European Union Bill

Debate between Ian Davidson and David Lidington

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Davidson]

rose—

[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 Affairs

Debate between Ian Davidson and David Lidington

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[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 Davidson]

rose—

[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—