European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I add my congratulations to you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is important that we retain some sense of proportion in this debate. We are, after all, discussing an idea which, in practice, would tackle the simple issue of crime against the EU, particularly fraud against the EU budget. While I welcome the Minister’s fairly practical approach, I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) doth protest a bit too much in painting such a cataclysmic picture of the complete collapse of the European criminal justice system were this to go ahead. That is completely out of proportion, and I think she is just trying to prove her Eurosceptic credentials. This is not quite the massive issue that some might imagine. I recognise, however, that there is a thin end of the wedge argument in that the proposal sets out a different principle in creating a new kind of European competence, albeit one already recognised in treaty. I also recognise the specific acknowledgement in the coalition agreement that Conservative Members, in particular, do not want to pursue such a solution to the problem.

In this case, on balance, the Government are right in their interpretation of the subsidiarity principle. The Commission has not demonstrated that the proposed path has to be taken because nation states are incapable of tackling fraud against the EU budget, and it therefore fails the subsidiarity test as currently presented. There is an important role for pro-European Members of this Parliament and other Parliaments in applying the subsidiarity principle properly. We should not allow any kind of drift towards dealing at a European level with competencies that are really better exercised at a lower level.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Martin Horwood]

I am happy to give way to my friend on the Labour Benches.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Yet again the hon. Gentleman talks about Europe rather than the European Union. Many of us love Europe in all sorts of ways but do not necessarily love the European Union.

European Elections 2014

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[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 Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

It is above my pay grade to judge, but I am sure that is not true.

The substance of the Bill relates to three measures, two of which are completely uncontentious—the e-publication of the Journal and the business plan, effectively, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Other hon. Members are right that the third measure is worth more substantial debate, as it adjusts a mechanism that was supposed to limit the size and endless growth of the Commission. There are a number of issues that that growth has raised. It was not simply the practicality of having an ever-increasing number of commissioners. Without being unkind to some of the smaller member states, we know that there is a bit of a capacity issue in terms of their ability to produce candidates of sufficient calibre for a portfolio that affects the entire continent. Moreover, in terms of public perception, it slightly muddies the whole idea of the Commission. The Commission should be, in essence, the equivalent of our civil service. It should be the servant of the Council of Ministers, the various European ministerial councils and the European Parliament, and not pretend to be a representative body.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with that sentiment, but the reality is that the Commission and its officials act like a Government rather than a civil service. Only this week, I was told by someone who knows about these matters that when Commission officials decide on something it generally happens.

[Martin Horwood]

I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on matters European, but I do agree that there is a slight risk of that happening, as we have all been aware over many decades. We have to be careful about the level of democratic accountability in the European Union. I would always support increasing democratic reform and democratic accountability in the EU where we can do so.

There is the potential for endless growth in the number of commissioners, or at least for the number to be limited only by the number of European states that might join the EU. It was clear from the Irish referendum debate that, as any fan of the TV series “Borgen” will know, for smaller countries the appointment of a European commissioner is a major political issue to which people attach a great deal of importance, and we have to respect that. We are a community of many nations with many different priorities, and it is important that we acknowledge that. To that extent, I support the Government in backing this measure.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made a brave effort to make this debate sound like a very contentious one that demands this level of scrutiny. In the spirit of coalition unity, I recognise that the European Union Act 2011 has brought a greater level of accountability and scrutiny to European legislation in this place, and that process could go further. At the beginning of last year, Ministers announced that there would be a review of the way in which scrutiny of European legislation took place. Submissions were invited, and I found myself in rare agreement with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in suggesting that Select Committees should automatically and routinely vet European legislation that was relevant to their briefs. Will Ministers update us on the progress of that process and say how far down the path we are towards introducing such routine and automatic scrutiny by Select Committees?

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has spent much time holidaying in Europe in recent years, but there has been a substantial devaluation of the English pound against the euro since, roughly, 2008, and what have we seen? A recovery in Britain? An increase in exports? A decrease in imports? An increase in the creation of firms and jobs? In fact, we have seen the very opposite. My hon. Friend is right historically—he is always right historically—but I prefer to live today rather than in history.

The main problem with the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will have the honesty to say so, although the amendment was tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The notion that nothing can be ratified until every other country has ratified it and disposed of putative legal challenges is a circle that can never be broken. If the same rule were adopted by even one other EU member state, nothing could be ratified until we had agreed to ratify it, and we could not agree to ratify it until other Parliaments had done so.

Not only are we, as usual, condescendingly and patronisingly lecturing other Parliaments on what their constitutional settlements should be, but this is nothing short of a wrecking amendment, and I wish that Conservative Members would have the intellectual honesty to say so.

[Martin Horwood]

It is generally a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in European debates, as he and I share a broad enthusiasm for the European Union and its development. However, I think that on this occasion he is being a little unkind to our hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. I do not think that this is a wrecking amendment; I think that it asks legitimate questions about the timing of the transfer between the European financial stability facility and the European financial stabilisation mechanism and the new European sustainability mechanism—although I think that by demonstrating that we know the difference between the EFSF, the EFSM and the ESM, we are probably all showing that we need to get out more.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the old EFSM, which made Britain liable for the financial bail-outs, could be brought back. That is an interesting question, and I too would like to hear the Minister answer it. I assume that a vote by the Council, probably with unanimity, would be required to bring the EFSM back into operation, given that the Council voted to end it, or at least not to involve it in any new bail-outs. If that is the case, I think that it would reassure Conservative Members considerably to know that the EFSM is, in effect, dead and buried, at least in respect of new bail-outs.

There are two problems with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out one of them in what was a rather pre-emptive intervention. This amendment ties the triggering of United Kingdom legislation to actions of other countries—to events in Berlin, Dublin or the European Court, for instance. That is a strange principle for Members who have generally been rather keen to emphasise the unique sovereignty and independence of the United Kingdom Parliament to be trying to introduce into a British Bill. It raises a constitutional question, too: should we be putting clauses into British legislation that are entirely dependent on events in other countries?

The second problem is the political roundabout problem. If other countries follow our example and make their ratification of the treaty dependent on others finishing their processes, we will be like cars at a roundabout, with everybody waiting for everybody else to go, and the whole process will completely logjam. I am not sure whether that is what was intended, but it would make the amendment something of a wrecking amendment, in practice if not in theory. I think this is an impractical amendment—albeit perhaps a well-meaning one, which has produced an at least mildly illuminating debate.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

First, let me say that I entirely support what the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said, and I was pleased to sign his amendment.

The idea that we are being difficult by talking about delaying our effective support for this European Union measure is wide of the mark. We are being asked for a favour in respect of something that does not technically affect us, because we are neither contributors to nor beneficiaries from this new mechanism. We as a country are being gracious by putting this Bill forward, as we are helping out. It is absolutely sensible that the eurozone countries, who are very different from this country, should make sure that they have approved this mechanism and that there is no possibility of legal challenges before we say, “Yes, okay, as you’ve all approved it, we’ll sign on the dotted line to help you out”—and we should do that at the end of the day rather than at the beginning.

If we were to rush ahead and do this, the left-wing Eurosceptics in Holland would rise up to derail the Dutch situation, or the German constitutional court would decide it did not like the system, and we would be left having approved something that the eurozone countries do not even like very much themselves. We would be in a very silly position. It is therefore entirely sensible that we and other countries outside the eurozone should only go along with any decisions once the eurozone countries have agreed to them.

However, I must say that I still believe this mechanism is simply another measure for kicking the can further down the road and putting off what some think of as the evil day when the euro comes to an end. I do not say that simply because I have been sceptical about the euro from the beginning and disagree with the whole principle of the single currency, because it is not just me saying this now; other people agree. Indeed, this week George Soros said that Germany should leave the euro. It would be daft of the Germans to do that, however, because if they did, the new Deutschmark would immediately appreciate in value and Germany would become very uncompetitive in comparison with other member states.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on this point. It has learned absolutely nothing. To try to squeeze the life out of an economy that is already almost wrecked is nonsense. The Commission should allow those economies to grow, and they can grow only if they can recreate and depreciate their own currencies, and start to compete again. Ireland is in a terrible state because it chose—foolishly, I think—to join the euro. I have said to Irish politicians—in as friendly and comradely a way as possible—that they should recreate and depreciate the punt to something like the level of sterling, and rejoin the sterling zone, which is where Ireland belongs. Its economy would then start to recover. Without that, it will not recover.

[Martin Horwood]

I am just curious: who does the hon. Gentleman think would lend those Governments the money to finance that public spending, given their credit ratings at present?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In the end Governments can print money if they wish to, but the idea that we can squeeze those economies into growth is complete nonsense. We could debate these matters at great length—I would be happy to do so on another occasion—but that is not what this debate is about. I want to focus on the Government’s economic policy, which I think is profoundly mistaken.

Another point in the document is the emphasis on fiscal neutrality. The Government do not seem to appreciate that fiscal neutrality can be achieved in various ways. If we cut public spending and taxation at the same time, that is, in a sense, fiscally neutral. If we raise public spending and taxation, that is also fiscally neutral. We can also achieve fiscal neutrality by raising taxes on the rich and reducing them on the poor. Fiscal neutrality can have all sorts of different effects. If we cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the less well-off, we will drive the economy into recession, because poor people will spend less money. The marginal propensity of the poor to consume is higher, so if we tax the rich and give more to the poor, they will spend. If we give pensioners a rise in their pensions, for example, they will spend more, but if we give a wealthy person a tax cut, they will not spend.

Those are marginal changes, but my general point is that fiscal neutrality can be achieved in various ways. In fact, it is nonsense to have fiscal neutrality when growth is flatlining. We ought to have an expansionary fiscal strategy, not a neutral fiscal strategy. I might add that this is my view, not necessarily the view of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. They are perhaps more cautious than me, but in the end I would like to think that I and others will be proved right. We have to generate growth, but it will not happen if the Government continue to operate in the way that they are at the moment.

Rail Investment

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood]

I am a little wary of the time, so I will plough on. I endorse the view that we need a balance in railway investment between not only Manchester but the whole of the north of England and London and the south-east. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham about the need for a rebalancing in favour of the west and Wales. When we enter the next control period, it is important that we bear in mind such balances.

Electrification, which was raised by the Select Committee, is an important issue, especially in the context of the Great Western main line. We need to be wary about presenting the commitment to electrify as far as Newbury and Oxford as any kind of cut. That project will continue until 2018, so to look beyond that is already well into the next Parliament. The Labour party committed itself to 20% cuts in its submissions to the comprehensive spending review across unprotected Departments, so if extra and faster investment in electrification were to happen, it would be interesting to see what cuts would be made to pay for it.

We must be wary of the perception that all the investment is working its way out from London. If I were to suggest that we face a rise in rail fares across the entire network, constituents living in Wales or Bristol would not see a great return on that rise. However, someone who is living in, say, Witney, would be closer to one of the stations that would be electrified—Didcot parkway or Oxford—and they might get a very real and rapid return on their increased rail fares. We have to be wary about the perception that all the benefits are being delivered first to London and the south-east.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made some important points about signalling technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham mentioned the European rail and traffic management system, and I raise an alarm about that. I urge the Minister to examine the experience of Londoners when the ERTMS was introduced on the tube system. She should perhaps take some advice on how well the system works.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is a difference between signalling assistance in general and specific signalling assistance about which there may be some doubts.

[Martin Horwood]

That is absolutely correct. The Select Committee report also mentions the importance of investment in rolling stock. It is important for the Government to take their time to get that right. There have been delays under both Governments, so that is common ground. Rolling stock is a significant contributor to the general level of expense in our railways. If it takes time to consider how to deliver more competitive prices for rolling stock, it might be a delay worth considering.

Smart ticketing was raised in the report. It is important that we have better integration of ticketing. The current system is confusing and often unfair. Claire Cook, my fantastic PA in my constituency office, regularly books me a first-class ticket on a Gloucestershire to London train for £21.50. That horrifies many of my constituents who pay several times more for a standard ticket on the same train on the same route. They do not seem reassured when I tell them that because they have, in effect, paid for my ticket too, they are really saving money. That really does not seem to go down well. The risk is that there is an unnecessary perception of high cost, because people do not realise that cheaper fares are available. The ticketing system must be addressed. We should move towards a system that is a bit more like Oyster cards in London. When someone uses an Oyster card, they can be pretty sure that they are getting the cheapest fare available for that route. The application of such a system would be a good thing for the whole country. Obviously, though, that is a technical and organisational challenge.

Finally, everyone regrets increases in fares. Even when we accept that fares have to increase, there is a need to examine the sharp practices by train-operating companies, such as shifting the time boundary between peak and off-peak, so that there are suddenly more peak fares than before, even though, technically, the price has not been raised. That is a stealthy way of raising prices for customers. The use of averages was a point very well made. The Government must be on the ball about fare increases and make sure that train-operating companies are not taking advantage of customers.

In short, we should attack the fundamental causes of the high costs—the lack of capacity, the supply and demand problems and the cost base of the railways. The Office of Rail Regulation has said that Network Rail is up to 40% less efficient than its European counterparts, which means that we have some fundamental problems. With the inflated cost of rolling stock and so on, there is clearly potential for the Government to address the fundamental costs of our railways. If they do that effectively and protect investment, we will have a transport system that any Government could be proud to say is better value for money, better for the environment and better for the travelling public.

European Union Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I support my hon. Friend, yet again. Clearly, it is simple to monitor what is landed in one’s own country, but impossible to monitor what is landed in another country. If we had our own fishing waters with our own fishing vessels—

[Martin Horwood]

Spanish fleets.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Spanish fleets would not fish in our waters, because the idea is that countries would fish in their own waters. I cannot see the problem and I agree with my hon. Friend.

European Union Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Martin Horwood

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right again. Many of those who protested most strongly against matters in the European Union are people of the left—trade unions, working-class people, the unemployed, minorities and so on. We should not portray a right-left divide; the debate is about democracy and what works.

[Martin Horwood]

Is not the lowest unemployment in the European Union in Germany? Last time I looked, it was in the eurozone. Are not the countries that are particularly vulnerable those with large structural deficits? The problem is not particularly to do with their membership of the euro.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

That is interesting. We could have a long debate about the strength of the German economy relative to other countries in Europe. One thing that Germany wanted from the European Union was to get rid of barriers to its exports, particularly to France. Germany focused its efforts over generations, from Erhard onwards, on wisely ensuring that it had a massive and strong manufacturing base. We have not done that. If we had shown more of an Erhard approach to our policies—and Erhard was no socialist, but a Christian Democrat—we might have had a stronger economy.

As part of the post-war settlement, it was important for the west that West Germany—like Japan—succeeded, so it was allowed for a long time to have an undervalued Deutschmark, which gave it a competitive edge, behind which it built massively strong industries. That is the history. If one looks at the documentation—I used to write and read a lot about such things—one will see that the German surplus was a problem even in the 1970s. It has managed to sustain that for all that time, which was wise. Had we been a bit wiser, we might not have been in quite the weak position that we are in now. Every second car driving along the road is made in Germany, but where has our motor industry gone? We still have some of it, but it is nothing like Germany’s. Germany has been very clever, and I cannot blame it at all.