—like the Blob in the science fiction films that used to replicate itself every 24 hours and expand into new areas—is halted and constrained.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being a straight-talking politician and he is making a powerful case, but the suspense is too much. Will he tell the House which way he is going to vote?
Mr Davidson
I will leave the hon. Gentleman in suspense for a little longer, if he does not mind, as I am worried that if Members know how I am going to vote, they will leave the Chamber with the question resolved.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman tells us, it will put us out of our misery.
Mr Davidson
I am glad to hear that.
The second issue is control of our borders. I do not believe that it is appropriate to have enormously tight restrictions on immigration from outwith the EU and have unlimited immigration from within the EU. That leads to a situation in which some of the restrictions on migration from outside the EU are, in my view, too tight, driven by a desire to keep down the numbers. It is meaningless to have restrictions on the outside and allow anybody who is given leave to remain in Spain, France, Greece, Bulgaria or Romania to come into the United Kingdom simply because those countries have given them citizenship rights. We have to have control over our borders, which means saying to our European colleagues that we do not accept unfettered free movement of people if it is not in the United Kingdom’s interest at any particular given time.
Graham Stringer
I agree with my hon. Friend’s general views on the EU, and I agree with him about the Lib Dems, and I agree with the points he is making about what renegotiation should consist of. In that, however, he is asking for fundamental changes to the treaty of Rome and many of the treaties that follow it. Does he really believe that the other 27 countries of the EU are going to vote to change those treaties?
Mr Davidson
I possibly have more faith in the Prime Minister than my hon. Friend does. Had the Prime Minister not to some extent sold the jerseys, I think all these issues could very well be negotiated with our colleagues, because we are not alone. I do not believe that Britain is the only country that wants to retain control over its immigration policy. I think many colleagues support the position we are taking on this question, and I will come on to the question of dates in a moment.
The next point we ought to be dealing with is the question of the common agricultural policy. That has been covered in this House on a number of occasions, so I will not delay us by discussing it, as has the question of the cost of the European Union, and the waste and extravagance.
The final point I want to make is that the Conservative drive for renegotiation seems to be driven by the sort of impulse that means every time Conservatives walk by a house and see a chimney, they regret that a small boy is not climbing up it. I think the Conservative party’s wish to repatriate powers over labour relations and working conditions is driven by a desire to drive down terms and conditions to the level of the 18th or 17th or 16th century, if they think they can get away with it. There is no future for Britain in the long term if we go back to having small boys climb chimneys. It is rules and regulations—and, indeed, red tape—that stop us having small boys climbing chimneys. Those Conservatives who say that the main drive behind renegotiating the EU treaties is to have a freer labour market have got to come clean and say whether they believe a search to the bottom is the way forward for Britain. I do not believe we should be seeking to compete by lowering working standards, and that is one of the points on which Len McCluskey and I would be as one.
If we accept the points that most of the Government Members, and many on our side, have been making, we would want to see three stages, and that is where I do agree with the Government. The first stage would be renegotiation and the second would be a referendum. I have an open mind on how I will vote at that time, because I recognise that the European Union has done many excellent things that I support, but, similarly, it has done many things that I do not support. How I vote in the referendum will depend on the balance reached in negotiations.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind me referring to an earlier point he made, because I was checking something online while he was giving his brilliant speech. It is worth pointing out that a number of trade unions are actively campaigning for a referendum. Indeed, the advisory board of The People’s Pledge, one of the great organisations calling for a referendum and which is running a successful campaign, was made up of at least three senior union representatives, including Bob Crow and Bill Greenshields, as well as a number of others—the list goes on. So to suggest that the trade unions are opposed to a referendum or in favour of continued membership or continued escalation of our union within the EU is not strictly true.
Mr Davidson
Sorry, I did not think I was actually saying that all unions were taking a particular position. I think that most of the unions will take the view that they either want or do not want a referendum. I know that many of them do want a referendum, and they will decide on the basis of what they believe is offered to their members once the renegotiations are complete. I support renegotiations, and I have always been clear about that. I am glad to hear that Bob Crow appears to have greater support from those on the Government Benches than he has from those on the Opposition Benches in some cases. Ever since he declared that he would be biting the heads off only three babies a day his popularity has increased among many Government Members. [Interruption.] It was four babies a day, then.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
This debate is not about what kind of trade union laws we should have; it is about who makes those laws. The hon. Gentleman referred to young boys going up chimneys, but that practice was ended not by the European Union but by this Parliament, just as slavery was abolished by this Parliament and as women were given the vote by this Parliament.
Mr Davidson
So now we have it: the hon. Gentleman wants this Parliament to have the power to put small boys up chimneys. I think he will find that there are rules in the European Union that prevent us from putting small boys up chimneys. I think that is a very valuable clarification, and members of Unite and elsewhere will take it into account.
The Labour party’s view on these matters is best described as being in a state of flux. It is a caterpillar, which, in a short time, will emerge as a butterfly. I believe that we will change our position in a relatively short time, as events change, because we are clearly heading for a crisis in the European Union. I do not believe that the euro is sustainable in its current form for much longer. As the euro degenerates, and as unemployment rises—it already affects 50% of young people in Spain—we will see more social unrest in Europe and there will be an inexorable drive among the members of the euro to change the relationship within that bloc and, in turn, within the European Union.
The Labour party’s policy will change with that. I am confident that in the years to come I will find myself capable of supporting Labour party policy with a greater degree of enthusiasm than I do at the moment. I remember opposing the euro before it was fashionable to do so. I can also remember when the policy changed and it was impossible to find any Labour Member in favour of the euro—indeed, it was almost impossible to find any Labour Member who had ever been in favour of joining the euro. So things will change, as they should.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman and several other Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), were instrumental 10 years ago in launching Labour Against the Euro. They led a group of about 40 Labour MPs which finally finished off former Prime Minister Blair’s attempts to join the euro. We used to call that group LATE, for short, and some of us used to say, “Better late than never”, because it was an eleventh-hour arrival on the battlefield. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) wants to keep us in suspense, but will he tell us how late he intends to leave it before we get this large group of Labour MPs once again calling for a referendum?
Mr Davidson
There is no difficulty in identifying a substantial group of Labour MPs who are in favour of a referendum—the issue is about the timing and the terms of the referendum, and I want to discuss that point now. A strong case has been advanced for a referendum now, before the election, but I wish to make it clear that I am completely opposed to that. An in/out referendum now would give us two choices, neither of which I find acceptable. Staying in on the existing terms would give the green light to those who wish to continue their spendthrift ways and want to continue the process towards ever-closer union. Getting out is simply a retreat and a surrender to separatism. I am opposed to that in Scotland, so I am also opposed to it in the United Kingdom.
There is, however, a case for a referendum now on giving the Government the power to renegotiate the terms of membership. A referendum now on allowing the Government to renegotiate—or on demanding that they start renegotiating—would send a signal to our European colleagues that we are serious about this. They, like us, must be doubting how serious the Government are about driving this forward, given that the Prime Minister has already said that he intends to accept whatever terms are on offer.
Mike Gapes
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government do not need a referendum decision by this House, because they can go ahead and start renegotiating tomorrow if they wished to do so, and come up with proposals? The problem is that the Government do not have a negotiating position and, as the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee when we asked him about this, they do not intend to do this until after the next general election.
Mr Davidson
To be fair, I covered some of those points earlier. I am conscious that others wish to speak, so may I just say that we do need to have an agenda for change, and I think we need to wait for a crisis? I do not understand—this is why I am not supportive of the proposed wording—the point of saying that this has to be done by 31 December 2017. No rationale has been advanced as to why the chosen date should be 2017 rather than 2016 or 2018—or even why it should be 31 December. If we commit ourselves to having a renegotiation, the best way of achieving success is to act when the EU has its next crisis, which cannot be all that far off.
Mr Davidson
It may very well be next week. If it is next week, I would hope that the Government would seize on that opportunity—if only they had an agenda of items that they wanted to renegotiate—to seek allies in the European Union in order to renegotiate our terms of entry. I see no reason in those circumstances, if we renegotiate terms before the next election, why we should have to wait until after the election. The issue, for me, is a question of agreeing that we want renegotiation and agreeing that we want a referendum, but not binding ourselves to any particular time. That is why, on the advice of the Whips, I shall not vote for the motion.
National Referendum on the European Union
Ian Davidson Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I can think of no other issue where the gap between the political elites and ordinary people in this country is so great. It is not the most important matter the House will ever discuss, but it is the one where that divergence is greatest. This divergence, and the feeling among the population of the country that their views are ignored, breeds and feeds cynicism about politics in general. The most cynical attempt to avoid that popular opinion was used in relation to the constitution that was not a constitution, because if it had been a constitution, it would have to have been put to a referendum. That was a breathtaking piece of cynicism and manipulation. No Member really believes that it was anything other than a means of overcoming the possibility of popular rejection.
It is therefore beholden on us to take seriously the fact that 100,000 voters have signed an e-petition. It was mentioned earlier that millions of Liberal Democrat voters would reject the proposal in a referendum, but I think that such a view is seriously mistaken, because there are probably no more than 100,000 people prepared to own up to being Liberal Democrat voters, so the number of people who signed the petition is greater than the number of Liberal Democrats in this country.
I think that disillusionment on this question has also been spread by the false prospectus the Conservatives gave to the country as they ran into the general election. There was a feeling in this country that a Conservative Government would stand up for Britain much more and take a more robust view on European matters, but the fact is that they have sold the jerseys. The overwhelming majority of people who voted for the Conservatives, believing that they would stand up to Europe, are now disillusioned, which is why every registration of public opinion indicates that there is a substantial drift of voters from the Conservatives to UKIP on this matter. I give the Conservatives the following advice for their own good: if they want to stop that drift to UKIP, they must stand up for what they said they would do during the general election. If they wish to say that they would like to do those things, but the Liberals are holding them back, they should come forward and say it honestly, rather than saying, “It’s actually much more difficult than we thought and we’re up to all sorts of sophisticated things that you are too thick to understand.” That is effectively what they are saying.
I am glad that this is not an in/out referendum, because I must confess that I would not have favoured either option. I am not in favour of voting in the referendum to remain in the EU, because that would be seen as a green light to ever-closer union, and I am not willing to be put in a position where the only alternative is to leave the EU, because I do not support that. I believe, as many of my colleagues on the Labour Benches once believed, that there is a third way—the way of reform. I believe that many of those who oppose the motion are doing so under the banner of reform, but are not actually all that serious about reform. They are committed to ever-closer union, but with a little tinkering.
Therefore, I support the motion because I think that the size of the vote tonight matters as a signal to the country that a substantial number of people are strongly committed to strong renegotiation when compared with those who take the view that it should be business as usual. As for those who say that the time is not yet right, I think that that is a disgraceful argument unless they tell us when the time will be right.
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend was so opposed to the Lisbon treaty that I assumed that he had read it. Can he tell me where there is anything other than one clause that would allow an in/out referendum? There is nothing else in the Lisbon treaty on that?
Mr Davidson
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an extra minute.
I also think that those who argue that this is simply a distraction would never want to discuss it anyway. They argue that it is not the right time or that this is only a distraction, but would they have said otherwise if the motion had been brought forward two weeks ago, or at some other time? I do not think so. They are in fact more interested in being part of the cosy club. This is an important debate, but as I said before, it is not the most important debate the House will ever have, and the EU is not the most important thing we will ever discuss.
Nadine Dorries
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why British people are so engaged on this matter is that, in these difficult economic times, when we are giving £25 million a day to Europe, they want to see not only the repatriation of powers, but the repatriation of some of the money?
Mr Davidson
I agree with that. They would like to see that because what we need to do is move on from the debate we are having today. Whenever I see the three party leaderships lining up together, I think that they must be wrong, and I think that the vast majority of the public take that view as well. At least there is no conspiracy involving the nationalist parties, because they have not bothered to turn up. We do not know what their view is on whether Scotland would be part of an EU that Britain had already left, because that is one of the things they want to fudge and sweep under the carpet.
However, if we want out of the CAP, we ought to be discussing how we can do that? If we want to stop paying so much money to Sicilian gangsters and a variety of other crooks across Europe, how do we manage to do that? If we want to provide genuine bilateral support to those who are much poorer than us in eastern Europe, how do we do it without the middle men cutting chunks out of it? The same concern applies to the third world. How do we ensure that other European countries, individuals and gangs are not siphoning off some of that money? If we want to scrap the common fisheries policy and introduce something better, how do we do that? Those are the sorts of debates we need to have. In my constituency, how can we ensure that local people get local jobs without the EU telling us that they must be advertised Europe-wide? That is what we need to discuss.
European Union Bill
Ian Davidson Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the current Government are absolutely committed to Gibraltar remaining British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want that to continue. We have made that clear publicly since the day we took office, and I have repeated it in public both in this country and on a visit to Gibraltar a few months ago.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that this proposal refers specifically to Gibraltar, has the Minister sought and obtained the views of the Government of Gibraltar, and are they supportive of it?
Mr Lidington
Yes, we have done so. The original provision before its amendment by the House of Lords was approved by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, whom we consulted before originally publishing the Bill, and we have consulted the Government of Gibraltar about the additional change in this Lords amendment and they are content with it. They do not think it in any way damages their position.
I hope the House will agree to these Lords amendments.
Lords amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 2
Treaties amending or replacing TEU or TFEU
Mr Lidington
In 1979, I was still a university student and had other things on my mind than the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales. If one takes the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the imposition of the threshold then and looks back at the history of the decade after, which resulted in no move towards satisfying what were genuine aspirations for a greater degree of devolved government in Scotland and Wales, it made the public disconnection from Westminster of the people in those two countries greater over the subsequent years. But this is a matter that historians can argue over.
Mr Davidson
Can I clarify what the Minister is saying? Is he saying that the 40% rule would apply not only to referendums in this context but to any future referendum and that the Government would be committed to opposing any 40% threshold for any future independence referendum in Scotland?
Mr Lidington
I am not going to speculate on a hypothetical Scottish referendum. We have said clearly not just on this Bill but on the Bill that authorised the referendum on the alternative vote system that we felt the decision should be taken by those people who voted, and the outcome should not depend on any artificial threshold that we chose to impose.
Mr Lidington
That puts it fairly. The perverse incentive to seek an apathetic reaction from the electorate is one that I would want to avoid.
Mr Lidington
I will give way one last time, because I want to deal with the other Lords amendments in the group.
Mr Davidson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in the circumstances. Surely the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is wrong and we cannot have a situation where Members of the House of Lords who are in receipt of money from Brussels vote and do not declare it. Surely that would be counter to everything in our parliamentary democracy and surely they give an indication that they are in receipt of gold from Brussels.
Mr Lidington
One thing that I have learned in my 19 years in this place is that each House is very jealous of its own procedures and privileges, including what the rules should be on the declaration of financial interest, so I think we should leave that to the House of Lords authorities to decide.
I am surprised that the threshold amendment was supported in the House of Lords by the official Opposition Front-Bench team. I hope that when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) catches the Deputy Speaker’s eye, he will provide some explanation of that course of action and indicate whether he plans to lead his party through the Lobby in defence of a 40% threshold, although he has probably given up hope of leading the hon. Member for Luton North.
That support is particularly astonishing because the hon. Member for Caerphilly is seriously at odds with his, and my, immediate and distinguished predecessor. It was the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who was Labour’s spokesman on Europe, who said repeatedly in debates on 2 November last year that he disagreed fundamentally with the very idea of thresholds, saying:
“I do not agree . . . about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 846.]
He repeated that a few columns later. As a Conservative politician, I feel slightly nervous trespassing on the frontier between Caerphilly and the Rhondda, but the hon. Member for Caerphilly owes the House an explanation for this departure in Labour party policy that he has presumably devised and implemented.
Amendments 6 to 13 are very significant indeed in their impact. They would remove from the referendum lock several passerelle decisions that would transfer power and competence from Britain to the European Union. The other place accepted that decisions to adopt the euro, give up UK border controls, or create a single, integrated military force should require a referendum. That was a welcome step, but it is not enough. The coalition agreement set out clearly that
“no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum.”
All the decisions included in clause 6 as it left the House of Commons would constitute such a transfer.
Some Members of the Lords felt the original clause 6 did not provide Ministers with what they termed sufficient “pragmatic flexibility”. I would say in response that it is a direct consequence of the abuse of so-called “pragmatic flexibility” in the past that there is such lack of trust in the European Union today, and in Governments as a species, for decisions taken on European Union matters. It is that lack of trust which the Bill seeks to address. Speaking as someone who disagrees with some of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, I want to see the United Kingdom playing a vigorous, active, constructive role on behalf of our people within the European Union. Our ability to do that and to enjoy the confidence of the British people in so doing will be enhanced if we can point to the safeguards that are provided for in the Bill included in clause 6.
European Union Bill
Ian Davidson Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Horwood
I originally intended to speak in support of the comments made earlier in the debate by my Gloucestershire neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), but I found myself in a surprising degree of agreement with the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who gave a learned analysis of the implications of the new clause, as opposed to its intent.
As described by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and others, the intention is to create more transparency and openness—that is obviously a good thing, which we would all support—but somewhere in the drafting of the new clause it has become a little confused, or perhaps awkward, in the attempt to bring it within the scope of the Bill.
The effect of the new clause would be to reveal a great deal of documentation, but after the decision had been taken. The decision to which the statement under clause 5 related would have already happened. Although much of the documentation would be relevant in the sense that it related to that decision, it might not prove to be very pertinent to the decision. Much of it might be advice, even legal advice, that was ultimately rejected. So it would not have materially affected the decision under consideration. What really mattered would be the outcome, and the proposals that the British Government were putting to Parliament and, perhaps even in a referendum, to the people of this country. We could discuss that without the benefit of all the paperwork that had been discarded earlier in the process.
The second problem with the new clause is that a lot of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said was about trying to add transparency to the process at European level—to the Commission’s decision-making processes and the debate in the Council of Ministers. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) compared that to the former secrecy of debates in this Chamber, but the new clause would not reveal the debate that took place at European level. It would reveal only the background paperwork, which would be rather like getting a House of Commons briefing, but with no copy of Hansard to follow.
The new clause would not bring great openness or transparency to European processes. The only transparency that it would provide would be on the British negotiating position. Then we would start to have a problem, because although that would be revealed after the event, the nature of the advice, especially the legal advice, could have profound implications for future negotiations. If we revealed all that documentation, that would clearly impact on the position of British Ministers in subsequent negotiations. It would almost certainly impact on the advice, especially legal advice, that officials felt able to give to Ministers, because they would know that it was not private advice, but would become public in due course. Clearly, that would put British Ministers at a disadvantage relative to other Ministers in the European Council. It would undermine the British interest and thereby achieve, presumably, the reverse of what the new clause intends. It would, in a real sense, send British Ministers naked into the Council of Ministers. In some cases, that is a very sobering thought indeed.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Has not the Liberal position traditionally been to want British Ministers to go naked into the conference chamber of the EU? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his and his colleagues’ Europhile tendencies contributed towards the Liberals’ stunning success in coming sixth in the Barnsley by-election?
Martin Horwood
I am not sure that we have a party policy on nakedness in general—although I shall certainly consult my colleagues on that.
I shall not detain the House long, but it seems clear that the new clause would result in the undermining of the British interest in terms of ministerial participation in negotiations. There may be measures that should be introduced to add more transparency and openness to the EU at Commission level, and certainly at Council of Ministers level, and I am sure that I, and Liberal Democrat Euro MPs and Members of this Parliament, would be sympathetic to them. There may even be methods that we should explore similar to the Finnish model about which we have heard so much. Those would also be greeted with a lot of sympathy, but the new clause would not deliver any of those things, so I am afraid that hon. Members should throw it out.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) reminded us that the purpose of the new clause is to deal with the manifest lack of trust that the public have in the negotiation, on behalf of the British public, of grave constitutional issues in the European Council and elsewhere. The new clause would itself introduce a considerable constitutional change, and I hope that hon. Members will allow me to say that I would find that not a necessarily unhappy change, but a change none the less. That is the fact that, heretofore, Ministers of the Crown negotiated and treated on behalf of the British people and of the Crown, and Parliament, if it saw fit, studied the results of that treaty after the event.
That is not necessarily a good way for Ministers to discuss the nation’s interests in the councils of the world, but it is the situation as it stands. I would suggest, therefore, that if we are to see a change to that protocol—as was, to a degree, anticipated by the previous Government in their discussions on the royal prerogative—it may be appropriate to consider in the round the other international bodies and instruments to which we are party, and not just our relationship with the EU.
Hon. Members have rightly said that the EU is of considerable concern to many of our constituents. It is, but so are our World Trade Organisation negotiations. The EU has not yet created a riot on the streets outside Parliament—not yet, at least—yet a few years ago we had the anti-globalisation riots, which arose directly out of our negotiations in the WTO.
Mr Davidson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our constituents generally take European matters much more seriously than almost any other international matter? Proof of that is the fact that in the Barnsley by-election, the UK Independence party managed to beat the Conservatives. What does that say about public confidence in the Conservatives’ position on Europe?
Mr Redwood
I, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, welcome the two aims of this legislation. The first, to hold a referendum on any future transfer of power, is vital to try to secure some democratic legitimacy for what might happen next. The second, to assert that this House and Parliament in general is sovereign, even over European law, is excellent, but I hope that Ministers will take away from this debate the great sense of unease among many colleagues, who feel that the Bill does not deliver what Ministers say it intends to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) just said, we face a large transfer of powers in all sorts of areas at the moment—in criminal justice, in City and business regulation, in the External Action Service and, soon, in economic governance. Any one of those areas would deserve a referendum, but the whole lot together would make a good package for testing out the Government’s new enthusiasm for democracy and the debating skills of the Opposition, who say that that is exactly what the British public want. What is stopping them, other than fear and the belief that, perhaps, the British public would not vote for such measures after all?
I am also worried about the assertion of the parliamentary sovereignty clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has probed and tested it, and there are legal dangers on the route that we are now taking. Sovereignty is something that we have for a period if we are prepared to use it, but it is also possible to let it slip away or to lose it, and we cannot make this Parliament sovereign by a single clause in a piece of legislation. It means nothing. This Parliament will be sovereign again only if it wishes to be; this Parliament will be sovereign again only if it has some political will; this Parliament will be sovereign again only on the day it says to the European Union, “We disagree with you on this. You will not give us what we want by negotiation, so we are going to legislate for ourselves.” Ministers should not pretend that this Bill has resolved the problem.
Let us take the issue of fish. I have heard Ministers, from all parties that have been in government, say to the House that they, like me, thoroughly disagree with the discard policy, think that it is wrong and intend to negotiate a better answer. No better answer has been negotiated. We gave the European Union 20 years’ warning. Why do we not simply legislate now to take ourselves out of the common fisheries policy and show that this Parliament is sovereign and works in the interests of the British people and a great British industry.
European Affairs
Ian Davidson Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his new appointment. There is undoubtedly a crisis within the eurozone, but does he not agree that there is a danger that those in Brussels will simply see this as an opportunity to accrete more power to themselves, centralise still further, and that their analysis will be that the solution to the problem is more Europe, not less. What steps will the Government take to ensure that that does not happen, and that Britain is not sucked into the black hole of the eurozone?
Mr Davidson
In my defence, I came back. I had to leave because I had visitors—I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I explained to them that the joys of listening to him were greater than those of meeting them. They are not voters in my constituency, which makes it a great deal easier to say that.
On the coherence of Government policy on Europe, given that financial cuts are being made across the Government’s budget, will the Foreign Secretary give us a guarantee that a cut will also be applied to the contribution that the EU receives from this country? Otherwise, there will be inconsistency.
Mr Hague
There may well be inconsistency. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give him such a guarantee, which is why he enjoyed coming back into the Chamber to ask the question. The contribution is not immediately under the Government’s control, but is the product of differences in agricultural payments, VAT payments and so on. It is regrettable, as I said earlier, that the Government whom he largely supported—his Front Benchers do not recognise that description of him; perhaps I should say, “the Government he was elected to support in the past”—gave away £7 billion of our rebate while securing nothing in return. He can be assured that we will not do that, and that will help keep the payments down, but it is not possible to vary them by unilateral Executive action.
David Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with all the authority of a former Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. Of course, the change was twofold: first, the shift in industrial and infrastructure support into the A8 countries and, secondly, the creation for the first time of the second pillar of the CAP—the pillar devoted not to agricultural subsidy, but to rural development. The previous Government set out a clear plan for how the CAP should be reformed, so that there was spending on rural development and rural support, notably with an environmental, green and climate change focus. The market-distorting aspects of the CAP—the so-called first pillar—were reduced. So I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Mr Davidson
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. However, does he not agree that Britain actually struck a very bad deal during the last budget negotiations? We did not get nearly as much as we ought to have, we gave up far more than we should have, and essentially the EU took advantage of us and our commitment to enlargement to strike a far better deal than we should have conceded. In fact, the deal that we conceded on enlargement was one of the things that lost us the election, not because people were hostile to enlargement, but because they were hostile to the uncontrolled immigration that resulted and to the feeling that the pervious Government were more interested in listening to Brussels than to their own people.
David Miliband
The Foreign Secretary and I jested earlier, when he said that my hon. Friend had always been a staunch supporter of the former Government, but I worry that he has been reading something left by the previous Opposition Whips Office, before the general election, setting our its view of what happened in 2004-05. I will make one important point to him: he will remember that six months before the budget deal was agreed, the then Government were denounced by the then Opposition for their failure to agree a deal. In June that year, there was a failure to agree a deal, and only under the British presidency, in December, did we get an agreement on the budget deal. So I do not accept his description.
David Miliband
I want to make some progress, but I will see whether I can squeeze the hon. Gentleman in a bit later.
I want to cover the important issue of the banking levy, which the Foreign Secretary did not mention. The last European Council’s conclusions noted
“possible innovative sources of financing such as a global levy on financial transactions”.
We have consistently been in favour of such a banking levy. The UK was the first major country to push for such a levy, at the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in St Andrew’s last November. We have also been clear about the need for such a levy to be agreed internationally. The former shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury—now the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond)—agreed with that, saying:
“We’re very interested in the levy idea and we said so. We like what President Obama has announced but it’s got to be done on an international basis.”
Now is the time for the Prime Minister to follow through on that commitment.
We urge the Government to concentrate on finding consensus for a global levy. The G20 summit will provide another opportunity to build such agreement. I hope that the Minister for Europe will address that issue when he replies to the debate, as it was not addressed by the Foreign Secretary. He might also like to confirm that there is cross-party agreement on the suggestion that a banking levy should operate as some form of insurance fund. We have some concerns about that. We believe that the way in which any proceeds from a levy are spent should be a matter for individual countries to decide.
The European Council also has on its agenda the important preparations for the United Nations high-level plenary meeting on the millennium development goals. The Government have our full support in this area, and we are proud of our record on international development, to which the Foreign Secretary referred. The outlook for the goals is mixed. The right hon. Gentleman was poetic about his Government’s commitments, but he also pointed out that some other European countries were falling back in their commitments. For example, the proportion of children under five who are undernourished has declined from 33% in 1990, but it remained at 26% when the last figures were taken. According to the UN’s figures, the number of children in developing countries who were underweight still exceeded 140 million. There has been success in tackling hunger in parts of east Asia, but in sub-Saharan Africa, the poverty rate has remained constant at approximately 50%. These are issues on which Europe’s development budget, and its development work, have an important role to play, and I hope that we shall get a report back from the right hon. Gentleman, or from the Prime Minister when he returns from the European Council.
On climate change, which the Foreign Secretary mentioned in passing, the Commission report presented by new Commissioner, Mrs Hedegaard, was important. We on this side of the House are committed to increasing the EU’s target on emissions cuts as we move forward to a more comprehensive global agreement for the period beyond 2012. Figures released yesterday show that EU member states are halfway to cutting their emissions by 20% by 2020, which shows good progress, but that represents progress over a 20-year period, and we have only 10 years to go. We also need to ensure that the targets are not shirked, and that loopholes are closed.
In the light of the discussion yesterday, and of the terrible events that took place on Monday, it is right that I should dwell for a moment on the situation in the middle east. The European Heads of Government decided last year to devote one meeting a year to foreign policy, but that cannot lead to the exclusion of foreign policy from every other meeting. The Foreign Secretary spoke, quite legitimately, about the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, but the European Council has especial weight when it comes to choosing some foreign policy issues and dedicating time to them. I would not support the development of a Christmas tree approach, whereby every foreign policy issue was discussed at every European Council, but I do believe that the crisis in the middle east that was catalysed by the events on Monday deserves the attention of the Heads of Government.
We know that the EU is a big funder of humanitarian work on the west bank and in Gaza. We also know that it funds work for the Palestinian security forces on the west bank. Those are two ways in which the European Union makes like better for people in the occupied Palestinian territories. In political terms, however, Europe has not been a player of equivalent strength. The tragic events of this week bring into stark relief the consequences of stasis on the political track. These include limited progress on the implementation of resolution 1860, stalled proximity talks, and EU relations with Syria that are going backwards after the outreach early last year. Discussion has also been diverted from the important Iranian nuclear issue.
International engagement in this arena is not blocked by a lack of consensus; in fact, there has rarely been consensus on the long-term solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. However, the engagement has not been turned into action on the ground. This is a massive test for the foreign policy of all four members of the Quartet, but we on this side support a stronger role for the Quartet as a representative of the international community, and more structured links with the Arab Quartet, which needs to be part of any drive to reverse the slide in confidence and commitment that has been evident for some time, and which will be accelerated by this week’s events. The Foreign Secretary talked yesterday about making his and Britain’s voice heard. The European Council offers a chance for Europe’s voice to be heard, and I hope that the Prime Minister will take it. Europe needs a strong Britain, and we need a strong and successful Europe.
Mr Davidson
Given that the role of an Opposition is to oppose, is it the intention of the comrade leader aspirant that we should attack the Government for being insufficiently pro-Brussels? That was the position traditionally adopted by the Liberals, and it did not do them any good at the last election. I wonder whether we ought to learn the lessons of the general election and adopt a somewhat different position. For example, perhaps we should say that, if there is to be any more accession, there should be an end to unfettered immigration from the EU.
David Miliband
First, we will attack the Government for being insufficiently pro-British, and not for being insufficiently pro-Brussels. When they are insufficiently strong in their defence of the national interest, in regard to any aspect of European policy, we will attack them for that. Let me address my hon. Friend’s last point. His new ally, the Prime Minister, repeated in each of the prime ministerial debates that Britain needed a policy in which new entrants to the European Union had transitional arrangements for labour market access. That exists today for Romania and Bulgaria, precisely because we are learning the lessons of the past 10 years. I would say to my hon. Friend that, when our comrade party has done something right, it would be worth his while to recognise that. In this case, we have got it right.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who referred to me as his hon. Friend; coalitions are building, but I do not think that they are going quite that far. It is a delight to see him, because despite his absolutely ludicrous, nonsensical opinions on Europe—and nearly everything else under the sun—he is quite a nice guy. Indeed, we have shared many a pint, and several bottles of wine, which I think I always paid for, in Les Aviateurs in Strasbourg. I wish him well. The hon. Gentleman follows on from a very fine Member of Parliament, who was much respected across the House; he had much more sensible views than the hon. Gentleman, I fear.
I should explain to new hon. Members that the normal course of an EU debate is that we have exactly the same people along to every single one for about 15 years, and they deliver their single transferrable speech, which they have delivered at every previous such debate. It sometimes reminds one a bit of a sitcom—“Dad’s Army” springs to mind. There is always somebody—normally it is the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who does not seem to be in the Chamber at the moment—who is rather irritating, and just ever so slightly pompous, but whose heart, we know, is really in the right place: the Captain Mainwaring of the House. We always have the immensely suave Sergeant Wilson, who is of course the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). I am not suggesting that he resembles Sergeant Wilson in any other regard, incidentally.
We always have someone who has to say, “Don’t panic, Mr Mainwaring! Don’t panic! It’s all going to be okay!”, and that is normally my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who on these matters, unfortunately, never agrees with me about anything.
Chris Bryant
I am glad that my hon. Friend is piping up, because we always have Private Frazer, “We’re doomed, Captain Mainwaring! We’re doomed!”, and he is always played by my hon. Friend.
Then, of course, we always have someone who is immensely sanctimonious—[Interruption.] And lo and behold, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has arrived in the Chamber. Such sanctimony, I hope, will be a thing of the past from the Liberal Democrats. If there is one thing that they must have learned on becoming members of the coalition, it is that sanctimony must be a thing of the past for the Liberal Democrats. I can see that several Conservatives who were Members in the previous Parliament agree, and the hon. Gentleman is surely the vicar from “Dad’s Army”.
At this point I should like to welcome the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) to his post. He is a splendid man; I know him well; and he has very good intentions. Again, doubtless, he is about to show us that he has ludicrous politics, but he is a nice man. He is sometimes perhaps a little too precise in his politics, and that might render him the verger from “Dad’s Army”, who was just always a little too precise for his own good. However, the hon. Gentleman is an extremely intelligent man, who I think has led the most winning teams on “University Challenge”, and we look forward to his intelligence, which I am sure he will deploy throughout Europe over the coming months.
We heard a great number of maiden speeches, and that makes this debate rather different from any other, because remarkably few Members said anything about Europe. But, that is in the way of things, and there have been some excellent speeches. It is a shame—
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes a point to which I hope the Minister will be able to reply.
Mr Davidson
I am grateful to Private Pike for giving way. Can I take it from his criticisms of the Government Front Benchers that it is the Opposition’s policy that there should be a referendum before any other accession treaty?
Chris Bryant
No, of course my hon. Friend cannot! He knows perfectly well he cannot––he is a mischievous lad. The point I am trying to make is that there is an illogicality about the Government’s position. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman––sorry, I mean my hon. Friend, I sometimes forget––will at some point want to make that point to the Government, rather than always doing so to us.
May I just ask the Minister some very quick questions? First, I urge him to be extremely careful about trying to reset the relationship with Russia. There are very big problems in relation to Russia, not only in its attitude towards Ukraine and Georgia, but with internal democracy and human rights––those who seek the bear’s embrace all too often get hugged to death. On Cyprus, I hope that he will push forward as much as he possibly can. We can stand ready to help if there is anything that we can do. Britain obviously plays a key role in trying to develop a peace in Cyprus.
Likewise, Britain has over the past couple of years played a strong role in relation to Greece and Macedonia, trying to resolve something that to many people outside those countries seems completely illogical.
The European Union has got close to signing up to a free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia. When I was in post, I was keen to try to ensure that that would have to be ratified in the Parliaments of every member state. I hope that the Minister for Europe will ensure that it must be ratified in this Parliament.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said that the Liberal Democrats had never argued for the euro. Perhaps the party did not all the time, but the new Chief Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change did. It is good to see them on the road to Damascus, but it would sometimes be nice to hear a little less sanctimony from them.
Mr Lidington
With respect to the hon. Lady, we are not in that position yet. Talks have resumed between the Government in Nicosia and the representatives of the Turkish Cypriots, and I greatly hope that they have a more positive outcome than has been the case in the past couple of years.
I am with the hon. Member for Rhondda on Macedonia. It is important that we get a resolution to the dispute between Skopje and Athens. From our point of view, the sooner that Macedonia can be seen to be clearly on the path towards full EU membership, the better.
The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful when giving lectures about referendums and seeking popular consent. It is fair knockabout for him to say when responding to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) that he detected some illogicality in the Government’s approach. There is complete logic in his approach to referendums: he does not want any, in any shape or form, on anything to do with the European Union’s future powers. That makes his position different from that which the two coalition parties have adopted and embodied in their agreement. We believe that power resides ultimately with the people, who should have the final say on any further initiative to transfer powers from the House and the British Government to Brussels.
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must press on.
There were 15 maiden speeches and I compliment all those colleagues and Opposition Members who spoke for the first time today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) demonstrated early on that he aims to copy the independent streak of his immediate predecessor. He will be a doughty champion for his constituents, but he also spoke wisely about the economic advantages that he sees his constituents gaining from this country’s continued membership of the EU.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) spoke about the ups and downs of the Anglo-French relationship over the centuries. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, he gave us a kind of Cook’s tour of the best tourist sites in his constituency. I felt I was getting the benefit of a top-quality travel documentary programme condensed into a parliamentary debate.
The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke of the importance of European trade to businesses in her constituency. What came through above all in her speech was her sense of pride in, and affection for, the area where she grew up and that she now represents. I was delighted to hear from her that Harold Wilson could be said to have started his career in her constituency. Of course, when he became Prime Minister, he fell so in love with Chequers and Buckinghamshire that he ended up retiring to Great Kingshill just outside my constituency. It is something of a habit for former Labour leaders. Clem Attlee did exactly the same thing—when he accepted an earldom, he took the secondary title of Viscount Prestwood, in honour of the village in Buckinghamshire where he lived—and now Mr Tony Blair has also decided to make his home in that most conservative of counties. The estate agents in my constituency scan the post every morning for the envelope postmarked Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) spoke of the sense of public disaffection from the EU. Awareness of that is very much driving the Government’s policy towards the Europe Bill, which we hope to introduce later in this Session. He also said that he wanted the Government to be proactive, positive and a friendly partner within Europe. With the addition of the words “clear-eyed and hard-headed,” that is exactly how the Government intend our policy to be. It is customary to say that we hope to hear from those who have made their maiden speeches frequently and in the near future. With the lavish praise that he bestowed upon the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), my hon. Friend can be fairly confident that he will be called again before too long.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) spoke of the need for jobs and investment in the north-east, and made a very wise paean for her local media, which I am sure will ensure that her speech gets the coverage in her region that she hopes for.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) spoke about the importance of Nissan, jobs and economic growth in her constituency, but also warmly of Chris Mullin, a former colleague whom we all miss. He had no airs and graces—probably very few ex-Ministers, when penning their memoirs, would actually write about an incident in which officials forgot to remove a post-it note that they had inscribed, “This is a very low priority. Perhaps we could pass it to Chris Mullin.”
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) spoke about the diverse community in his constituency and the diverse recreations in which they take part. However, if I may say, I thought he was hiding his light under a bushel. I feel that a man who has rowed the Atlantic could surely emerge in next year’s Atherstone ball game at 5 pm holding the ball—he will probably be the only one remaining upright in Atherstone village. I look forward to him telling us of that achievement in future years.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke with great passion about what led her into politics. I suspect that she and I will have many disagreements, but anybody who listened to her speech, whatever their political view, will have felt encouraged and inspired that they too might one day be able to make a difference. Her determination and perseverance are things that all of us can admire, and she is very welcome here.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) spoke of the urgency of tackling the United Kingdom’s deficit in public finances. The hon. Member for Rhondda was unfair to my hon. Friend, because he reminded us that it is possible for someone to feel that they are culturally part of Europe—to feel an affinity with everything that European civilisation has produced—but also to feel that they do not want further political integration within the European Union. We need to accept that Europe is now united and at peace, but also that it is diverse. The trick for Europe is to recognise that diversity as well as its unity.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) spoke in particular about the importance of education to his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) set some sort of record by managing to work in references to both Iron Maiden and the Carry On films in the course of a single speech.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) enticed us with visions of the beaches of east Durham, but spoke seriously about the need for more employment and investment in the north-east of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) explained to me finally what lies behind the big brown signs that say “Historic Dartford”, which have baffled me every time I have visited friends in his constituency. When I am commuting between London and Brussels, I will think of my hon. Friend as the train passes through Ebbsfleet, and I shall know exactly whose constituents I am close to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) spoke about a particular constituency case. I can tell him that consular staff at the Foreign Office have visited his constituent and they have been in touch with the family. We think that in the first instance it is for Mr Shaw’s lawyers to come to our officials with the evidence that gives rise to their concern that the trial was unfair so that we can consider their case and determine how we might take it forward. It would be most appropriate for the judicial proceedings to run their course first, and for any direct intervention from the British Government to follow once those have been concluded—
Foreign Affairs and Defence
Ian Davidson Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Lewis
I am on the Back Benches; I am not bound by this stuff. Cruise missiles are more expensive and less effective, put the submarines at risk and could start world war three by accident—but apart from that, it is a really great idea.
I am about to break a rule that I have never broken before and which I hope never to have to break again. I am going to quote from one of my own speeches—not much; just a little bit—but there is a special reason why I have to do so. I am going to quote from the last speech that I made as a shadow Defence Minister from the Front Bench, in the debate on defence policy on 15 October last year. I was responding to an hon. Friend who had pointed out that the anti-opium campaign was failing in Afghanistan, that the promotion of women’s rights was failing, that democracy was failing and that corruption was rife. I said that that was to suggest that the objectives of our presence in Afghanistan were to get rid of the opium trade, assert the rights of women, create a democracy and root out corruption. I pointed out that those were worthy and desirable aims, but that they were not the reason why we were there. The reason why we were there was, of course, that an attack had been launched by al-Qaeda militants against American cities. Our response was to ensure, once and for all, that that could never happen again from Afghanistan.
I also pointed out something else. I said that we needed to wage a campaign in Afghanistan
“in which we do not take levels of casualties that the public are not prepared to bear,”
and that that, above all,
“is the single reason that people in this country are dissatisfied with the campaign in Afghanistan. It is not a question of a lack of patience, or of not spending enough money,”
but
“The country will not put up with a disproportionate cost in lives for a campaign that shows no sign of ending.”
I also ventured to suggest—I was a little worried when I made this remark—that
“if our enemies in Afghanistan focused on a strategic objective of ensuring that they killed two or three British service personnel every week, keeping that up for a sufficient length of time would be enough to harden opposition to the continuance of the campaign.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 534-35.]
Why have I broken my rule and quoted from my own speech? The reason is very simple: because I am going to develop that theme in the short time available, and I do not want anyone to say that I am saying what I am about to say only because I am speaking from the Back Benches and that I never said it when I spoke from the Front Bench. We have got a dilemma in Afghanistan, and nobody knows which of two courses to take. My argument is that there is a third course.
The first of the two courses being put forward says that we need to get out of there as soon as we reasonably can. The other one says that winning a counter-insurgency campaign means that we have to go on for the long haul. Those words were used on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), in his capacity as Liberal Democrat shadow defence spokesman. We also have to reform the society so that it will be self-sustaining.
We are not going to turn Afghanistan into a self-sustaining society that will be able to reach a deal with the reconcilable elements of the Taliban if we simultaneously say, as President Obama has, that we will start withdrawing our troops from the middle of next year. We cannot have it both ways.
The trouble is that that is to assume that the only way to be present in Afghanistan is to micromanage the country as though it were our job to rebuild that society and hold it in place. That is why we are engaged in the folly of sending our troops out from forward-operating bases. I have friends in those bases: they go out day after day and week after week, over highly predictable routes and wearing uniforms that say, “Here we are. We’re a target. Snipe us, blow us up.” That is insane. We are fighting on the one ground where our enemies are able to defeat us by inflicting on us a level of casualties that our society will no longer be willing to bear. The answer is not to follow the policy of micromanagement in Afghanistan, which has been followed up until now.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
The former shadow Minister is speaking in a fascinating way about Afghanistan. However, now that he has the freedom of the Back Benches—and I congratulate him on being prepared to lay down his official position for his allies—may I ask whether he still has the same view of aircraft carriers as he had before?
Dr Julian Lewis
I much admire the hon. Gentleman, but I am wearing today the crest of HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy’s next aircraft carrier, just as I did when I was a shadow Minister, because I retain precisely the view that aircraft carriers are essential for the Royal Navy in the future. However, that will have to be for another debate.
I have a minute and a half left, unless someone else chooses to intervene, and I wish to explain what we are doing wrong and what we can do right. That is a bit of a tall order, but I may have a fuller opportunity to explain in the future. What we are doing wrong is that we are following a policy of micromanagement: what we should do is follow a policy of minimal intervention. We are putting pressure on Karzai by saying that we will pull out in a certain period of time. We are not putting any pressure on the Taliban to reach a deal with him.
What we should be saying is, “We will withdraw from being involved in Afghan society in a certain amount of time, but we will retain a strategic presence. You won’t see it. It will be a sovereign base area somewhere near the Afghan-Pakistan border. We will let the water find its own level, as it were, in Afghan society, but we will not withdraw completely because if we did that the country would revert to what it was before. On the other hand, we will not allow it to revert to what it was before if there is any sign of hostile terrorism or of organisational arrangements being made to revive what there was before.”
I have 10 seconds left. The House should remember that it heard it here first: strategic base bridgehead area. That is the solution, but we are not in sight of it at the moment.