2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between James Clappison and Mark Reckless

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair, as I made it clear that I was referring to another European Court. My point is about supranational jurisdiction conferred on courts outside this country. That applies in this case because we are signing up to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction, just as we are signed up to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. That means that British courts and the will of the British people as expressed through this Parliament can be overridden.

One can add to the case of Abu Qatada the frustration that voters have felt over whole-life sentences no longer being allowed as a result of the European Court of Human Rights. There are multifarious other cases as well.

[Mark Reckless]

I felt I should intervene on my hon. Friend following the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I do not think the European Court of Human Rights can dictate to our courts. In the Abu Hamza case, it said that the nine injunctions were not binding on our courts. They are certainly not binding on this Parliament. If the Government choose to act on them because of the ministerial code, that is for the Government, but the injunctions are not binding on our courts or Parliament.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will reflect, as I do, on the position taken by the Government in light of that fact. However, the European Court of Justice will have authority over this country in the case of the measures under discussion. Its decisions will be final and beyond appeal, and we will have to abide by them if they go against us. We are voluntarily subjecting ourselves to that jurisdiction.

Those who want us to be part of the European area of freedom, security and justice should be under no illusions as to the extent of the European Union’s ambition to take away sovereignty from this Parliament in that field. That is, after all, one of the specific objectives spelled out in the EU treaty:

“The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers”.

There are those who say that instead of signing up to the EU area of freedom, security and justice, we can pick and choose which individual measures we should adhere to and suggest that they stand on their own merits rather than being part of the EU system as a whole. In a way, that is choosing to dine à la carte from the EU menu. However, the problem with dining à la carte is that if someone keeps on doing it, they end up trying everything on the menu.

European Union Bill

Debate between James Clappison and Mark Reckless

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless]

Indeed. I support giving a referendum to all in the UK. That is how we should decide our future. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. That principle is why I support new clause 11.

There is also a political issue at stake. We have heard some description of the Liberal Democrats’ position and the in/out referendum they demanded. Indeed, I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), felt so strongly that we should have an opportunity to vote in an in/out referendum that he was suspended from the Chamber for a day. As far as I can tell, that is still the Liberal Democrat position.

The Conservative position is that the Lisbon treaty should have gone to a referendum. When the treaty was pushed through the House and we were not allowed that referendum, we had to consider our position.

[Mr Clappison]

As somebody who took part in the Lisbon treaty debates, I am slightly surprised to hear of the Liberal Democrats’ current position. They have an honourable position on Europe—they are in favour—but they would now like a referendum on a substantial transfer of power to Europe. They wanted an in/out referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but voted in favour of the treaty.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend is correct, but the key point is that we can still have the referendum that the Liberal Democrats wanted. The Conservatives cannot go back to the pre-Lisbon EU position because the founding treaties have changed. We have the Lisbon treaty, but we could still decide to hold an in/out referendum.

Draft EU Budget 2011

Debate between James Clappison and Mark Reckless

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I congratulate the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on an excellent and most competent speech. I listened to her and to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), so may I say to him that the last thing she needs is his protective arm around her? He could do worse than to put his arm around himself, because the end of his speech contradicted its beginning. At the end he told us that now, more than ever, our contribution to the European Union budget comes from general Government expenditure. Therefore, if our contribution increases, we have to increase taxation, cut expenditure or run up a bigger deficit, at a time when we are trying to reduce the one we have. He would do well to reflect on that.

I noted that in all the advice the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), gave us, neither of them told us—we will be watching this—how they would advise MEPs to vote when this matter comes before the European Parliament once again, under its procedures. Will MEPs vote in favour of the Council to keep the budget down or are they going to vote in favour of the Commission and for more spending on the European Union? The hon. Member for Bristol East may not want to answer the question tonight, but her MEPs will have to vote or abstain in the European Parliament. They will be watched as to how they vote and we will remind them of the effects that this measure would have in this country.

I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and I wholeheartedly supported recommending this document for debate, because it is precisely the sort of thing that this House ought to debate. Something caught my eye in the figures that the Economic Secretary put before the House: the European Commission was seeking in its budget this year an increase of 5.8% or £7 billion in payment appropriations—at this of all times. That comes after increases in the past three years of 3.9%, 1.6% and 2.3%. That raised a question in my mind: how on earth at a time like this, when this country and other member states are facing such stringency in their public expenditure and are seeking to reduce their deficits, could the European Commission have the instinct to seek an increase in its spending? A cynical mind might say that the European Commission made proposals to increase spending on such a scale thinking that they might be trimmed back and that it was aiming for what it would get when those were trimmed back.

Be that as it may, the Economic Secretary is doing exactly the right thing, exercising her powers and this country’s influence to the utmost. I would like those powers to be greater, but they are what they are and they are being used to restrain the European budget, to seek alliances with other member states and to seek to bring about the reductions that she has talked about. It is in this country’s interest that she should do that, and I am sure that all hon. Members on the Government Benches wish her good luck in her endeavours.

Reference has been made to the rebate, so I do not propose to dwell on that. However, because this country’s rebate has been abated in part—in 2005, somewhat inexplicably, when this country had a veto and could have prevented any such abatement—we must have to bear a higher proportion of any increase in European expenditure than would otherwise have been the case. As has been rightly said, that means that our net contribution to the European budget is set to rise progressively from £3 billion in 2008-09 up to £9.5 billion in 2014. That is a substantial increase, which is inexplicable. Historians will have an interesting time examining the motivations of those who took part in the relevant discussions in 2005, when the case for this country was put by the previous Prime Minister but one.

The thing that strikes me more than anything else as I peruse this document and the various budget headings is how little attempt seems to have been made to economise on the part of the European Union—and not only that, but how little attempt has been made to cut back on planned expenditure. It seems that the European Union is ploughing on as though nothing had changed in the world.

Talking of planned expenditure, one of the worst examples, I am afraid to say, is the European External Action Service. We were promised originally—I remember taking part in the debate with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)—that it would be budget-neutral and the rumour was that nobody in the European institutions believed that. Surprise, surprise, after we were told that it would be budget-neutral and given a solemn assurance to that effect by the European Commissioner, the European Commission started coming back for more increases in expenditure. So far, in the brief time that has elapsed since it started to put that organisation into place, it has already breached the principle of budget neutrality twice, with increasing amounts being sought—the most recent was an increase of £35 billion for an extra 190 posts.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the current financial circumstances we should be talking not about budget increases or even budget neutrality but about reductions in the EU budget, as proposed in the excellent amendment (b)?

[Mr Clappison]

If there were a search for economies in the European budget, one of the best places to start would be the External Action Service. I have a suspicion that although some of its activities might be worth while, the prime motivating force behind the establishment of what is in effect a diplomatic service is the promotion of the European Union itself rather than the interests of member states or their citizens. I suspect that there might be scope for economies.

Let us be clear that what is being sought is planned increases in the External Action Service. Let us spell out the facts of what it will cost so far as it stands—as the Economic Secretary made clear. So far, the cost of the External Action Service, which is on the record under the so-called budget neutrality, is €400 billion. The diplomatic service has 3,700 employees and posts in about 130 nations in the world, many of which already have British diplomatic representation. Spending of that magnitude compares, I am afraid, with the search for economies that is being made in our Foreign Office, where savings of much smaller amounts of money are sought all the time in the face of the demands that have been made to try to economise. It would be sad to see the Union flag taken down in some countries in the world while the European flag was run up. I would regret that, as I think our Foreign Office does a good job in the world and represents the interests of our country. Its prime consideration is to represent this country and our citizens’ interests, rather than searching for exterior political objectives to do with the European Union.

This has been a very good debate. I commend the line that has been taken by the Economic Secretary. The facts are stark and anybody who reads these budget documents will be shocked that such increases are sought by the European Union at this of all times. It also prompts a question about the relationship between the European Union institutions, the Commission of the European Union, our constituents and the man on the street in every European state. What must be the attitude at a time when there is so much concern about the economy, when people are suffering and when cuts are being made if the European Union somehow feels that it is immune from those pressures and can go on increasing its expenditure?