European Commission: National Parliaments

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

May I apologise, Mr Speaker, for arriving after the beginning of the debate? I was detained elsewhere. I want to say a few words, but will not speak for too long.

When I was a student, I read the works of Walter Bagehot, the 19th-century writer on constitutional matters who distinguished between what he called the decorative and the effective parts of the constitution. Much of what happens around the European Union is decorative. The real power resides not with the elected bodies, but elsewhere. Many people among the political elites of the various members of the European Union go to great lengths to ensure that the European Parliament and their own Parliaments have a comfortable majority of Euro-enthusiasts who will just go along with what the political class wants.

However, Euroscepticism is a major force. It is not effectively represented in many Parliaments, but it is among the populace. I remind hon. Members of the referendums that the French and Dutch held on the proposed constitution. The Socialist party in France went to the extreme of having a ballot of its members and encouraging them to vote yes for the constitution, which they duly did. It was assumed that the conservative parties would vote in favour of the constitution anyway. In the referendum, the great majority of working people voted no. It was the working class and those on the left—and, no doubt, some people on the right—who voted no because they did not think that the constitution was in their interests. Euroscepticism was therefore found to be quite a strong force when a referendum was held, but it is not necessarily a strong force in the elected Parliaments. The same thing happened in Holland.

From time to time, I attend meetings of COSAC with other members of the European Scrutiny Committee. COSAC is an organisation for representatives of the national Parliaments and it includes some Members of the European Parliament. However, Members of the European Parliament are rather irritated that they have to listen to Members of the elected national Parliaments, because they see us as interlopers in their preserve or realm. They think, “We are elected European Members and we do not want these other Parliaments having their say.” Nevertheless, we go to the meetings. Even there, the overwhelming majority of Members are docile supporters of the European Union and all its works.

It is interesting that the British voices from the House of Commons are often very distinctive in being outspoken and critical, and just raising issues. We were in Italy not so long ago and I said, “Well, what about the 13.2% unemployment rate in Italy? What about those who are arguing for the restoration of the lira?” Those voices are not represented at COSAC, but they are represented in the street outside. When politicians stop listening to the voices in the street outside, they are in danger in the longer term.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I was just reflecting on how much I miss the time my hon. Friend and I spent together on the European Scrutiny Committee. Without wishing to entice the opprobrium of Government Members, I was also reflecting on my time as Minister for Europe, when I worked on the Lisbon treaty. In his conversations with colleagues in COSAC, has my hon. Friend discussed the fact that a quarter of the written opinions of national Parliaments relate to 15 legislative proposals? Does he accept the logic that objections from the UK Parliament have greater validity when the legislation applies to the UK, as opposed to when the UK already has an opt-out? When it comes to the written objections from the UK and the conversations that he has in COSAC, does he distinguish between issues that apply to the UK and those that do not?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have not had conversations about those specific issues. However, there is everything to be said for making strong objections to anything that we disagree with and for trying to overturn proposals for legislation if we do not find them acceptable. We would probably find quite a lot of support among the electorates of many member states, even though we do not find it among their politicians. Even in countries that have voted against joining the euro, one will find that the political class privately wants to join it.

One country that has voted time and again—twice now—to stay outside the European Union is Norway, yet for a long time the political class tried to pressure its own people to vote to join it. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary British-Norwegian group and at a recent meeting the Norwegian ambassador said that support for joining the EU had dropped to 11%, which is pretty decisive. Nevertheless, it is vital in any meaningful democracy that elected parliamentarians listen to the voices of their constituents—to the people outside.

One reason I disagree so strongly with systems of proportional representation is that they break that link with electors. In a national list system, the only people who matter are those who put candidates on that list—the party leaders—and not the people outside who vote for them. We have personal relations and contacts with our voters in single-Member seats, and as I mentioned in a debate yesterday, last weekend I spent six hours knocking on doors in my constituency and listening to what people had to say. That link is important in a democracy.

I mentioned Bagehot, but more recently essayists from our own Chamber have contributed to a new book, “What They Never Told You about Parliament and How It Should be Put Right”. Some of our colleagues from this House and another place have made a lot of suggestions for increasing the democratic power of this House in holding the Executive to account, which is absolutely right. I would also like more democracy within parties to hold their leadership to account, but that is perhaps a dangerously radical view that would not be shared by some of my colleagues on the Front Bench. I have always believed in democracy being something that comes from beneath, rather than from the top.

When I was studying politics at university we covered political constitutions, including the Soviet constitution that was written in the mid-1930s, no doubt by friends of Stalin. Clearly, a great democratic panoply of organisations and structures meant absolutely nothing because all power resided in Stalin’s office. It is where power resides that really matters. If power is with the people, that is what democracy should be about; if power is with the elite and people have to do what the elite tell them, that is not democracy. All sorts of structures may look like democracy, but if there is no power in the hands of ordinary people, voters and their directly elected representatives, that is not true democracy. I am not talking about anarcho-syndicalism or anything of that kind; I am talking about representative democracy of the kind we have now.

I believe that in the European Union power really resides in secret councils and the backrooms of the Commission. I heard a story from a Member of the European Parliament who some years ago stumbled by mistake into an office in the Commission building, and found themselves with a group of officials who were deciding who was going to hold a certain post. They wanted a commissioner on social affairs. That sounds very socialist and left-wing, so they wanted somebody weak. They thought, “Ah yes, we’ve got this rather feeble commissioner from one of the smaller east European countries. They won’t cause any trouble so let’s put them forward”, and that is what happened. That is not democracy either. I think we ought to elect our commissioners directly from Parliament. That would be a good idea because we would have a say in who our commissioner is, rather than them being appointed. These issues are fundamental.

Today I had a meeting with an academic researcher from Germany—a very charming, intelligent person. She said, “You’re a critic of the European Union. What would you like it to be like?” I said, “I am passionately European in the sense that I love Europe as a continent of wonderful peoples, countries, cultures—everything about me shrieks ‘Europe!’. I love the music, art, wine, peoples, languages—everything about Europe I love, but not the European Union, which is a political construct imposed on Europe; it is not Europe.”

When people talk about Europe but mean the European Union, they are trying to con us into thinking that Europe can only have the European Union, but there are alternatives. My alternative, which I put to the academic researcher, was that we should have a loose association of democratic member states with elected Parliaments that meet and agree on issues for mutual benefit, but that there should be nobody above those Parliaments telling them what to do. We could no doubt have joint ventures on military aircraft, for example; we have done that from time to time. Concorde involved a joint agreement between France and Britain. We could have bilateral and multilateral international agreements on all sorts of things. We could even agree to standardise the way in which we do things, but these should all involve mutual agreements between the various member states, rather than having something imposed from a very undemocratic bureaucracy above the member states of Europe.

It would be a splendid idea to have a loose association of member states coming together to agree things that are of mutual benefit, and I would love to see that happen. In a few months’ time, I shall be taking a holiday in Italy. I normally go to France, but this year it will be Italy, and I shall enjoy Europe in all its glory. However, I shall continue to be critical of the European Union, which is not Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I was worried when you said that I was making liberal reference to the Chair; I hope that I was making Conservative reference to the Chair. Other than that, I am much obliged for your helpful reminder of the Standing Orders of the House.

I do not want to go on for too long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has an important debate that will follow this one. In that context, I note that when I sit down before the full time for the debate is complete the Government will once again say that the debate did not run for its full time and that the desire for such debates is therefore not as great as we might think, so they do not need to give them in future.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is being respectful to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), but the obvious solution would be for him to spin out his speech to the end of the time. I would certainly enjoy listening to it.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would hardly have begun my speech if I were going to go through all the intricacies it might be necessary to cover, but I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who has a serious matter to discuss that concerns my constituency.

The Government must bear in mind the fact that the debate is truncated thanks to the good nature of members of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Whips scurrying around asking whether we would be kindly. It has not been truncated because there is not a great deal to discuss. When the answer comes back that we are not interested as we do not take the full time, that will be an untruth. I am glad to see that the Minister for Europe is looking in my direction and notes that, because he never says anything other than the truth. I have great confidence in his intellect, if not always in the answers that come from it.

Proportionality and subsidiarity are of considerable importance. I am slightly suspicious of subsidiarity because, as the shadow Minister the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has said, it comes from the teaching of the Catholic Church. The holy mother Church, to which I belong, is a great, illustrious and historic institution, but if it is known for one thing other than its piety, it is its centralisation of power. It therefore strikes me that, if subsidiarity has been thought up by the holy mother Church, it is more likely to be to do with reinforcing the authority of the Holy See and of the papacy in particular than with spreading it far and wide. I happen to think that, in the case of the Church, that is a thoroughly good thing.

Commission Work Programme 2015

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for painting me as a fan of all the measures before I have even spoken about them. One measure that could help to create jobs would be a properly negotiated free trade agreement between the EU and the United States. That has the potential to help our exporters and create jobs.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I gently say to my right hon. Friend that there is a range of views in our party, as well as in the Conservative party, but I shall not dwell on that.

I heard Mr Timmermans speaking in Rome fairly recently, and to hear him one would have thought there were no problems at all. He was speaking in Italy, where unemployment is at horrendous levels—not as horrendous as in Spain or Greece, but still horrendous. He said that countries could not act on their own. The reason they cannot act on their own is that they are cemented into the euro and have no control over their exchange rates or interest rates. If they had control over macro-economic policy, they might be able to act on their own, but they cannot do so at the moment.

[Mr McFadden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Certainly in the speech that I heard last Thursday, the commissioner was not saying that there were no problems at all. He acknowledged many of the problems and said that he was determined to take a different approach in responding to them from that taken in the past. It is perfectly fair for Members to say, “We’ll see how that works out. Let’s see if he’s serious about what he says.” However, that certainly is what he says, and that is reflected in the work programme.

There has been legitimate frustration about over-regulation in the past. If the Commission is serious about weeding out proposals that are not going to go anywhere, that have been lying on the table for years without prospect of agreement or that have been bypassed by events, we should welcome that. I welcome the emphasis on growth and jobs and on regulation in the work programme.

The other measure on growth and jobs, to which the Minister referred, is the Juncker package of investment. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, it is a combination of real new money and the encouragement of private sector investment and loan guarantees. If the Minister has a chance to respond to the debate, will he say what bids this Government have made for any proportion of that money? What investment projects have been brought forward and where are they in the country?

Specifically, will the Minister say how that proposal is to be organised in England? There has been concern among local authorities and local enterprise partnerships that they are not permitted to put in bids and that they all have to go through Whitehall. In an environment in which we are discussing devolution to various parts of the country, it is important that areas in England get a fair crack of the whip in terms of submitting bids to this fund for their projects. I hope he will say something about that.

The Minister said that the work of the UK’s commissioner, Lord Hill, on the capital markets union was important. It has long been said that SMEs are too reliant on bank finance and that we need to encourage more forms of finance. What input can this country, with its expertise in financial services, have in those proposals and in the development of the capital markets union, not only from a Government point of view but from a private sector industry point of view? Nowhere in Europe is better placed than the UK to contribute to ideas on financial innovation and financial services.

Of course, some of the work programme does not apply to us. There are measures that apply only to the eurozone. It is important that countries outside the eurozone, such as the UK, continue to play a full part in the EU.

If the Minister responds to the debate, will he update the House on progress on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? In the question and answer session that followed Commissioner Timmermans’ speech last week, he was asked about TTIP. He said that if it was to be done, it would have to be done by the end of this year. He did not spell this out explicitly, but I think he meant that after that, the timetable of the American presidential election would make it more difficult to negotiate an agreement. Is it the Government’s view that if TTIP is to be done, it has to be done this year? If it is, what input are we having to ensure that that happens, provided that the important concerns about public services and investor-state dispute settlement procedures are worked through and considered properly?

This debate about the work programme reminds us of the way in which we debate these things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked when the Government received the programme. It always strikes me that we debate these things after they have been adopted. Parliament’s method of scrutinising European affairs is not the subject for tonight, but this debate reminds me that these things can be overtaken by events.

There is reference in the work programme to security issues. Like the Minister, I do not agree with Mr Juncker’s suggestion for a European army. However, I do believe that the issue of security is becoming more, not less, relevant, to our European relations. One need only look at the situation in Ukraine. Since the work programme was published, we have had the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, which were a terrible reminder of the common threat we face from extremism. It is therefore important when debating the programme to realise that whatever was written last year has to keep up with the changing nature of events. When he sums up, will the Minister say a few words about what action is being taken on collective security, not of the kind that Mr Juncker referred to with the European army, but in terms of sanctions against the aggression that we have seen in Ukraine?

The work programme refers to migration—that is, migration from outwith the European Union into the European Union. Last week, I met Ministers in Rome. This Minister will be aware that migration is an issue of huge concern for the Government of Italy, given the steady flow of boats from the desperate situation in Libya. The Italian Government feel, with some justification, that they are dealing with a situation that affects all of Europe. We have seen the end of the Mare Nostrum programme and the adoption of the Triton programme. That does not resolve the intense humanitarian crisis nor the political problem in Libya, where there is no Government of any coherence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This debate is a disgrace. This is a massive work programme with huge implications for the British people and our own country, yet we have been given 90 minutes. I can now make only a few of the points I wanted to make because two of my colleagues rightly wish to join in.

The Minister told us that he was delighted that this was a small and compressed programme of just 23 measures. These measures are huge for the jobs, growth and investment area. There are proposals that will have a direct impact on the economies of the European Union. In the section on economic and monetary union, two new taxes are proposed—a common consolidated corporation tax and a financial transactions tax. The Minister did not even mention them: I believe that they will be opposing them for the United Kingdom. One would have thought that a couple of major European taxes might have been worth a mention.

Nobody has had a chance to discuss the energy union proposals, which will directly impact on the United Kingdom. It is put down as one measure, but it is a whole raft of measures. The one that is scored is a strategic framework, but the strategic framework will lead on to a massive programme of regulation and legislation. The Minister obliquely referred to the idea that we want to integrate the market. Why do we wish to integrate it? Why do we wish to integrate the United Kingdom’s rather different energy market—we are an island with access to a lot of its own energy—with the continent of Europe, which has a terrible geopolitical problem because it has made itself so dependent on Russian gas.

As if that was not enough, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) rightly said that migration and border controls—one of the leading issues in the run-up to the general election—is at the core of this work programme. That is exactly right.

I found rather surprising the Minister’s remarks about our legal opportunities for benefit reform. It seems to me that most of the proposals for solving our difficulties on benefits for migrants in the United Kingdom would be illegal under the current treaty. I have been going on about this for years and have recommended to Ministers that they put our benefits on a contributory basis and that they should be paid only if people have paid in for a specified number of years and/or have been in full-time education in the United Kingdom between the ages of five and 16, so that all British people would qualify, without it being discriminatory on grounds of country. If we did that, we could make the changes we want, but Ministers do not respond. They pretend that they can make these other changes, but they have not delivered them all and I think they will discover that a lot of them are illegal.

The economic programme should be much more urgent. I find it extraordinary that the Labour party can come here and show no anger or passion about the mass unemployment on the continent. If there were anything like 50% youth unemployment in Britain today or 25% general unemployment, Labour Members would be outraged and they would be here in their hundreds—not just three Members as now.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

I am sorry, but I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman wants to make his own speech.

Labour would be outraged, but because this is happening on the continent of Europe and is the result of the euro and economic union policies from which we have rightly opted out, they do not seem to care less. They just accept that it has to happen. I think this House should be deeply angry about the mass unemployment on the continent and deeply angry about the permanent recession that has hurt certain countries. We should be deeply angry about the shambles that is the euro, which is doing so much damage to prosperity, opportunity and life hopes. We have no time to discuss any of that because we have been given only 90 minutes.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I shall curtail much of what I was going to say. I had a lot to say, and I greatly agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) about the crisis in the eurozone. I personally feel very angry as do many people in those countries. The so-called socialist party has disappeared in Greece to be replaced by Syriza, while Podemos is now in the lead in Spain. Working people are getting very angry about the appalling state of their economies and the impact on their people.

Let me speak briefly about the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member. I support the amendment, and I am pleased that the Minister intends to accept it, although I hope this is not going to take the place of a proper full debate on free movement and some declaration of what Government policy will be on free movement and what they are going to do about it. It matters greatly to our constituents.

I spent some six hours knocking on doors in my constituency on Saturday and Sunday, and the issue that cropped up the most was immigration and free movement. We cannot run away from it. We have to reach a position. If we want to say that free movement is fine and we are not going to do anything about it, then we should say that, although I think it will bring about a degree of anger from people. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee that this matter has not been taken seriously. He mentioned Frontex, which is an administrative and policy organisation; it does not have a border force.

What we really need is a European border force to help out countries such as Greece—a relatively impoverished country, with a big land border with Turkey—and Italy, with its enormous sea border and islands close to the north African coast. If we are serious about the problem, those areas have to be helped by a border force that is European in scope. When we visited Frontex in Warsaw some two or three years ago, it could not say that free movement was a shibboleth that it could not talk about, but that is what it hinted at in its speech. I think we have to take these issues more seriously.

As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, unemployment in some of the euro countries is quite appalling. If we had Spanish levels of unemployment in Britain, we would have 7.5 million unemployed instead of about 1.9 million. Ireland has overcome its unemployment problem by exporting 300,000 people. That is the pro rata equivalent of 4.5 million Britons leaving. Just imagine if we had 7.5 million unemployed and 4.5 million emigrating to find work. That is the situation that faces these European countries and no one should gloss over the fact that this is all the result of forcing a single currency on these countries, which then prove unable to adjust to it.

After the crisis, we in Britain devalued and depreciated sterling by 27% against the euro and by 31% against the dollar. That was a major factor in helping us to avoid some of the extreme stresses that happened elsewhere. Even in Europe, we are seeing a country such as Switzerland pegging its currency to the euro for a little while, but when the peg was taken away, the currency appreciated by 30% overnight. There are great distortions in currency values right across Europe.

Denmark has pegged its currency to the euro and it is taking desperate measures to try to hold its currency down. I do not call it the euro; I call it, privately, the deutschmark because that it what it really is. Other countries are effectively pegging their currencies to the deutschmark. Desperate steps have been taken to hold it down. We are in trouble now—the Government are right that this is a problem for Britain—because the euro is depreciating pretty rapidly against sterling, which will cause serious problems for our economy, too. All these problems are caused by the foolhardiness of imposing a single currency on different economies, which should be able to flex their currencies, choose their own interest rates and create demand in their own economies so that they can give jobs to their people.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

I was about to say that I do not want my party to be the only one going into a general election not supporting a referendum, and I feel that the Liberal Democrats will definitely have this measure in their manifesto, too. I am not a friend of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) as such, but I imagine that it will be in their manifesto. The Labour party could be the only party going into the election not supporting it, and that would be very wrong indeed.

I wish briefly to discuss some of the issues that will arise if the negotiation happens. I am a bit of a cynic about these negotiations, because I do not feel we will be able to negotiate very much, as the establishment within the European Union does not want the changes that we wish to see. If we end up still part of the agricultural policy and the fisheries policy, and if we still pay billions of pounds into the European Union and get a small amount back, I cannot see that the negotiations will have succeeded in doing anything other than tinker around in a few places, so that somebody can come back from Europe and say that this has been a success.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is far too young to remember the 1975 referendum, but I recall it well. We did have a negotiation then, but can anyone in this Chamber remind me of what the difference was after the referendum, following those negotiations?

[Kate Hoey]

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. The European Union has a mechanism for making sure that any real changes do not happen. We will be in a minority, even if we get one or two other countries to support us, and such changes just will not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

I am sure that all hon. Members could come up with different scenarios, but the fundamental principle is that we are losing control of our own country and of what we want to do in our own country. It is very simple and I genuinely cannot understand why people cannot see that we are losing control of what we want to do here. Of course, we want to co-operate with other European countries. I want to co-operate with all sorts of countries. I would like to see our Commonwealth countries much more involved in what we are doing, as we have treated them scandalously over the years. That is why, if there were a referendum and if we chose to leave the European Union, I would feel quite confident about this country. I want to get our confidence back. I do not want this doom-ridden approach that suggests we have to be part of the European Union because we are only a country and we need it desperately. It needs us, too, and I have confidence that if we were to leave the European Union we would be quite capable of having a prosperous future.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The European Union needs us much more than we need it. Our trade balance shows a gigantic trade deficit with the European Union. We effectively export 1 million jobs because of the £1 billion a week deficit we have with the rest of the European Union. That is the reality.

[Kate Hoey]

Yes, that is the reality and that is what we need to get across. The media must be much more unbiased in their reaction to the European Union. Some of us have spent some time meeting up with the BBC to try to get it to have a much better attitude towards the European Union, because it seems to take the attitude that anyone who speaks out in any way that is critical of the European Union is somehow swivel-eyed—I think that is the word that is usually used. If we have this referendum, the BBC must be clear that it is completely unbiased and will give fair representation to both sides.

I find it very strange that Labour has a policy that if anything extra goes to Europe we would have a referendum. That seems to me to be a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Of course, I supported the policy when it went through and it is good that we got it. At least something changed about our relationship with the European Union, but there are still things happening at this minute. It comes in little bits—drip, drip, drip—and there is no one big thing that can lead us to say, “Ah, we need a referendum on that.” It is a slippery slope, and the process is getting faster every week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I will seek to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to follow the shadow Foreign Secretary, and I am grateful to him for confirming that the Labour party does not trust the British people to express a view on this important matter. I say in all friendship to him that the Labour party’s commitment to referendums on every major treaty would be slightly more convincing if in the 13 years it was in power it had ever held a referendum on any of the various treaties that were agreed.

I support very strongly the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), as I supported the Bill last year when it was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). I should say at the outset that I do so from an explicitly pro-European perspective. I believe this country has benefited from EU membership, benefits from it today and will continue to benefit from it in the future. It will do so even more with the various reforms that not just this Prime Minister but many enlightened leaders across Europe already agree are necessary for the future and better working of the European Union. There is a genuine consensus around Europe that a reformed European Union is necessary. I look forward to a re-elected Conservative Government leading that reform not just, although principally, in the interests of the British people, but in the interests of people in other member states. The programme set out, of renegotiation followed by a referendum, will be good for Britain and good for Europe as well.

It is time to take this decision. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that he, shockingly, was old enough to vote in the 1975 referendum—as was I, just about. Like many of us—I think for the Foreign Secretary as well—it was the first political act I took. I joined the Conservative party in 1975, and then campaigned for a yes vote as an idealistic young student in the middle of 1975 under the new Conservative leadership of Margaret Thatcher. Sadly, I am not quite as young as I was then, but I am still as idealistic. I still think that great things can be achieved within Europe by European countries acting together.

This is an historic decision—one that we perhaps ought to take as a country every generation or two, and it is 40 years since we last did so—and we need to put it in the historical perspective. If somebody had told any of us, particularly any of the young people voting for the first time in 1975, that within 20 years countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic would be democracies co-operating with us in an international organisation, with their people becoming more prosperous and having the freedom to express political views, we would have thought that that was the most enormous historic achievement—and it was the most enormous historic achievement. I think even those who are most hostile, on either side of the House, to the European Union, and particularly to European idealism, should recognise that the existence of the European Union as a beacon of prosperity and peace was one of the things that drove on those reforms in the former Soviet states that had been dominated by Soviet communism. We should not forget that, because that is the single most beneficial historic change that has happened in our continent in any of our lifetimes. A lot of that is due to the European Union. Absolutely, 1975 was a long time ago. There will be many people contributing to this debate who did not have the chance to vote, and it is time that we have another vote when we have renegotiated the terms.

This debate has been debilitating and sometimes poisonous, and it has gone on for too long. As I say, I not only approach this debate from an explicitly pro-European perspective, I go into it confident that, just as the public did in Scotland, the verdict will go the right and sensible way: to stay in a reformed Europe. If I may speak not entirely across the Chamber, it is important that the very many Conservatives who think as I do, that it is in Britain’s interests to stay in a reformed European Union, make the Conservative case for our membership. We heard from the shadow Foreign Secretary the distorted view that there is a view inside the Conservative party that is anti-European, and presumably, by implication, a view inside the Labour party that is pro-European. Neither half of those propositions are true, as I suspect the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is about to illustrate.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make once again the distinction between Europe and the European Union? Europe is a fabulous subcontinent that we all love. The European Union is a political construct imposed on part of Europe.

[Damian Green]

It is true that it covers part of Europe, but I would gently make the point that at the time of the previous referendum there were six members and there are now 28. A considerably larger proportion of the European continent is covered by the European Union now. That is hugely to the benefit of the people living in those countries that were not in the European Union in 1975, and who will be living in the European Union when the referendum happens, as I hope it does, in 2017. The slightly crude characterisation of the Conservative party by the shadow Foreign Secretary was wrong. It is clearly, from his point of view, designed to damage the party, and I think it would damage the Conservative party if that canard was allowed to go unchallenged.

One of the interests that my party has represented very strongly is the business interest in this country. It has been one of the observable facts of the current leadership of the Labour party that, after years of Tony Blair attempting to make Labour a more business-friendly party, all of that has been thrown away. It seems perverse of it to do that, but in partisan terms I am quite happy for it to do it. It is very important that the Conservative party maintains close relations with business interests, both for its own sake and for the wider prosperity of the country. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that the serious voices in British business want us to stay in a reformed Europe. It is not just the CBI, as he quoted, but the Engineering Employers Federation and many big companies. Ford, BAE Systems, Unilever, Citibank and Siemens have all warned of the damage that will be caused to their businesses if we pull out. Of course, that would affect not just their businesses but tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of their workers. We all need to listen to that voice, because it is a very important one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to support the Bill that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I am pleased that he has done this. I also had the pleasure of supporting the previous Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), and of serving on that Bill’s Committee. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) talked about prosperity in the European Union. I hope that he will go and tell that to all the unemployed Greeks and Spaniards, and ask them if they think the EU is prosperous. The economy of the European Union, and particularly of the eurozone, is diving into a black hole at the moment.

I rise to support the Bill because I believe that people want a choice. I was an active member of a multi-party organisation called People’s Choice. Interestingly, its chair and president were both members of my party, although members of other parties were also active in it. A big majority of the British people want a referendum. In my constituency, we held a mini-referendum just before the last election on whether to have a referendum, and there was a 2:1 majority in favour of doing so. I therefore feel that I can legitimately express my view here today, as it is also the view of the majority of my constituents.

I have some experience of referendums. In the 1975 referendum, I was the chair of the Vote No campaign in Luton. Subsequently, I was the agent for the no vote in Bedfordshire. Interestingly, the agent for the yes vote was Sir Trevor Skeet, the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Bedford. Some years ago, when I met him again and reminded him of our previous encounter, he was horribly embarrassed because he had changed his view. That was an interesting conversation.

The Labour party held a special conference at that time. It was my first ever Labour party conference, and a massive majority—myself included—voted in favour of supporting a no vote in the referendum. At that conference, I saw one of the greatest pieces of oratory of my political career. It was a speech by Michael Foot, calling for a no vote. In it, he referred to Joseph Conrad’s novel “Typhoon”, saying that if someone was in a storm, they should always face into the storm to save themselves and not run away from it. Sometimes we have to do that in politics as well. I have always remembered that speech. I am often in the minority, but I remember what Michael Foot said: if you believe you are making the right point, stick with it. I have certainly taken that on board.

At that time, a great majority of Labour MPs wanted to come out of the then Common Market, but the majority of Conservative MPs wanted to stay in. There has been much reference to Labour’s support for the European Union, but even fairly recently it was the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who kept us out of the eurozone. Had we gone into it, it would have been a complete disaster.

It has also been suggested that there have been great changes since 1975. We have certainly moved much further towards an integrated Europe, but there were early signs of where we were going. In 1979, there was a proposal to form an embryonic single currency called the European monetary system—the “snake”—but Denis Healey wisely kept us out of it. At the time, I wrote a brief for the general secretary of the union I then worked for, who then banged the drum at the TUC saying that we should not go into the snake. I like to think that I had some small influence on the Labour leadership at that time.

Now, my devout wish is to convince my Labour colleagues to support a referendum. They might not necessarily listen to my voice, but there are significant voices in and around our leadership that privately support a referendum. However, they have not won the argument inside the leadership yet. Their views are private, but I hope that my party will have acquiesced and decided to support a referendum by the time of the general election, even if it does not agree with my view on the European Union.

[Barry Gardiner]

I understand that my hon. Friend is a passionate and insistent voice on these matters. Does he believe that the timing that has been set out in the Bill is sensible? Will it allow the people of this country to have the necessary debate with full information about what any renegotiation might involve?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Personally, I would like a referendum sooner rather than later. Most people in Britain have a pretty good idea of what the European Union is about.

We will renegotiate terms, and no doubt there will be some loose improvements in minor areas that will make no difference to our membership. A sticking point for me is that we should withdraw from the common fisheries policy. We need to restore Britain’s historic fishing waters so that we can start to restock our seas to ensure that we have fish for the long-term future. I put that case in private to a former UK representative in the European Union who immediately said that, in that case, we would have to get out of the EU because we could not possibly withdraw from the common fisheries policy. So there we are: we have a problem. If we are going to renegotiate, it should be about real things that matter.

[Barry Gardiner]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the work that Commissioner Damanaki has done for the renegotiation of the EU fisheries policy, and of the benefit that that is bringing to small fishermen in the UK? The UK quota can now be divided up, bringing greater advantage to the under-10 metre fleets.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I appreciate that improvements have been made to the common fisheries policy, and for that I give some credit to the previous Conservative Minister, but the pressure on him to renegotiate came partly from other hon. Members, including me—

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

rose—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

And the hon. Lady who is about to intervene.

[Sheryll Murray]

On quotas, does the hon. Gentleman agree, given that, in area 7, the UK gets 10% of cod and 8% of haddock stocks, despite owning 80% of the waters, that the CFP could never be renegotiated in favour of UK fishermen?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I defer to the wisdom and knowledge of the hon. Lady, whom we know has a fishing background; she is absolutely right, and I agree strongly with her—not for the first time.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we only have one thing to gain, and that is sovereignty?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I am not yet a Privy Counsellor, and am unlikely ever to be so—but there we are.

Not just Labour voters, but leading figures in the party have historically taken the Eurosceptic view. Hugh Gaitskell, the former leader of the Labour party, opposed Britain’s membership of the Common Market, and I was pleased he did so. Subsequently, we had magnificent leaders who took the same view. My great friend the late Baroness Barbara Castle remained a strong Eurosceptic to the end of her life, as did the late Tony Benn, a great personal friend as well as a great politician. So there have been many Eurosceptic socialists—including, even, Lord Healey, the Labour Chancellor until 1979. I attended a Eurosceptic dinner in the City with figures from various parties, and that was the only time I ever met Lord Healey. So significant figures of great intellect, political judgment and commitment to democratic socialism have taken a similar view to mine.

I have not changed my view since 1975, because our relationship with the EU has become worse, rather than better. We only have to look at the economic catastrophe that is the eurozone to realise how bad it is now. We have to shake up the EU; there is nothing to be gained economically from our remaining members, but then that is a matter for the British people, as and when they have their referendum—hon. Members will guess which way I shall be voting. In previous referendums, political leaders across Europe have sought to persuade their people to vote in a particular way, and they have refused to do so—for example, the French people on the proposed constitution. The Socialist party in France supported the constitution, and it had a referendum among the party membership, which also supported the constitution; but the socialist voters voted the other way, and they lost the referendum. The same happened in Holland, and of course the EU had to withdraw the constitution and replace it with the Lisbon treaty, which was similar, but called a treaty, rather than a constitution.

We have seen others referendums—for example, in Norway and Sweden—on various aspects of the EU, and each time the political leaders have tried to drive their voters in a particular way, but they have refused to be so driven. Now, about 11% of the population in Sweden want to join the euro, and the same proportion in Norway want to join the EU. When the people are asked, they often take a view that upsets the political classes, but in the end, we are democrats and have to accept that view. Regrettably, I had to accept the 1975 view, even though the resources put into a yes vote were massive. The common market threw bucket-loads of money into a massive advertising campaign; every corner shop had a picture of Harold Wilson with his pipe and Gannex mac saying, “Vote yes”. I was part of the no campaign, and we had pathetic resources—a few bob from the trade union movement and not much else.

[Kate Hoey]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that already the EU, in the form of its establishment Commission, is putting huge amounts of money into supposedly educational publicity that actually promotes the EU, and that if we have a referendum, it is important that the EU not be allowed to use our money to campaign in that referendum?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Of course, the EU propaganda machine knows no bounds. We see little blue-and-yellow stickers on almost everything, saying we have had lots of money from the EU and glossing over the fact that we are massive net contributors.

More worryingly, the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member, has looked at the BBC and is seriously concerned about its bias. I am a passionate believer in the BBC and public service broadcasting, but the Committee has produced two eminent reports demonstrating the BBC’s pro-EU bias. It must be neutral in the referendum campaign. It must give an equal voice to all sides and ensure the debate is fair. We cannot just have a tiny minority of sceptics, with the enthusiast view put very strongly.

I have said it many times, but I am a lover of Europe. I go there for my holidays every year, I try to speak one or two European foreign languages, I love European culture, European literature and, above all, European people—I am a Eurocentric person in every sense—but the EU is a political organisation with a particular political view. I have spent my life campaigning for democratic socialism, and I think that the EU is not just anti-democratic, but anti-socialist, which might encourage some Conservative Members to vote for it, rather than against it. Nevertheless, I think it is actively anti-socialist, and has been so for a long time, which is why I oppose it. I want to see countries in Europe free to develop their own economies as they see fit, and if that happens to be a socialist view, or a neo-liberal free market view, so be it; the peoples of those countries should be able to choose how to govern themselves.

My view on the EU has got stronger over the years, as we have seen the disaster of the eurozone. Thank goodness my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath kept us out of the euro. Had we pinioned ourselves inside the euro, with the parity operating at the time—€1.60 to the pound—by now we would have seen a catastrophe in our economy of the likes of that in Greece or Spain, although I think we would have got out by now, perhaps because we are more sensible, and possibly other countries would have done the same. I think that the euro will eventually unravel, and when countries can adjust their currencies to appropriate parities and run their economies properly, we will see some recovery, but not before.

We have evidence of a triple-dip recession and that the eurozone is dragging down the rest of the world economy, including our own. However, we have done better than others because our currency has been able to depreciate substantially since the creation of the euro, and particularly since 2008, which has protected us from the ravages affecting the EU. If our unemployment figures were equivalent to those in Spain, we would have 7.5 million unemployed. Imagine that! I do not understand why Spain has not seen a bigger revolt. Nearly 500,000 people have left Spain to go and work in south America and elsewhere because their own country cannot sustain them. It is even worse in Ireland. It has allegedly recovered—I am pleased about that, for the Irish—but it has overcome its unemployment problem by exporting 300,000 people. The equivalent number in Britain would be 4.5 million. Imagine if our economy had failed so badly that 4.5 million Britons had to go and live abroad to get work. That would be a travesty and utterly shameful. I look forward to the time when we establish sensible economics across Europe and that sort of thing does not happen any more.

Most seriously, Germany is now in real trouble. It has long benefited from an open market for its motor cars and other manufactures and from the consequent substantial trade surplus with us and other EU member states. It has squeezed the life out of the economies of other parts of the EU, and now it cannot sell its cars any more, so it is affecting the German economy too. We need a completely different approach to organising the economies of Europe—not the EU, but Europe.

We once had a model that worked. Between 1945 and the 1970s, we had a world, designed at Bretton Woods, that actually worked. Working-class living standards rose at a rate unprecedented in modern history. We saw the creation of welfare states and growing equality. The world I grew up in was wonderful, although it could have been more socialist and more left wing, but we have gone backwards since then across the whole of Europe. It is only because of the vestiges of what was created in the immediate post-war world, sustaining people through welfare states, that the Governments of Europe are getting away with what they are getting away with. We need to see a world in which we start to recreate those things that we have lost. We need to re-establish a more sensible world in which we all have jobs, we create growing equality across Europe and indeed across the world and we have good international relations on bilateral and multilateral arrangements, without being governed by an anti-democratic, non-democratic and bureaucratic organisation called the European Commission, which runs our lives. I support the referendum, and as and when it comes, it is likely that I shall vote no. I will, however, accept the decision of the British people because I am a democrat.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

It is a question of buyers and sellers. Normally, selling something is a bit harder than buying it. People will sell things quite happily, but it is one thing to sell to Germans in German and another to buy them in English. There is some difficulty with the idea that our exports would simply be taken as read. I do not accept that people so want to purchase our exports that they would do exactly what we wanted. If we look at the EEA, we find that Norway contributes a lot of money to the EU through its EEA membership. The argument that not being in the EU would save us money is not necessarily a valid one. I do not take the view that suddenly everybody would bend over backwards to do exactly what we want, but that does not necessarily mean that we should go into the negotiations saying that we will swallow whatever comes out of this. The Opposition’s view that we should never stand up for anything because we might lose is not mine.

I was very pleased when the Government pulled us out of supporting the eurozone financial arrangements beyond supporting the International Monetary Fund. That was a sensible decision. In the dying days of the last Government, when Labour lost the election, they underwrote things, but doing so is actually taking on a big risk.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Norway. People make a lot of the fact that Norway collaborates substantially with the EU, but is it not more that its political classes are trying to get round the fact that they are not members of the EU by going along as far as they can with it? They have three very good reasons for not being in the EU: fishing, because they have their own fishing rights; oil, which they understandably want to keep and sell themselves; and agriculture, which they still protect for their own benefit.

[John Hemming]

Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are members of the EEA but not of the EU. If we look at the pattern of different memberships, we find that some countries are members of the Council of Europe, but others are not. It is quite complex. The Vatican, for example, is a member of nothing, yet it can print euros. [Interruption.] Strange, isn’t it? But for whatever reason, Norway happens to be a member of the EEA, and we need to think about what the alternative would be if we had a choice about being or not being in the EU. That would be an important decision, but if we want to remain in it, it does not mean that no changes to how it works should be made.

Perhaps the error among some in my party has been not to drive for change. As I said, we cannot have a situation whereby people are encouraged to migrate here to be poor. That just cannot be rational; we cannot have that. When people started work on the treaty of Rome and other arrangements, nobody thought that that would be a sensible outcome. It involves using taxpayers’ resources to achieve a negative rather than a positive. Rather than rescuing people who have been marginalised, we create more marginalised people.

The Opposition raised concerns about the wording of the question. I am very supportive of it. I campaigned against having a directly elected dictator in Birmingham when such a role was proposed. About 5,000 people found that their votes had been disqualified because they wrote the word “No” on their ballot papers. I think that it is quite a good idea for there to be questions that allow the answers “Yes” and “No”, because these campaigns are always fought on a “yes or no” basis. I have not looked into how many ballot papers were spoiled at the time of the Scottish referendum, but there was a big problem in Birmingham. People were writing “No” on their ballot papers because they understood how they wanted to answer the question, but there were two boxes to be ticked, and it was not entirely clear which box they should tick in order to express their view. I think that the Electoral Commission got things wrong in that regard.

We are where we are today. We are exerting some pressure for the adoption of a time scale, and we are moving towards change and towards trusting the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I will be suitably brief, because I know that many colleagues wish to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on introducing the Bill. I got to know him quite well when he was a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government and always found him to be a thoughtful and considerate fellow. I thought that he set out his arguments extremely well this morning, but I am afraid that I disagree with him on three points. I will touch on them briefly.

First, on the need for the Bill and, more importantly, for the referendum, if we listen carefully to the party on the Government Benches, and it is now a party—I think that all the Lib Dems are in Rochester and Strood trying to hold on to their deposit in the by-election—we hear that it somehow takes no responsibility for the changing nature of the European Union over the past 40 years. Let us be clear that the two Prime Ministers who transferred more powers than any other from the United Kingdom to Brussels were Lady Thatcher and John Major. Government Members act as if they had no role at all in that, and that somehow there is a need today that was not there 20 years ago. I think that with the exception of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, none of the Conservatives who were Members of Parliament in the early ’90s argued against the Maastricht changes. None of them thinks that Lady Thatcher was wrong to have ceded so much power to our European neighbours.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is reminding the Conservatives that they did indeed commit many sins in relation to our membership of the European Union, not least of which was joining the exchange rate mechanism, which proved to be an economic disaster. Many of them now regret that because it led to Labour’s victory in 1997.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reminded us of the key role that the current Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer were playing in the early ’90s in forming the economic policies of John Major and Lord Lamont which led us so disastrously to Black Wednesday. I am not sure that they have had a chance to apologise for the mistakes that they made.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I have to remind my hon. Friend that the Labour leadership at that time also supported the ERM strategy, which I did not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I know that one or two of them did come up for a few days to help out.

Scotland went on “pause” for three years. Its economy suffered because we were having a referendum. The poison and the nastiness in that debate was something I had never previously encountered in my 20 years of political activism. Business and industry deferred investment decisions because of the uncertainty that having a referendum was going to create. It is a fantasy to think that if we decide now that we are going to have a referendum in three years’ time, we will not see companies such as Nissan and those cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) putting off investment decisions. It will cause nothing but uncertainty, put the fragile recovery at risk and lead to a three-year obsession with the single issue of Europe.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Thomas Docherty]

I have already given way twice to my hon. Friend, who has spoken at some length. I want to make some progress because other Members want to get in.

Another problem with the timetable is that it assumes that the Prime Minister will be able to renegotiate by the end of 2017. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) spoke eloquently about the Prime Minister’s track record of not being the strongest at winning friends and influencing people, not just in his own party, but in 27 countries. [Interruption.] I appreciate that it is difficult for the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) to stand up sometimes, but he should just get up and say it rather than sledge from a sedentary position. He just wants to chunter away and that is fine.

The Prime Minister has failed repeatedly to win in Europe. Do we really think that the other 27 nations are going to allow the United Kingdom unilaterally to have a series of opt-outs from Europe?

European Council

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

No, I do not agree. I think we should look to the CSDP within the European Union as we look to our co-operative defence and security arrangements, bilaterally with other European countries and with countries elsewhere in the world, as mechanisms by which we can enhance and strengthen the United Kingdom’s security and defence and take forward our global security objectives. Provided that that is done in the right way without the accretion of new powers to EU institutions or the establishment of new EU institutions, then we can succeed in benefiting from sensible, pragmatic co-operation between willing European countries in a way that strengthens the transatlantic alliance as a whole and our national security.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister made reference to economic and monetary union. It is clear that a number of countries have suffered terrible economic experiences as a result of membership of the eurozone. Eurozone membership is now having a deflationary impact in France, and its economy is definitely going in the wrong direction. Has there been any discussion about the likely longer-term implications of France suffering the same kind of experiences as other countries in southern Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

It is for French Ministers to defend French economic policy, including membership of the euro. I am very glad that the United Kingdom remains outside the euro and has no intention of joining it, and that this Government have introduced a statutory referendum lock against any future prospect of our doing so. However, in all my conversations with ministerial colleagues from those countries that have elected to join the single currency, their political commitment remains very strong, and we have to respect the sovereign decisions that they have taken.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

I believe that more of what is done by the EU should be done by this Parliament and by the British people. It should be for the British people to decide what they want to be legislated on, who they want to support and who they want their Government to be.

For many years, and under different parties, our leaders have disappeared into Europe, only to return to this House to present their failures or successes, and whatever happens is invariably presented as a success. This House has had its say on those measures, but the British people have not been given a say in over a generation. I think that it is time they were given a say. I want a British Prime Minister who goes to Europe to negotiate not simply in order to come back to this House and present what they have done, but to present what they have done for the British people so that they can finally decide.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and support his Bill—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Would he like to explain to the workers of Greece and Spain about workers’ rights in those countries?

[James Wharton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that the workers of Greece and Spain would welcome a referendum, just as the workers in the UK would, and I hope that they might get one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I just reflect that, after the last three contributions by Labour Members, I genuinely think that their policy is unsustainable; this will, I am sure, be changed before we get to a general election.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on moving a Bill to give the British people a referendum, and wish him well in this. It is a curious Bill for a private Member’s day, but I give a cheer for that as well, because, on 21 February 1992, I also introduced a private Member’s Bill—I was No. 1 in the ballot—to have a referendum on Maastricht. Unfortunately, in those days Mr John Major—Sir John Major as he became—was against the matter, so perhaps I was a Prime Minister or two short. I mention that because I also moved a referendum Bill during the Maastricht treaty considerations in 1993, one year exactly after the private Member’s Bill.

I also notice that there is a three-line Whip on this Bill; I think it diminishes it. I say that straight away, because I remember that when I tried to reform or failed to reform—I am sorry that this is a catalogue of failed private Member’s Bills—section 2 of the Official Secrets Act in 1988, so aggrieved were the Government, with movements on the Back Benches, upstairs, outrage and all the rest, that this was clearly not a matter for a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, that the then Conservative Government, under someone I respected greatly, put on a three-line Whip, again, against me. There is no paranoia in what I say, just realism.

I will say that, on the private Member’s Bill on the Official Secrets Act, there was a queue in Central Lobby of Conservative Members who had served in the second world war and were what used to be called, unlike me, knights of the shires, going into the Whips Office to tell them that this was a constitutional outrage, that their Fridays were being interrupted and that this was exclusively a space of time left for the consideration of Bills by private Members, and to bring forward Bills of great importance, as we all think of our own initiatives.

I wish my hon. Friend well and I shall most certainly vote for this Bill, because there would be a slight inconsistency if I did not—although that has never been a difficulty for most politicians in the past.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am most interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is right about three-line Whips. We Labour Members have not been three-line whipped. I have come here of my own volition. Are his colleagues being three-line whipped to attend or to vote for the Bill?

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not the progenitor of the Whip, but I respect my wonderful party, which at last has found a voice to express those they represent. I think that the Labour Front Bench is in genuine difficulties over this matter, because it is a rejection of a movement and feeling that is now effective in the country. This has been too long coming: an unconscionable period of time. I made a famous prediction, which I regret to say did not come about, with the experience and arrogance of youth, and in a television studio in Birmingham announced that this common market racket would be over in 10 years. That is, of course, now 32 years ago.

I learned from that the tenacity with which a particular class of those who lead us have sought to control this issue. There is no defence of conversation within a nation, or anything. All the way through this, an elite in our political parties, which rises to the top, forms judgments and changes its judgments. Peter Shore wrote perhaps the most balanced speech, titled “A thousand years of British history”, when we knew nothing, rather like the other day in the Commons, about what the Government’s intentions were in joining. That speech asks a series of questions. We know nothing about this. We wonder. We have to wait. The Conservatives also knew nothing about it and did not have to wait. So in the end they were great supporters of our joining what was called the common market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

There have been many articulate and clever speeches during this debate. I exclude the last speech from that.

It seems to me a straightforward matter. This House, by signing various treaties, has taken away from the British people the right to throw out the rascals who are making their laws. It is time, after those treaties, that the people were given a chance to have that say in a referendum. My party’s position on a referendum can, I hope, be improved. We can have no principled objections to a referendum: it was the Labour party that first gave the people the chance to vote on the then EEC. We said in our 2005 manifesto that people would have a vote on the European constitution. Unfortunately, when the name of that constitution was changed to the Lisbon treaty, the vote was denied them. That was a huge mistake and is one of the reasons why the people of this country have lost trust.

In the argument against those who say we do not need a referendum, three or four reasons have been given for why we need a referendum. One is uncertainty. That is the most perverse reason. There is uncertainty because 80% of the British people want a referendum and they are surprised that we cannot come to a conclusion about when that referendum should be and what the question should be. The debate would not go away and the uncertainty would not decrease if we opposed the Bill today.

The second reason given, which is related to the uncertainty argument, is that British business is opposed to a referendum and jobs would go. That would be a more compelling case if I had not heard exactly those arguments about joining the euro—that all the car factories would go if we did not join the euro.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Graham Stringer]

I will give way briefly and only this time.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend. The economic arguments that I have heard today are nonsense. We have a gigantic trade deficit with the rest of the European Union, equivalent to a million jobs. We must do something about it and we will not do that simply by giving in to the European Union.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree. The arguments lack quantification—that would be one way of putting it. On the notion that the European Union is an unalloyed good idea for jobs, have people not been watching what the euro is doing not just to those countries that are in the euro, which are getting into a competitive deflationary situation, but to countries such as ours which trade with Europe? Hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs are being destroyed by the European Union. It is not helpful to our economy. A referendum would be the start of saying to the European Union, “This cannot carry on. You are damaging the whole of the European Union’s economy.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I have not got much time. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on his Bill and his excellent speech promoting it. I will certainly be voting for it later. However, I want the Bill to propose a referendum in this Parliament, and as soon as possible, because that is what my voters want and what the country wants. Four years is too long. I also want to ensure that the wording of the question is carefully phrased, so that it is not a leading question. It should give a genuine choice to voters, so that they will not be misled by the wording.

Millions of Labour voters want a referendum as well. Thousands of my constituents want a vote, too. I have evidence of that. We are speaking for millions of Labour voters—perhaps not every Labour voter, but certainly millions of them—who equally, like many Government Members, want a referendum.

I have some backing, in a sense, because four years ago I had a mini-pilot referendum in my constituency of Luton North. I publicly supported that and supported a yes vote. We got a 2:1 majority in favour of a referendum. Subsequent to that, I won my seat in 2010—interestingly, with a swing to Labour. I am not suggesting that my support of the referendum was the cause of that, but it certainly did not do me any harm. I feel that I have personal backing from my constituency for a referendum.

I have a long track record. In 1975, I not only voted against the Common Market as it was then, but I was the agent for the no vote in Bedfordshire and campaigned hard in that referendum. At the special Labour party conference that took place before the referendum, there was a massive Labour majority in favour of getting out of the European Union. The greatest speech I have ever heard, before or since, was delivered by Michael Foot, urging us to remove ourselves from the Common Market. At that time, there was massive support among Tory MPs for staying in. If Labour has switched sides, so too have the Tories.

After the 1975 referendum we had the Single European Act, which I thought was a mistake. We had the ERM—exchange rate mechanism—disaster, which certainly was a mistake, and I predicted it beforehand. Maastricht was another mistake, as was the strangely named growth and stability pact—what growth and what stability? Then we had the euro disaster, followed by Lisbon. We have thus seen a massive shift of power from national Parliaments to Brussels, which has obviously been the design from the beginning. It is something that we have to stop and reverse.

Unemployment stands at over 12% in the eurozone—and in the European Union, I believe—and is rising. Whatever our problems, they are a lot worse for those inside the eurozone, which is proving to be a disaster. If we stay in the EU, I want to see a renegotiation that would cover getting us out of the common fisheries policy, removing ourselves from the common agricultural policy and getting rid of free movement provisions—all the things that have been mentioned today. If we do not succeed on those issues, I can tell hon. Members that I shall vote no in the referendum and vote for our exiting from the EU. I could say much more, but I have probably said enough.

European Elections 2014

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

On 12 March, the European Commission published a set of recommendations and a communication concerning the 2014 European parliamentary elections whose contents also touched on other areas of European political life. The proposals do not carry legal weight; they are non-binding suggestions to member states and national and European political parties. The Government always welcome contributions to the ongoing debate about democracy in the EU, but I believe that these specific proposals mistakenly assume that there is a single European political identity—a single European demos—and ignore the fact that the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy within the EU is derived from national Parliaments accountable to their national electorates. I believe that we need to work to strengthen the links between national democracies, their Parliaments and EU institutions.

We consider it unlikely that these recommendations will become formal legislative proposals from the Commission, but if they were to take that form, they would need to be decided by unanimity. The relevant treaty articles are articles 22(2) and 223(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, under the European Union Act 2011, any measure introduced by the Commission and agreed by the Council and Parliament under article 223(1) would also require an Act of Parliament for the United Kingdom to give it assent. The consequence of that is that the UK would have a veto over any such proposed change.

I want briefly to set out the recommendations in more detail, addressing those that concern the conduct of European elections, before turning to the Commission recommendation that European political parties make known their candidate for the post of Commission President. The first and second recommendations put forward by the Commission are intended to promote connections between European political parties and national political parties. The proposals suggest that national political parties should explain their connection with European political parties and make clear that connection in their electoral documents. Political parties in this country are perfectly free to advertise their European affiliation if they so choose. Ballot papers in the United Kingdom will continue to be produced in accordance with UK law, as will party political literature. If a United Kingdom party wishes prominently to display its European political affiliation, it is free to do so, but there should be no question of compulsion.

Recommendation 4—the suggestion that member states ought to agree a common voting day for elections to the European Parliament—has attracted some attention in the media. At the moment, elections to the European Parliament take place over a four-day period, which in 2014 is set to fall between 22 and 25 May, as I mentioned earlier. I fear that a number of right hon. and hon. Members might have read reports that the EU intends to force the UK to hold elections on a Sunday. It is my happy duty to inform the House that this is not the case. The UK will continue to hold elections on a Thursday, as is our tradition, and I am sure that other member states will rest equally assured that they will be able to continue to hold elections on their day of choice. To mandate that a member state change its election day would achieve the very opposite of the declared aim of the proposals—namely, an increase in voter turnout—and would be detrimental to electoral diversity across the EU.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I have much sympathy with what the Minister is saying, but he seems to be eliding two things: the choice of election day being a national matter, not a European Union matter, and whether it should be a Thursday or a Sunday, which is the other component. They are two different questions. Whatever day it is, does he agree that we should choose it? That is the important point.

[Mr Lidington]

I have no quarrel or disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on that count.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

That is an interesting view. I do not know whether the Cabinet Office has the figures for which my hon. Friend asks. I think that the agreement reached some years ago within the EU—that voting should take place over a number of days—was designed to accommodate both the fact that different countries had the habit of voting on different days of the week and the wish not to declare votes early in case the votes in one country affected how votes were cast in another country. I have to say that I rather agree with my hon. Friend, as the prospect of that happening is, in practice, pretty slim. I doubt whether he will be influenced in his campaigning by the outcome of elections in Greece or Malta. The arrangements we now have were incorporated into European law, and it is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I shall give way briefly, but then I want to make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We are proposing the alternatives of Sunday and Thursday, but there is also the alternative of Saturday, which would be convenient for many industrial workers. Saturday is a day of rest for many, perhaps not all, but this day would avoid the religious complications that the Minister mentions.

[Mr Lidington]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the problem with Saturday is, first, that a number of Jewish communities would find it difficult and, further, that we would still be left with the problem of asking people to count votes and declare results on the Sunday, which would present a difficulty for a number of Christian denominations. This is not a straightforward issue, but as I say it goes beyond the scope of the European Commission recommendations and it is probably best addressed in the context of a wider debate about the timing of elections in the UK.

The four technical recommendations from the Commission—recommendations 5 to 8—are directed at improving the conduct of European elections through EU directive 93/109/EC on information exchange. These four recommendations are not new proposals, but rather suggestions to member states on how to enhance their implementation of the existing requirements of the directive.

The Government are committed to fulfilling their obligations under this directive and we currently implement the legal requirements in full. We do, however, remain concerned about the practical demands of this process and about the burden of implementation being much greater than the prevalence of the problem it is designed to address—namely, double voting. The Government have noted the Commission’s recommendations in this area and we will take them into account in our preparations for the 2014 European parliamentary elections.

I should add, to reassure the House, that any move that the Commission might hypothetically make in the future to incorporate those four recommendations in a revised version of the directive would require unanimity under article 22(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.

The Commission’s third recommendation states that European and national political parties should make known their nominations for the post of President of the European Commission. Some European political parties are very likely to nominate particular individuals as their candidates for the post. They are free to do so if they wish, and I am sure that that will result in a lively debate among political parties. Indeed, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) whether she and her party intend to campaign ardently in favour of Mr Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, who is currently the only declared candidate on behalf of the Party of European Socialists as the proposed successor to President Barroso.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

They might not be sure.

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

[Kelvin Hopkins]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we had elections over two days at weekends, Jews could vote on Sunday and Christians could vote on Saturday, and solve the problem.

[Martin Horwood]

Absolutely. And Muslims could vote on both, and the election could start on Friday. We could be very flexible. Cultural traditions might also be relevant. The Commission’s proposal fails the basic subsidiarity test. This does not need to be mandated, therefore it should not be, and there seems to be wide agreement across the House on that.

The proposals for the candidates for the presidency of the Commission are rather curious. I am proud to be a member of Cheltenham Liberal Democrats, of the Liberal Democrat party in the United Kingdom and of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and intensely proud to be a member of Liberal International, where Liberals are fighting for things that we take for granted at risk to their own lives in many parts of the world. I know that other parties have slightly more hang-ups about being members of European political parties and have had some difficulties in that regard, but the proposals as far as they go seem to be fairly unexceptional.

The Commission’s proposals effectively talk about encouraging European political parties to nominate candidates, but actually they can already do that. A report by my colleague Andrew Duff, which the European Parliament will vote on at the start of July, goes rather further. It states that

“the candidate for Commission President who was put forward by the European political party that wins the most seats in the Parliament will be the first to be considered”

with a view to

“ascertaining his/her ability to secure the support of the necessary absolute majority in Parliament”.

That might be a legitimate and interesting way of interpreting article 17.7 of the treaty, but so long as they must only have regard to the candidate, the Councils of the European Union will not actually be obliged to choose that candidate or even to consider them in preference over others.

We need to create a situation that encourages more involvement, openness and accountability, and in that respect I think that it would be good to have greater democratic involvement in the process of promoting and choosing candidates, so long as it does not mandate it, because I think that a slight constitutional issue would start to emerge if we drifted into the mandation of candidates by political parties. That would start to blur the line between who are the Governments and politicians and who are the civil servants, which is a line that we draw very carefully in this country. In a sense, the Commission is the equivalent of the civil service and the permanent secretaries. In many respects, it should be the impartial servant of the political will of the Parliament and of the people and Governments of Europe in the Councils. We can decide at some future stage—this is certainly not something I support now—whether to have a European Government, but we do not have one at the moment and that is not something we should start doing in an accidental, piecemeal way.

I accept that there is a particular problem for the Conservatives on this issue. They belong to the fifth largest group in the Parliament—it feels rather good to say that—and the Liberal and Socialist groups are rather larger. I think it is a problem for the Conservatives that they are not represented in the mainstream conservative grouping, or Christian Democrat grouping, in the Parliament. I think that it was a regrettable decision by the British Conservatives not to take part in that, because I think it has reduced British political influence within the European political forum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Yes, and I think the European people do actually care about each other. When I take part in the councils of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe—I am looking forward to this over the next few months as we move towards our London congress, which I am proud to have taking place in this very city—I care about the welfare of people outside the United Kingdom, and I think that other Europeans care about the welfare of this country as well.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I shall just make the point that I was going to put to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) in an intervention. This idea about all Europeans caring about one another is fine—I love all my continental colleagues very much—but my identity is as a part of the British demos, not of a European demos, which I do not think exists. I think that was the point that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was making.

I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who spoke extremely well. I agree with everything she said, even though there might be a smidgen of difference between our views on the European Union generally. Even more happily, we both seem to be in agreement with the Minister and the Government. That makes this a rare event, but a happy occasion.

We must absolutely not have parties at European Union level. Even at national level, party elites are sometimes too far removed from their activists and their voters. Having party groupings at international level acting as parties would make the gap between the voters at the grass roots and those who govern us even greater. That would be completely unacceptable.

Another problem involves finding political parties to bond with. The Conservatives have understandably had problems finding a home. If I were in their position, I would be happy to stand separately, but I know that that would create a problem of securing positions on committees and so on. So far as Labour is concerned, we could be linked with Pasok in Greece, yet Pasok is now cemented together with New Democracy and inflicting appalling austerity on the working people of that country. I do not want to be seen to be supporting Pasok in what it is now doing. It should be standing up for working people and against austerity. Indeed, that is what we should all be doing. We can have links and, occasionally, loose friendships with other parties when seeking convenient political groupings, but forming single political parties across Europe would be another step on the way to creating a state of Europe—which some people clearly want—with the Commission and perhaps the European Parliament forming the European Government. That would be a giant step in the wrong direction.

Another giant step in that direction was the introduction of a system of proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East also mentioned this point. I have opposed such proposals before, and called in this Chamber for a return to first past the post and single Member constituencies. I hold to that position today. People would take the view that Europe was much more democratic if Members of the European Parliament represented a genuine constituency rather than an enormous region or even, in the case of Scotland and Wales, a country.

I oppose PR. I have opposed PR proposals for our own elections in Britain and for those in the European Parliament. Sadly, it has been used as a means of getting rid of the Eurosceptic left from the European parliamentary Labour party. Some 50% of the party’s 60 members were wiped out simply by being placed lower down the list, when the list system came out. They disappeared en masse. That certainly damaged our party, and it was very disappointing for the wing of the party that I belong to.

Another problem with the idea of having political parties at European level is that in many European countries there are two or three parties occupying the area that one party occupies in Britain. I recently visited Holland with the European Scrutiny Committee. It has a Socialist party and a Labour party whose Members sit next to each other, but in Britain they would easily be accommodated in our Labour party. If I were in Holland, it is conceivable that I would be in the Socialist party, but I would have to talk to them carefully about that.

There is a democratic deficit and, much as I deplore much of what Mrs Thatcher did, I think she was right to say that if we give too much democratic legitimacy to the European Union, democracy will start to leach away from our own national Parliaments, which would not be good. I want to see the democratic deficit addressed by restoring powers to national Parliaments, particularly the British Parliament. I want to see the restoration of effective power to the grass roots, including within parties. I am sure that all parties want that, but I want to see it in my party in particular.

[Martin Horwood]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that holding elections at different levels leaches democracy away from other levels, does he think that democracy leaches away from the national level as a result of local elections or elections in London, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I think that power ranges over different levels. Over recent years we have seen power leached away from local government towards central Government. Local government is far less powerful than it was when I was a councillor 40 years ago. We had an enormous degree of independence that is no longer given to local government. If we allow too much of what we govern to go to the EU, democracy will leach away from our national Parliament. This is about powers. I want to see effective powers restored to national Parliaments, including—I discussed these in the Chamber earlier—those of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy.

I also want first past the post, single Member constituencies and inner-party democracy in order to make sure that party activists, electors and ordinary people have real democratic power and feel that they have a stake in politics. If they do not feel that they have a stake, they might go elsewhere, which could be very dangerous and worrying for us all. When people feel that they can actually make a difference by being involved in politics and voting, that makes democracy meaningful. I would like to think that what we are suggesting today will help keep politics and democracy meaningful in Britain.

European Council

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I can confirm that the Prime Minister was there, that he took a lead, and that he has come back. I am now reporting back on what was decided at the European Council. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) makes the point again about whether the Prime Minister should have come to the House, but he might have noticed that we did have Leveson this week. No doubt his points will have been heard by those who organise the House’s business, however.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Was there any discussion about the continuing fragility of European banks, especially in the weaker eurozone member states? In the light of the raid on Cyprus’s bank accounts, can we now expect depositors to start withdrawing cash from their accounts in those weaker banks, resulting in the serious risk of bank runs?

[Mr Swire]

No, I do not think we can. Cyprus was not on the agenda but, if you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I will make this point. This question was answered extensively by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) —yesterday, I think—and everything is being done to protect British servicemen and those working for the diplomatic service who are exposed to what is going on in Cyprus. The fact that it is happening in Cyprus, however, does not necessarily mean that it is going to happen elsewhere. Indeed, we very much hope that it will not.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I know my hon. Friend has been doing very valuable work in scrutinising trans-frontier broadcasting —he is, I believe, a rapporteur on that subject for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Trans-frontier broadcasting exemplifies the problem we have. The Council of Europe set up a convention on trans-frontier broadcasting which has been signed up to not just by its 47 member countries, but by a lot of other countries as well; it is a very important convention. However, the European Union has come along and said that the convention cannot be brought up to date because it cuts across a fundamental competence of the Union. Therefore, the Council of Europe has been prevented, amazingly, from updating the convention because the European Union has said it cannot do so. Of course, because the Union has 27 of the 47 member countries of the Council, if it says, “You cant’ do that”, the Council’s member states collectively have no option but to obey the Union. This is an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) rightly says, of the European Union’s plan to encroach further upon the territory and responsibilities of the Council of Europe, to the extent that ultimately, it wishes to take over the whole organisation. That is what is so sinister about this measure.

If this were for free, we could all be relatively relaxed about it and deal with it as an academic abstraction, but it is costing us serious money: some €83 million at the moment, as we heard on Second Reading. The Agency for Fundamental Rights was set up fewer than 10 years ago with a budget of virtually nothing; now, it already has accrued that amount of expenditure, and the plans for 2013-17 are to expand it much further.

As we heard in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s brilliant statement today, he and colleagues in the European Union are saying, “Enough is enough: we’ve got to rein back on the European Union’s expansionist programme”. When people put forward the challenge, “What are we going to rein back?”, my view is that this is a good starting point. We never wanted this in the first place, and I hope we are going to hear from the Government what we are doing to push back in the opposite direction.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am somewhat concerned about this issue myself, but I want such rights to be strengthened, rather than weakened. However, I will come to that in my speech. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that some fundamental rights ought to apply to workers and trade unions taking strike action—for example, that we should determine those nationally, rather than internationally?

[Mr Chope]

I am absolutely in favour of our having control over these issues as a sovereign country, which is why I do not really buy into the concept that there is some standard of fundamental rights across the whole of Europe. Now, the European Union is trying to identify and interpret common factors across all member countries—the Council of Europe is probably as guilty of this—and then impose them on all the countries through the agency, the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights. These are very serious issues, and I look forward to hearing in due course where the hon. Gentleman thinks the agency should go.

The agency was only set up as a compromise to provide something based in Vienna. The Austrians had said that they did not have a European Union agency there, and, the agency having duly been set up, the Austrians are in the forefront of wanting to give it more powers, responsibilities and money, so that more Eurocrats can be based in Vienna and contribute to the Austrian economy. That is the cynical way these things develop. It was a compromise deal, and we have now seen that this organisation has a life of its own. I hope that Ministers will say they are going to snuff this out before the end of the 2017 multi-annual framework. That is why I have great pleasure in moving amendment 1, but if the issue comes to a vote, I will seek a vote on amendment 3, which is where the substance lies.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am very concerned about this issue because before my time in Parliament, I was involved in the trade union movement, in which I have a strong interest, and my feeling is that the agency and fundamental rights in the European Union are a bit of a paper tiger when it comes to defending workers’ rights. As I said when I intervened, I want fundamental rights to be strengthened. Whether they are strengthened by legislation in this Parliament or at the European Union level is a matter for debate, but they certainly need to be strengthened. The rights of trade unionists were weakened considerably by previous Conservative Governments and they have not been restored to anything like my satisfaction.

The “paper tiger” nature of fundamental rights in the European Union was shown in the Viking Line case. Industrial action was taken and, strangely, the fundamental right to take strike action was overridden in favour of the interests of employers. Profits and the rights of employers were seen to have primacy over the fundamental rights of trade unionists. So, I am not impressed by the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Union. If they are fundamental, the trade unionists taking that action should have been found to be in the right, and the European Court of Justice should not have ruled against them, finding in favour of employers. There have been two such cases, major cases, and they have shaken the confidence considerably of many trade unionists who mistakenly put their faith in the European Union to defend their rights.

I was never impressed with the European Union. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) knows, I am a critic from a left-wing, rather than right-wing, point of view. I was never as confident as perhaps some of my colleagues were that the European Union would defend trade union and worker rights. I will not necessarily be voting with the hon. Gentleman on this issue—if a vote is indeed called—but I do want the fundamental rights of workers and trade unionists strongly supported and defended, be that in the European Union or in the United Kingdom.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I want to talk about the agency in general terms. I am very concerned about the growth in the number of agencies at European level: the European “quangocracy”, as many call it. As a Member of the European Parliament, I sat on the Committee on Budgetary Control, whose purview extended to the agencies when we approved their accounts or gave them a statement of assurance each year. People always moan about the risk of fraud, mismanagement and maladministration in the European Commission, but it was fairly obvious that the further away from the Commission—from the centre—agencies were, the less the scrutiny of their accounts.

My concern is that giving the Fundamental Rights Agency a multi-annual financial framework and such a big budget increase could lead to issues with the way it runs its accounts. I am not saying it had issues in the past—actually, it did have one—but we are talking about a massive expansion in its budget. It is an arm’s length body that has very little oversight from the European Commission, the European Parliament or national Governments.

Over the years, the European Court of Auditors has sporadically looked at projects run by the agency. It is fair to say that they have been of mixed value. They have certainly improved over time, as one would expect, but I understand why concerns are being raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), among others, about including an agency whose work obviously duplicates other bits of work going on within the European Commission, the Council of Europe and possibly in other places.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Pakistan has many political controversies and difficulties, even by our own standards, but it is approaching an election with the prospect of this being the first democratically elected Parliament and Government in the history of Pakistan that can be succeeded by another democratically elected Parliament and Government. That will be an important milestone in the history of Pakistan, so although many controversies swirl around, we must maintain our robust support for the institutions of a democratic Pakistan. We always make that very clear.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T3. Colombia’s FARC has just ended its two-month unilateral ceasefire while peace talks took place in Cuba. The Colombian Government refused to agree to a bilateral ceasefire and have now returned to a state of war, but FARC is willing to offer another ceasefire if the Government enter a bilateral truce. Will the UK Government use their influence with the Colombian Government to press for such a bilateral truce as a basis for further peace talks and an end to the war?

Commission Work Programme 2013

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to continue. Perhaps he could try to intervene later; I will seek to give way to him then.

Overall, we agree with the Commission that the No. 1 task facing the European Union is to tackle the economic crisis, return Europe to growth and enable its member states to compete in the global economy. Globalisation means that the EU faces increased competition from rapidly developing countries outside Europe, but it also brings us opportunities to build new markets for our products and services. To meet those challenges, the European Union should prioritise the promotion of trade, within the EU and outside it. It should seek to free private enterprise and enable businesses to compete, and it should support those priorities by ensuring that the limits of EU power are respected. I would therefore like to highlight three cross-cutting themes that are of the highest importance to the Government: growth, better regulation, and safeguarding the interests of the United Kingdom. I shall deal first with growth.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister is talking about the importance of European Union member states competing in the world, and indeed with each other. The only way that they can do that fairly is if they have an appropriate value for their currency. They cannot have that when they are fixed inside the euro.

[Mr Lidington]

I think that this country’s decision to stay outside the euro was right. I am certainly not in the least tempted to see the United Kingdom abolish sterling and participate in the euro, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that we, as a democratically elected House, have to respect the sovereign decisions of other European democracies that have chosen, for reasons of their own that they have explained publicly, to commit themselves to the single currency project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

That would be an innovative use of the Commission’s work programme, given that that is not an element of it. The Leader of the Opposition did say in a recent speech that we got it wrong in government and that we should not have had an open-door policy in 2004. I think that we should have been more in line with our European partners. We were one of the small handful of countries that had an open-door policy right from the start. Germany and other countries had transition periods, and we are certainly committed to them in the future.

Developing modern and efficient infrastructure, both digital and physical, is central to ensuring that the single market adapts to a rapidly changing world. It would be impossible for member states of the EU to meet the challenges of tomorrow using the tools of yesterday. We therefore welcome many of the proposals in the “Connect to Compete” section of the programme, particularly those to tackle obstacles to electronic payments across borders.

In the “Growth for jobs” section of the work programme, the Commission is right to express the concern that

“high unemployment, increased poverty and social exclusion risk becoming structural”

in Europe if no action is taken. It is an absolute tragedy that one in every two young people in Greece and Spain is out of work. Here in the UK, youth unemployment is too high and long-term unemployment is a real problem. Last year, including over Christmas, more people than ever before had to use food banks for their families’ basic needs. The Government seem to have few answers or solutions to those problems. The Opposition believe it is incredibly important that effective policies are formulated and implemented both here in the UK and across the EU to reduce unemployment drastically and to reduce poverty.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend rightly refers to food banks and poverty, and we could talk about mass unemployment. Do not those problems derive directly from the heavy deflationist influence of the European Union?

[Emma Reynolds]

In some other member states, such as Germany, there is a low rate of unemployment, and Germany has done better than we have in exporting to some of the key emerging markets around the world. Tackling unemployment very much depends on the policies of individual countries and individual Governments. The EU could certainly do more, but it is down to domestic Governments in member states.

In the “Europe as a global actor” section of the work programme, reference is made to ongoing negotiations on free trade agreements with various countries. I echo the Minister’s comments on that matter. Agreements have been reached with South Korea and Singapore and are being negotiated with Japan, the US, India, Canada and Mercosur. Such trade deals would result in significant European job creation. According to the Commission’s own figures, the free trade agreements with the US and Japan would create almost 1 million new jobs.

Finally, I turn to the section of the programme entitled “Building a safe and secure Europe”. I hoped that the Minister would make a winding-up speech, because I wanted to take the opportunity to ask him at what point the Government would make a decision on the mass opt-in to or opt-out from the justice and home affairs measures contained in the Lisbon treaty. It is important that we have some clarity on that issue at some stage. I respect what the right hon. Gentleman said today about the individual proposals contained in the work programme: there is not enough meat on the bone or enough detail for the Government to have a developed position on them. We look forward to learning in due course their position on whether they will opt into or out of the proposals in that part of the programme.

As I said at the outset, we welcome the broad objectives of the Commission’s work programme and its more strategic focus. I hope that the proposals, once they are submitted, will be given additional scrutiny by departmental Select Committees. It is important to remember that Europe is not purely a foreign policy issue and that decisions taken by our Government, in Brussels, and voted on by our MEPs have a major impact on domestic policy. Departmental Select Committees should therefore be thoroughly involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am partly responsible—I suppose—for bringing this document to the House, so it is important that I say a few words.

The word “work” will have great appeal to the millions of European citizens currently without work, but that is the problem, because none of the many initiatives in the document addresses the immediate economic crisis in the EU or the eurozone and will not solve the problem in the longer term either. We have mass unemployment and we have economic contraction in a number of countries, and more austerity is being inflicted on Greece. Apparently, Greece’s economy is expected to contract by another 10%—God knows what is going to happen in Greece after that. Spain is in serious difficulty and Portugal is going to inflict on its people a fire sale of public assets; it will simply be selling off the family silver at the pawnbroker’s and that will solve nothing in the long term once the money is spent, as it will be. Other countries are in difficulties and there is worse to come.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Action 58 in the Commission’s work programme deals proposes a

“Comprehensive Approach to Crisis Management outside the EU”.

The document says:

“The European Union more than any other international actor, has a unique array of tools at its disposal to promote the resolution of complex external crises.”

It is said that experience can be learned from, and I guess that the European Commission does have a lot of experience and a lot to teach here.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening. The document talks about solving external crises, but what about solving the internal crises? The European Commission has not shown much ability to do that. The problem is that it has inflicted supply-side measures—most of these are supply-side measures to try to deal with the economic problems—whereas the real difficulty is a serious lack of economic demand. That is the deficiency and macro-economic policy is the problem, as it is failing and is, in most cases, completely misguided. Item 1 in the document refers to an “Annual Growth Survey”—perhaps that ought to be re-titled the “Annual Contraction Survey”.

Item 6 makes the only reference in the whole list to the

“importance of a sound macroeconomic framework”.

I absolutely agree with the importance of that, but there is no sign of such a framework as yet. Indeed, we have the opposite: co-ordinated deflation driving the EU towards deeper recession. Thank goodness this country is somewhat to the side of that. We will of course lose if—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) is intervening from a sedentary position, but I cannot quite hear what he is saying. The euro is the primary problem; Greece, Italy, Spain and a number of other countries ought to be able to recreate their own currencies, to depreciate and to reflate behind that.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a notable voice of reason on the Labour Benches on these issues. Does he think he will be able to persuade his colleagues to join us in arguing for a referendum on our relationship with the European Union—on whether we should stay in or not?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I certainly think we should have a referendum, and I am actively involved in an organisation promoting the idea of one. More than that, we want to get some sensible economic policies adopted, both in Britain and across Europe. We also want to return to some of the common sense that emerged from Bretton Woods in 1944 and led the post-war world to such success, with full employment, rising living standards, growing equality and so on.

Items 9 and 10 refer to state aid. Lecturing those countries in desperate crisis about not indulging in state aids would be completely unacceptable. If they have to use state aids to regenerate their economies, they should be able to do so. Indeed, state aids in the UK should be decided by this Parliament and not by the European Commission. Some may be against state aids in principle and others may think them a very good idea, but we should decide on that, not the European Commission.

Item 13 refers to:

“Reforming the internal market for industrial products”.

That does indeed need dealing with. One of the great problems—the great problem, in a sense—in the European Union is the massive trade imbalances within it. Germany has a gigantic trade surplus with the other members of the EU, including with this country. If we went back to the principles of Bretton Woods, we would expect, in normal circumstances, that Germany would let its currency appreciate—the Americans were rather against that idea of John Maynard Keynes, but it was a sensible one—and that those with trade deficits should be able to depreciate their currencies. That is one of the measures used to get an economy working again.

I come now to some detailed points. No reference to railways is made in the section dealing with transport, although they are a major force for the future in the transport sector. Surprisingly, after 200 years or so, they have turned out to be the mode of transport for the future rather than the past. I have a great interest in railways, but no reference is made to them in this document.

On cigarette smuggling, we lose billions in government revenues every year because nobody pays taxes on imported cigarettes. They are brought in by the billion, I guess, and if we had proper taxes and duties paid on every cigarette smoked, we would gain billions in revenues—enough to pay many times over for free long-term care for all. Cigarette smuggling is a major problem, which we ought to be addressing as a nation rather than simply through the European Union.

Most of the measures in the list could be undertaken by member state Governments on an individual basis, as they felt they were appropriate. If we wanted to indulge in international agreements, we could do that through bilateral and multinational negotiation. The democratic decisions should be taken in this House, by this Parliament, and by member state Governments in general. We have shown that we can co-operate bilaterally and multilaterally and we do not need a European Commission to determine all these things. I am strongly in favour of democracy, which means democracy at a member state level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed, and reinforces what I was saying.

I welcome the debate because it occurs at a time when Europe as a whole is experiencing a deep economic malaise. Against the problematic economic climate that we all face, we must assess the relevance and appropriateness of the Commission’s work programme. The situation is most acute in the eurozone, as I am sure Members will agree, although of late, it has stabilised somewhat. The situation is still serious in Spain and Portugal, and in Greece it is extremely serious. However, there are signs of improvement; in Ireland, things are starting to get better. Nevertheless—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Wayne David]

Before my hon. Friend intervenes, I take the point that one of the great weaknesses across the European Union as a whole is the macro-economic policy being pursued by member states. There is too great an emphasis on austerity and nothing else. We need to put a firm emphasis on growth and measures to stimulate our economy so that we can work our way to prosperity once again.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I want to be persuaded that there are signs of improvement in the European Union. Writing in The Guardian at the weekend, a Greek journalist suggested that the Greek economy will contract by a further 10%.

[Wayne David]

As I indicated, the situation in Greece is still very serious indeed. As we know, deep-seated structural problems afflict the Greek economy but there are signs of improvement elsewhere. Certainly the contagion that many people feared a few months ago does not appear to be materialising. There are signs of stabilisation, at least, across the eurozone. It is therefore important that the European Commission does as much as it can to make sure that we take that a stage further and have a coherent growth strategy. In that respect, the document before us is somewhat lacking, but it does at least recognise the importance of job creation. I cite its opening statement:

“Today’s absolute imperative is to tackle the economic crisis and put the EU back on the road to sustainable growth.”

That is a good starting point. At least there is recognition of the need to put that four-square on the agenda. However, practical measures to realise that goal are somewhat lacking.

One of the positive things about the document is that it recognises the importance of taking forward the completion of the single market. It states:

“A fully integrated and interconnected European Single Market covering telecoms, energy and transport is a prerequisite for competitiveness, jobs and growth. Achieving this requires affordable, accessible, efficient and secure network infrastructure. Accelerating the roll out of the digital economy will bring benefits across all sectors, through enhanced productivity, efficiency and innovation.”

That is particularly true. It is something that the previous Labour Government and this Government have effectively been arguing for.

The importance of the single market, particularly to the United Kingdom, should not be underestimated. In support of that point, I refer Members to the important new-year message from John Cridland, the director general of the CBI, in which, on behalf of British business, he makes it absolutely clear how important the single market and the European Union are to British business. He points out that 50% of Britain’s exports go to other countries in the EU. He argues the case coherently for completing the single market, and says that the EU is vital when it comes to enhancing our international trading relationships. He goes a stage further: he argues that it is vital that we do not just pay lip service to the single market, and that Britain stands four-square behind the European Union and argues the British case consistently inside the decision-making chambers of the EU. He says:

“It’s essential that we stay at the table to bang the drum for businesses and defend our national interest, particularly protecting our world-class financial services industry to maintain our competiveness internationally.”