Informal European Council

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks by referring to what I think he called the “curiously named” informal Council. It is the convention that at every new presidency—there are two new presidencies each year—the presidency holds an informal Council in which people are able to talk about a number of issues looking ahead to the formalities of the Council. There we are; that is what happens; and that is what we were doing in Valletta.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to my meeting earlier today with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I have to say that this was not a subject for discussion at the European Union Council last week. However, I have made the UK Government’s position on settlements clear, and I continued to do that today.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of UK nationals. As he said, it is absolutely right that we value the contribution that EU citizens are making here in the United Kingdom—their contribution to our communities, our economy, our society, and, as I have said, to our public services—but I think it is also right that we ensure that the rights of UK citizens living in other European states are maintained. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with a number of European leaders about this issue that they think that it should be dealt with in the round as a matter of reciprocity, but, as was made plain by, for example, the conversations that I had with Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain, we are all very clear about the fact that we want to give reassurance to people as early as possible in the negotiations.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the issue of refugees, and about people drowning in the Mediterranean. Of course the loss of life that we have seen has been terrible, as is the continuing loss of life that we are seeing despite the best efforts of the United Kingdom: the Royal Navy and Border Force have been there, acting with others to protect and rescue people. That is why it is so important that we stop people making that perilous journey in the first place and risking their lives, and that is why the work that we discussed at the EU Council in Valletta on Friday is so important.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about our relationship with Greece. We continue to support Greece: we have a number of experts providing support on the ground, giving the Greeks real help with the task of dealing with the refugees. I made a commitment that we would want to continue to co-operate with our European partners on this issue after leaving the European Union, because it is indeed not confined to the European Union; it affects us as a whole, throughout Europe.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of comments about defence. Indeed, he devoted a fair amount of his response to the whole question of defence. At one point, he said that the fact that we were spending 2% on defence cast doubt on the competence of the UK Government in matters relating to it. I think this is the same right hon. Gentleman who said that he wanted to send out our nuclear submarines without any missiles on them. You couldn’t make it up.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I think that, for most states, the main business of the Council was yet another attempt to tackle the problem of mass migration from the middle east and north Africa, which is destabilising the politics of every European country. Will my right hon. Friend confirm—in fact, I think she just has—that, as Prime Minister, she will play as active a part as she did when she was Home Secretary in working with the other European Union countries to tackle the problem? Otherwise we shall have a continuing problem of attempts to come to this country.

If we are going to start returning refugees to the coast of north Africa, may I ask whether any progress is being made in the efforts that my right hon. Friend was making when she was Home Secretary to find somewhere on the other side of the Mediterranean where Europeans can finance and organise reception centres and refugees and applicants can be processed in a civilised way, and where it can be ensured that only genuine asylum seekers are let into this country?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my right hon. and learned Friend those reassurances. As he has said, this issue will continue to affect us, and to affect us all. It is not confined to the borders of the European Union. We will continue to co-operate with our European partners on this important matter while we remain in the EU and beyond.

Of course, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, one of the concerns about returning people to north Africa has related to the conditions to which they would be returned. That is why the EU has made efforts in Niger to establish some centres to try to ensure that people do not progress through to Libya and attempt to cross the Mediterranean, and it is also why we referred in the Council conclusions to our support for the Italian initiative. The Italians have worked with the Government of National Accord in Libya to secure an agreement that they will do some work there, in particular to ensure that people can be returned to suitable conditions, and we will support that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) mentioned the speech that the Prime Minister made yesterday. In that speech, she confirmed her commitment to parliamentary democracy, and I assume that she therefore accepts the long-standing convention that the Executive—the Government—are continuously accountable to the House for the policies that they are pursuing. Will she clarify whether she intends to make any further statements of policy intentions to the House, and whether she expects the House to have an opportunity to vote its approval for those policies earlier than two years from now, when the whole negotiation has been completed?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend has raised a matter that has also been raised not only by our right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), but by others as well. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union spent two hours answering questions in the House, and there will be a further debate on matters relating to exiting the European Union later today. There have been a number of such debates already, dealing with issues that are part of the objectives that we have set.

We shall have to consider the result of the decision of the Supreme Court, which may, if it goes against the Government, require legislation. There will be an opportunity in the great repeal Bill to consider a number of issues relating to exiting the EU, but as for voting on the actual deal that we have, we cannot do so until we know what it is. That is why I said yesterday that Parliament would have a vote when we knew what the deal was.

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I agree with his description regarding the catastrophic nature of the invasion of Iraq. I agree with him that the former Prime Minister has a lot to answer for. He will no doubt continue to do so, although he was cleared by Chilcot of deliberate misbehaviour. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that if we turn post-Chilcot debates into an attempt to pursue and hound Tony Blair, the whole thing turns into a party political argument, with Labour Members trying to defend the position of their Government?

Will the right hon. Gentleman go on to address—he is entitled to go on for a bit—the most important matter: how do we ensure that the system of Cabinet government, handling intelligence, and taking on board and properly communicating defence advice to all members of the Cabinet and to Parliament, cannot be repeated, so we do not have another catastrophic foreign policy decision? By personalising the issue we will, if we are not careful, lose the point, which is whether we are satisfied that everything possible is being done to ensure that cannot happen again.

[Alex Salmond]

As the Chilcot report concluded, this was very much a personal campaign by the Prime Minister in doing things unbeknown to both Cabinet and certainly Parliament. I am going to address the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but the question of parliamentary accountability is in my estimation central to this case. Committees of this House have been examining the conduct of the processes of government. If he reads the minutes of the meeting that the Committee to which we intend to refer the question of parliamentary accountability held with the Cabinet Secretary, I do not think he will find much reassurance that there has been a tremendous advance in the process of government. The overwhelming impression is that a headstrong Prime Minister could still create a situation where sofa government drove a country into an illegal war. I suggest that parliamentary accountability and an examination of statements made to Parliament and public against the facts as we now know them would be a valuable additional sanction and tool in restraining future Prime Ministers from any such course of events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will formally respond to the Committee’s recommendations, so I will leave it at that.

The National Security Council is a dedicated, standing Cabinet Committee that meets regularly at both ministerial and senior official level and has the right range of information to take forward informed decisions and to hold collective responsibility at the highest level. It provides collective strategic leadership on national security and crisis situations, with a built-in challenge function, making clear recommendations to Cabinet on military interventions, and formally recording both decisions and operational actions. The Attorney General attended the NSC regularly until April 2016, when he became a full member, and formal written legal advice is now provided and discussed at relevant NSC meetings and presented to Cabinet before any decisions on military intervention are taken.

The Government have integrated their overarching strategic approach with pragmatic, costed delivery mechanisms, including for military equipment, in a national security strategy, and strategic defence and security review, which is refreshed and adjusted in the light of developments every parliamentary term. The SDSR and refreshment of the national security strategy in 2015 brought this work together in a single integrated document. Cross-Whitehall working continues to improve, with creative policy making designed and delivered collectively across national security Departments and agencies to ensure that we understand, as far as is possible in dynamic and evolving threatening situations, what we want to achieve, and the implications for and impacts on ourselves and others. In support of this work, we set up joint units and taskforces where issues cut across several departmental responsibilities.

The Government are committed to understanding and acting on the important lessons drawn by Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues, but we recognise the need to continue to improve, whether working across the national security community or the wider civil service, hence the importance being given by the collective senior leadership to civil service reform and learning.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks about the improvements being made, and the Cameron Government did make improvements by introducing the NSC, but—I say this with hindsight—we still invaded Libya after too cursory a discussion in Cabinet, and somehow we did not look properly at what the consequences would be. We talked only about the imminent threat of a massacre in Benghazi, which took everybody in to the intervention.

The Minister says the Government are considering further improvements, so will he invite my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider setting out some principles: about the amount of notice the NSC has of such decisions, the length and fullness of discussions—that applies to Cabinet, too—and the right of individual members of the Cabinet to have access before a meeting to security advice and defence advice if they wish to prepare themselves for the discussion?

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his recommendations. I am sure the National Security Adviser will be listening closely to this debate, and the fact they have been put on the record means it will be important for him to have regard to them. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will understand that at the time he mentions we were facing a bloodbath in Benghazi, that intervention was vital and that we would not now row back on that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is highly probable that if Saddam Hussein had not been removed, things would have gone on in Iraq in the brutal, dictatorial way in which they had gone on previously. The problem is, as we have learned from what happened in Iraq and in Libya, that one can remove these brutal dictators, but instead of seeing democracy emerge one sees re-emerging a deadly conflict, going back more than 1,000 years, between different branches of the Islamic faith. The hon. Gentleman knows my view on this because, as I hope he remembers, in the arguments we had when the same proposition was put forward to deal with President Assad as we had dealt with Saddam Hussein, I made the same argument then as I make now—that in a choice between a brutal, repressive dictator and the alternative of a totalitarian Islamist state, I am afraid that the brutal dictator is the lesser of two evils. If we have not learned that from what happened in Iraq, then we truly have not learned any lessons from Iraq at all.

At the Liaison Committee meeting on 2 November, we had the opportunity to speak to Sir John Chilcot in person and to ask him directly to interpret the results of his own inquiries. I was particularly struck by the fact that of the two arguments I mentioned earlier—the one about the weapons of mass destruction and the one about the naive belief that democracy would emerge if we got rid of the brutal dictator—he was more censorious on the latter than on the former. He said that if the Prime Minister of the day had not exaggerated the certainty of his claims about weapons of mass destruction it would have been completely clear that he had not misled the House in any way. Sir John said:

“Exaggeration—placing more weight on the intelligence than it could possibly bear—is a conclusion that we reached on the Butler committee and reached again with even more evidence in the Iraq inquiry.”

He went on to say something rather curious. I put it to him that one argument that I had found convincing was when Mr Blair had said that there was a real danger of the weapons of mass destruction that were believed to exist in the hands of dictators getting into the hands of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Sir John went on to say:

“On the other hand, I do not know that, in putting forward the fusion argument, Mr Blair related it very directly and specifically to Saddam passing weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.”

I was surprised that Sir John made that statement. In the debate in March 2003, Tony Blair had said that

“there are two begetters of chaos: tyrannical regimes with weapons of mass destruction and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam…Those two threats have, of course, different motives and different origins, but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life. At the moment, I accept fully that the association between the two is loose—but it is hardening. The possibility of the two coming together”—

that, I think, is what Sir John meant by fusion—

“of terrorist groups in possession of weapons of mass destruction or even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb—is now, in my judgment, a real and present danger”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 768.]

We discussed in the debate on the Chilcot report the fact that there were plenty of references in the documents of the Joint Intelligence Committee and other intelligence organisations to the intelligence services’ real belief that Saddam still retained some weapons of mass destruction. I share Sir John’s conclusion that Tony Blair was guilty of exaggeration of the certainty with which knowledge was held about Saddam’s supposed possession of WMD, but that he was not guilty of lying to the House about that belief.

I have real concern with regard to the second argument, and it is on that argument that I believe the then Prime Minister Tony Blair will be held to have rather seriously misled the House. I revert to my exchange with Sir John Chilcot on 2 November, in which I said to him:

“I would like you to tell us to what extent Mr Blair was warned of the danger that, far from democracy emerging, Sunni-Shi’a religious strife would follow the removal of the secular dictator, who gave these warnings, and how and why they were ignored. In particular, I would just quote back to you a briefing note from your report which Mr Blair himself sent in January 2003 to President Bush.”

I ask the House to pay particular attention to this note, which Mr Blair sent to President Bush before the war began. The quote is as follows:

“The biggest risk we face is internecine fighting between all the rival groups, religions, tribes, etc. in Iraq when the military strike destabilises the regime. They are perfectly capable, on previous form, of killing each other in large numbers.”

I put this to Sir John:

“Mr Blair knew that and he said it to President Bush, so why did he ignore that terrible possibility that he himself apparently recognised?”

This is Sir John’s reply:

“I cannot give you the answer as to why. You would have to ask him. But what is clear from all the evidence we have collected is that this risk and other associated risks of instability and collapse were clearly identified and available to Ministers and to Mr Blair before the invasion. I can cite all sorts of points, but you will not want me to go into that detail now. It is in the report.

There were other signals, too, from other quarters. Our ambassador in Cairo, for example, was able to report that the Egyptian President had said that Iraq was at risk—it was populated by people who were extremely fond of killing each other, and destabilisation would bring that about.”

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Was my right hon. Friend present when I intervened on the then Prime Minister in a debate on Iraq and asked him what he thought about the risk of causing great instability across the middle east by invading Iraq? My recollection is that he laughed at me from the Front Bench and asked me what sort of stability I thought Saddam Hussein represented.

[Dr Lewis]

I believe that that is the most serious charge against Tony Blair. It was not that he did not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction, but that he knew—better than did those of us who did not have the advice of experts to give us a wiser steer—that if we removed the dictator the result would be internecine, deadly, lethal chaos, exactly as we saw it. I am not reassured when I hear from Members on the Front Bench that the National Security Council will prevent the same thing from happening again. When the same prospect came up over Libya, and when the Chief of the Defence Staff put it to Prime Minister Cameron that there would be the same consequences in Libya as there had been in Iraq, he was brushed aside. Until the Chiefs of Staff are properly integrated into the National Security Council, we can have no assurance that those deadly errors will not be replicated.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me briefly respond to that, because I want to leave as much time as I can for colleagues to make their points. I think the right hon. Gentleman is right to praise the families for the dignity that they have shown. I understand the regret over the time taken, and I think we all feel that. The only point I would make is that when you have an independent report, you have to allow it to be independent and you have to allow the chairman to make his or her own decisions in their own way. While it has been frustrating, I think that frustration has probably been better than intervention.

In terms of the time the right hon. Gentleman was given to read the report, I did not want politicians, including the former Prime Minister, to be given more time than the families themselves. That is why the 8 o’clock deadline was set. On the report itself, I think the right hon. Gentleman is right to say, and the report finds, that the intervention did create space for al-Qaeda. The only point I would make is that it is important to remember that violent Islamist extremism—al-Qaeda and all of that—started long before the Iraq war. It started long before 9/11, which was several years before the Iraq invasion. It is important to remember that.

In terms of the litany of failures, I have been able to read the executive summary and some other bits and pieces, as I am sure colleagues will. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a litany of failures: the disbanding of the army, the de-Ba’athification, the way the Coalition Provisional Authority worked and the failure to plan for the aftermath. There were very powerful points made by Sir John Chilcot.

In terms of the lessons to learn, many of the points the right hon. Gentleman made we have already put in place: proper Cabinet discussions, National Security Council discussions, parliamentary votes and the oversight of the intelligence agencies. Before coming up with even more ways to oversee our intelligence agencies, I would urge colleagues from right around the House to look at the way the beefed-up Intelligence and Security Committee works and at the other things that we have done, not least in the legislation going through both Houses. We do need to leave our intelligence services with a clear set of instructions and oversight arrangements, rather than changing them every five minutes.

A war powers Act can be discussed in the two-day debate. I have looked at it very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not the right thing to do. I think we would get ourselves into a legal mess. But the House should clearly debate it, as it will when it considers the report.

On the issue of the United States, the right hon. Gentleman calls for an open partnership. I do not believe that the United States is always right about everything, but I do believe that our partnership with the United States is vital for our national security. I rather fear that his approach is that the United States is always wrong. I do not think that they are always right, but I think that they are always our best partner, and we should work with them.

I urge the right hon. Gentleman and others to take the time to read the report—not in its entirety; I do not think any of us will have time for 3.8 million words—because it is very carefully judged and very carefully thought through. We should read it in conjunction with the statement that Sir John has given today, which is a very articulate distillation of what he says in his 200-page summary. I think that that is what we should be guided by.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

We will all need time to study the many damning conclusions in this report about how this catastrophic decision was reached in 2003, but the Prime Minister says that we should read it with an eye to future lessons for the machinery of government. Although I know from my own experience that the introduction of the National Security Council was a very valuable innovation, does my right hon. Friend agree that his successor should be recommended to look at whether we should return to the pre-Blair era of full collective Cabinet responsibility with proper time for meetings, proper information and studied conclusions? Does he agree that we should also look at whether proper parliamentary accountability for these things should be reconsidered so that there are full and properly informed debates here held in good time before, in cases such as this, the military are deployed, everything is set in hand and the position is irreversible? We really do need to go back to a much more collective and accountable form of government.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes good points. Let me respond. In terms of Cabinet responsibility, yes, before a decision such as this is made we need to have a Cabinet meeting and Cabinet discussion, but I would not try to substitute that for the work that the NSC now does, in which the head of MI5, the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff are around the table. They sit there as equal members able to speak up and tell us what they think. That debate is frankly more valuable than simply listening to other Secretaries of State, although they are there as well. I still think that that is the best place to do that.

Yes, we should have parliamentary debates and it is good if we have them in reasonable time. One of the issues with the Iraq debate was that it was so close to the point of decision that many colleagues felt that to vote in a different way was somehow to let down our troops on the eve of a vitally important decision. Early debate is always good.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it was positive that turnout was so high. I also agree with him that we need to reach out to those people who have not benefited from economic growth and make sure that they feel that their economic security is important to us as well. But I do not agree with him that it is right to start to try to refight the campaign all over again. All I know for my part is that I put everything I could into the campaign that I believed in—head, heart and soul—and I left nothing out, and I think that was the right thing to do.

Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. On money that different areas of the country get, until we leave the EU none of those arrangements change; so what has been set out in the Budget, and payments and the rest of it, all continue. But as the negotiation begins properly for leaving, the next Government will want to set out what arrangements they will put in place for farmers, for local authorities and for regions of our country.

On intolerance and fighting intolerance, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must take all action we can to stamp this out. He asked about the Chancellor’s fiscal rule and future plans. What I would say is that we have not worked so hard to get the budget deficit from 11% down to below 3% just to see that go to waste, and we must continue to make sure that we have a sound and strong economic plan in our country. For the coming months that is my responsibility and the Chancellor’s responsibility, but in time it will be the responsibility of a new Government, and they will have to decide how to react if there are economic difficulties along the way.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there could be private briefings for members of the shadow Front-Bench team with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As always in these arrangements, if shadow Cabinet members want those sorts of briefings, they can have them.

Finally, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and the fact that he hopes we will be debating with each other for some weeks and possibly months to come.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

When we acquire a new Government who have decided what they mean by leaving and draw up some detailed policy instructions for the committee of officials the Prime Minister has set up, a great deal of detailed legislation covering a whole variety of fields will be submitted to this Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we still have a parliamentary democracy and it would be the duty of each Member of Parliament to judge each measure in the light of what each man and woman regards as the national interest, and not to take broad guidance from a plebiscite which has produced a small majority on a broad question after a bad-tempered and ill-informed debate? [Interruption.] And does he agree that we will face months of uncertainty if we are not careful—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not acceptable for people to make that level of noise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be heard and every Member of this House will be heard. Let us accord the right hon. and learned Gentleman the respect to which he is entitled.

[Mr Clarke]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there is a risk of uncertainty for a few months, causing very considerable difficulty, he should consider the possible first step of joining the European economic area, which was designed in the first place for countries like Norway and Iceland, where the great bulk of politicians wished to join the European Union but could not get past the ridiculous hurdle of a referendum in order to get there? That could at least be negotiated, with modifications and changes if anybody can decide what they want once we get to that point, and it would give some reassuring order and stability to our economy and might begin to attract a little investment and future prospects for our country.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. My view is simple: this House should not block the will of the British people to leave the European Union, but of course we have now got to look at all the detailed arrangements, and Parliament will clearly have a role in that in making sure that we find the best way forward. That will be principally the job for the next Government, but I do believe in parliamentary sovereignty and the sovereignty of this Parliament. A lot of detail will have to be discussed and debated, but decisions such as whether or not to join the EEA must be for a future Government.

European Council

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, on the 20,000, let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we have said—I will repeat this again—is that we are looking at the issue of child migrants and those whom we can help more of. We took in 3,000 last year. Of the 20,000, we expect many to be children. We have said that we are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on that, but again we are looking at children in the region, and we have talked about potentially taking in hundreds rather than thousands, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining that.

On the West Balkan route, I am not surprised that countries have decided to erect borders, as they have been very concerned about the huge flow of people through that route, but, obviously, everything that the Schengen countries and Europe as a whole can do to secure the external borders of Europe the better, and that is what we are helping with. I do not think that it has particular implications for Libya. Most of those migrants have been coming through Malta and Italy, and we do need to address that.

On special forces, let me confirm the long-standing policy, which is that all Governments have exactly the same approach, and we have not changed that at all. On sanitary products, I am very happy to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and apologise for missing her out.

On disability, we are not going ahead with the changes that were put forward, but let me say what we are going ahead with. When I became Prime Minister we were spending £42 billion on disability benefits, and by the end of this Parliament, we are forecast to be spending more than £46 billion, which is a real-terms increase of more than £4 billion. What we did in that Budget was help to take low paid people out of tax and assist in many, many ways, which is why it was a good Budget and we have taken the right decisions.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

In addition to the refugees whom we are taking from the camps, each year thousands of people enter this country irregularly and by other means from North Africa and the middle east seeking asylum, and many of those requests are granted. Those numbers are increasing. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a complete mistake to regard the current grave crisis over migration as something that is apart from the United Kingdom if only we were not in the European Union? Does he agree that it is in the British interest that he continues to play an active and leading role in these European Council discussions to try to achieve a solution to the external European border and how we will deal with genuine migrants in civilised conditions and return those who have no claim to be here? Will he continue to commit to the European effort the Navy, the aid money, and the resources that we are giving, together with his diplomatic and political efforts?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. He is right that whether we are in the European Union or out of the European Union, there is still a migration crisis affecting the continent of Europe, and that does have knock-on effects on us. The more people who come, the more people who end up at Calais and the greater the problem we have. I would argue that we have the best of both worlds because we are sat round the table trying to solve this problem, and good progress has been made, but because we are not in Schengen and not in these resettlement schemes, we keep our own decisions about borders and about visas and all the rest of it. Clearly, it does benefit us to co-operate, so we should continue to do that and continue to recognise that Britain can bring its experience to bear in helping our friends in Greece, who now face a real crisis in their country and deserve our help.

European Council

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He and I disagree on many, many things—economic policy, social policy, welfare policy and even the approach we should take within Europe, as he has just demonstrated in his response—but we do agree about one thing: Britain should be in there, fighting for a good deal for our country. I worry a little for him because he is going to be accused of all sorts of things, some of them fair, some of them unfair. I fear that if he takes this course, he will be accused of being a member of the establishment, and that would be the unfairest attack of all.

On what the right hon. Gentleman said about the deal, I will make two points about why he should welcome it. The first is that, as far as I can see, it implements almost every pledge on Europe in the Labour manifesto—I am looking at the former Labour leader when I say that. Labour pledged to complete the single market. It pledged “tougher budget discipline”. It said

“we will ensure EU rules protect the interests of non-Euro members.”

That is absolutely right. The manifesto went on to say:

“People coming to Britain from the EU to look for work are expected to contribute to our economy, and to our society. So we will secure reforms to immigration and social security rules”.

I therefore hope Labour will welcome the things in this agreement. [Interruption.] I am just reminding my new friends what they said at the election. They said this:

“We will work to strengthen the influence national parliaments over European legislation, by arguing for a ‘red-card mechanism’ for member states”.

Excellent, that is another thing that has been achieved.

The right hon. Gentleman was unfair when he said that this deal was really all about Britain, and not about anyone else. The Slovakian Prime Minister said, good,

“the myth about ever-closer union has fallen.”

The Hungarian Prime Minister said:

“The UK managed to put an end to the practice of ‘creeping power withdrawal’ from national member states.”

Romano Prodi, the former President of the Commission, said this:

“The real consequence of the summit is extraordinarily important: Brussels has officially enshrined a multi-speed Europe.”

That is beneficial to Europe as well as to Britain.

Where I disagree profoundly with the right hon. Gentleman is that I think these trade deals are good for Britain and that the sooner we do the deal with America the better. He is wrong about financial services. There are more people working in financial services in our country outside the City of London than there are inside it. Crucially, what the single market means is that, with one establishment in Britain, we can trade throughout the European Union. If we lose that, we will see jobs going from Britain to other countries.

Let me end on a note of consensus. Labour Governments and Conservative Governments standing here have all had their difficulties with Europe. We have all wanted to get the budget down. We have all wanted to get powers returned. We have all found that, because of our love for this House of Commons and for British democracy, this process can sometimes be trying, but, at the end of the day, we have always known that, when it comes to our economy, prosperity and security, we are better off fighting from the inside.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree—I am sure that he will—in referring to the continental press, that he has demonstrated the influence of a British Prime Minister, as he has forced some concessions that will be quite difficult for fellow Presidents and Prime Ministers to sell to their own political establishments? Does he agree that future generations will benefit from some of those concessions, particularly those on enlarging the single market, guaranteeing our access to parts of it, deregulating, and engaging in major trade deals with outside? Does he also agree that it is not the politics of fear to point out that those who advocate a no vote do not seem to know what a no vote means? They continually imply that all the benefits that flow from Europe in terms of jobs, investment and security will somehow continue to come here when they have swept away the obligations that previous British Government have always accepted.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. It has been interesting to see what some of the foreign newspapers have made of this. Let me give one example. A Spanish paper said:

“British exceptionality reached new heights yesterday. No other country accumulates so many exceptions in Europe.”

I am proud of the fact that we have a different status in Europe and that that status has become more special with the changes that we have made.

The point that my right hon. and learned Friend makes is absolutely right. I recognise that there are disadvantages to being in the European Union. I make no bones about that, but I can look the British people in the eye and say, “This is what it will be like if we stay in. It will be better because of the deal that we have done.” The people who are advising us to leave must spell out the consequences of leaving. The absolute lodestar is this: no country has been able to get full access to the single market without accepting either paying into the EU or accepting free movement. If people do not want to accept those two things, they have to start accepting that they will not get as good a trade and business position as we have today. People who want to leave must start making up their minds: do they want a Norway deal, a Switzerland deal or a Canada deal? Frankly, I do not mind which deal they go for, but they must start telling people because they deserve an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I find it a little odd to take a lecture from that particular hon. Gentleman on moderate language.

I do not think anyone can doubt my commitment to ensuring that we have a negotiated fiscal framework, and I am delighted that, in her letter to the Prime Minister, the First Minister set out her strong commitment to achieving such an agreement, because that is the Prime Minister’s position. As I said at the weekend, both sides have done the dance; now let us do the deal.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to have the successful devolution that we all want, we need a firm and sensible framework for fiscal discipline that will last, and will stand the tests of all the unknown economic vicissitudes that may hit the country? Will he assure us that we will not repeat the mistakes that have been made in Spain, where devolved provinces frequently run up unsustainable debts which they then blame on Madrid, causing great difficulties to Spanish Governments who are seeking recovery?

[David Mundell]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise, the settlement in Spain is entirely different. I agree with him about the need for a sustainable fiscal framework, but, as the Government have made clear in the negotiations, we are willing to accept a review of the arrangements in a few years to ensure that they stand up to scrutiny, and are seen to be fair to both Scotland and to the rest of the United Kingdom.

UK-EU Renegotiation

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. First of all, on the issue of making a statement today rather than yesterday, I felt that yesterday I was in possession of all the documents, but I did not think that every Member of the House would be, so I thought it better to give hon. Members a day to read the documents and have the debate today. It gave me the added advantage of being able to visit Chippenham, which, of course, is the town of the right hon. Gentleman’s birth. I was able to thank the people of Chippenham for putting him on earth and delivering him safely to this place.

The right hon. Gentleman criticises the issues that we put on the table: getting out of ever closer union, waiting times for welfare and guarantees for fairness between ins and outs. I know that he did not read the Labour manifesto, but I did, and actually all those things were in the Labour manifesto. Labour wanted a two-year welfare wait rather than a four-year welfare wait, but many of the other elements of our negotiation were supported by Labour, so Labour Members can feel they have a mandate for backing these measures.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the detail on the emergency migration brake, because there are gaps in the text. He is absolutely right about that; we need to secure the best possible outcome at the February Council. He asked about the danger of the exploitation of migrant workers, and that is an area where I think he and I agree. That is why we have boosted the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and we have put in place better co-ordination between it and the National Crime Agency. We are making sure that there are more investigations and more prosecutions.

TTIP is an area where we profoundly disagree. Other socialist Governments in Europe take my view, which is that TTIP will be good for jobs, good for growth and good for businesses. I am not sure that I ought to advise the right hon. Gentleman to spend more time with trade unions, but if he spends time with trade unions in Sweden and some other countries in northern Europe, he may find that they, too, support TTIP, because they want jobs for their members.

In the end, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman and to all Members across the House that this is an important moment for our country. Yes, there will be areas of disagreement between the Conservatives and Labour, but we are involved in trying to get the very best negotiation for Britain. The European Parliament plays a part in that, and the Party of European Socialists plays a part in that. I urge all hon. Members, if you want to have no more something for nothing, if you want to get Britain out of ever closer union, if you want fairness between those in the euro and those out of the euro, and if you want a more competitive and successful Europe, let us fight this together. [Interruption.]

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Feelings are obviously getting roused on this subject.

The Prime Minister has achieved more on the big issues in this negotiation than I ever expected—and, I suspect, more than the hard-line Eurosceptics ever expected, which is why they are denouncing it so fiercely—but, as he says, he still has to deliver it. Does he accept that he will have great difficulty in persuading Governments in central and eastern Europe, in particular, to accept that their citizens lawfully working here alongside English people in key sectors such as the health service and the construction industry should have lower take-home pay in the first few years than their English workmates?

If the Prime Minister has to offer something in exchange for that, could he perhaps consider underlining our NATO commitment to those countries, as their biggest concern is future military adventures by Putin’s Russia? To underline our role as one of the leading military contributors, if not the leading military contributor, through NATO to the European alliance would be a very good offer to make—by deploying more troops, perhaps—in order to get what is a difficult concession for our partners in those countries to make.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has huge experience of European negotiations—both treaty negotiations and ongoing negotiations in the Council of Ministers—for what he says. He is absolutely right that these are difficult issues. My argument is that while we have the free movement of people that many British people take advantage of, we do not have harmonised welfare and benefit systems, and nor should we.

The second point I make to my colleagues in Europe is that when countries in Europe have problems that they believe affect their key national interests, we have got to be flexible enough to deal with them. I think that that is what this agreement is showing. The advantage of the proposals put forward is that they will have the support of the European Commission. I think that that will reassure some of the states in Europe that have misgivings.

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that we can also reassure those states about our investment in their security, because I think that is a very important issue. With, as it were, Putin to our east and ISIL to our south, this is a moment where we need to make sure we are working together.

EU Council

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me wish the right hon. Gentleman—along with you, Mr Speaker—a very happy new year. Let me also apologise for interrupting what is clearly the longest reshuffle in history. We could have watched the entire run of “Star Wars” movies, but we still do not know who has been seduced to the dark side. There is absolutely no sign of a rebel alliance emerging either: I can see that.

The right hon. Gentleman had the temerity to say that this was a referendum that I did not want. This is a referendum that I put to the British people in a manifesto. It is odd to hear such talk from the right hon. Gentleman, who has a shadow Foreign Secretary whom he does not want.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. Let me now answer them. He asked whether the Government would make a clear recommendation. Yes, we will: I said that very clearly in my statement. He asked whether the national Parliament measures were still in place. Yes, they are, and they received a warm reception from a number of other European countries. He asked about welfare benefits. Our four-year proposal remains on the table. I have said that I am very happy to look at alternatives, but I will not take my proposal off the table until I see something equally effective being put forward.

I would just note that at the last election, it was Labour policy to ask people coming to this country to live and work here for several years before claiming benefits. [Interruption.] Labour Members can all call out about what a great policy it was, but it has now been abandoned by their leader. Never mind how many Eagles we end up with; I think we have all worked out that they have an albatross at the head of their party. [Laughter.]

The right hon. Gentleman asked about refugees. I think he was right to praise the Royal Navy for the work that it does. As for funding, let me make it very clear that we believe the EU can do more, but the EU has a generous budget to which we are a significant contributor. In all our conversations we asked the EU to use its existing budget, knowing that countries like Britain have made huge contributions, outside the EU budget, to the excellent United Nations programmes. If only other EU countries were as generous to those programmes as we have been, we would ease the Syrian refugee crisis by a huge amount. As I said in my statement, we have contributed £1.12 billion.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were signed up to the Syrian peace process. Yes, we are. We have been one of the leading players behind that process. There was a good meeting in New York in December, but more meetings will be needed to bring about the ceasefires and the political discussions that are necessary. I will keep the House updated on that, as will the Foreign Secretary.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would take more migrants. I think that the 20,000 resettlement is the right number. I stress again that we have gone ahead and delivered what we said we would, which is in stark contrast to many other promises made by other countries. He asked about the issue of the 3,000 orphans. I said in the Syria debate that we would look seriously at that issue, but there are problems. Of course we can think about helping, but we must be careful to ensure that we are not removing people from their wider families. We need to look carefully at those who have tragically lost parents.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that somehow we were isolated in Europe, when we are leading the debate on Syria, leading the debate on Libya and leading the debate on security, and I have to say that, after his visit to Brussels, when other Prime Ministers and Presidents were not asking about terrorism or migration or indeed the British negotiation, another question on their lips was, “What on earth has happened to the British Labour party?”

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister remain confident that he will obtain a full British opt-out from the ever-closer union commitment, which until recently—in recent years—has been the principal demand of Eurosceptics, who claim to see a threat to the future independence of this country if we stay in the EU? Now that some of our right hon. and hon. Friends are taking an unaccustomed interest in benefit rules, will he confirm that his proposal on the table for a four-year limitation is stimulating a discussion with other countries anxious to take away unnecessary draws to their countries of other EU nationals, to find a solution so that we have coming here only people who will work legally in a way that benefits the British economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes two very powerful points. First, the ever-closer union does matter, not purely as a symbolic issue, but because it does get used as an interpretation by the European Court and has been one of the things that people feel has driven something of a ratchet in terms of EU law, so it is vital that we are fully carved out of that. He is right as well about benefits. Of course this is a controversial issue in Europe, but other countries share our concerns. Indeed, some of the countries that people are leaving are also concerned about the potential hollowing out of their countries as so many young people in their 20s and 30s leave. My point is simple: Britain has benefited hugely from migration and we should continue to support migration and free movement, but the extra artificial draw that our in-work benefit systems can bring badly needs to be addressed.