Europe

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister’s much anticipated and delayed Europe speech of last week, announcing an in/out referendum after the next election, was an unnecessary gamble. It was a Machiavellian gesture, seeking to placate the increasingly frustrated Tory Back Benchers, as the Front-Bench team tries to manage party disquiet over Europe and the realities of coalition government. At best, it is a diversion and kicks Europe into the long grass; at worst, it will undermine investment into the UK, creating uncertainty and weakening our relationships with other EU member states. That is not a desirable place for the Government to be in if they are serious about renegotiating competences.

What we need is a clear vision and policy on the UK’s role in Europe and what sort of Europe the UK should be fully involved in. In general, I believe it is the role of politicians to make informed judgments and generate policies that are in the interests of our constituents and the general public, and I am therefore generally opposed to the use of referendums, except on strictly constitutional issues.

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

Is sovereignty such an issue?

[Mark Hendrick]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say.

It is conceivable that any Government, either Labour or Conservative, would be drawn into negotiating a new treaty some time after the next general election in 2015. There may well be an inter-governmental conference at that time, especially given the state of the eurozone, and it may be necessary to have an agreement on fiscal rules, in particular between Germany and France, written into a treaty. Such a treaty would therefore be likely to come after any IGC. Given our experience in respect of the Lisbon treaty and the clamour from the popular media and the general public to hold a referendum, I believe it would be difficult for any political party to go into that election without committing to a referendum if there is to be treaty change.

The Opposition clearly accept the possibility of a referendum, given our commitment not to repeal the referendum lock legislation, which will trigger a referendum in the case of any attempt to transfer powers from the UK to the European Union or, indeed, to move to a position of enhanced co-operation in any one of a number of areas. I welcome the fact that we have not ruled out the possibility of having a referendum as part of our policy mix for the next election. Given that the Government have not made clear what their negotiating positions will be, and on what issues they would wish to push in the unlikely event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, our position is sustainable. It is a reasonable, measured response to an unreasonable movement in the Conservative-led Government’s policy.

I envisage the EU developing in such a way that there will be a hard core of countries that form the eurozone and an outer layer of countries, some of which will want to go into the eurozone and others, like the UK, that do not. Talking about the repatriation of powers to the UK does not serve the interests of people in the UK, as co-operation in Europe is more beneficial. Therefore, a future Labour Government should look at having powers of enhanced co-operation in new areas, so that an EU of 27 states can progress without the deadlock that the need for unanimity can bring. We should also look at how we might apply that to the outer layer of countries, one of which would be Britain, so that those countries that wish to go ahead with initiatives could do so without being held back by others.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if the Tories get their way, the electorate will be faced with a loaded question? There will not be a status quo option on the referendum ballot paper; instead, the choice will be between less Europe and no Europe.

[Mark Hendrick]

In the unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the next general election, it is not clear that they would succeed in getting any of their shopping list of demands. They will want change in much of the social legislation. The working time directive has been mentioned, as have holiday pay and health and safety at work, and they might also wish to focus on measures such as the European arrest warrant and some justice and home affairs issues. There will be a long shopping list to placate Tory Back Benchers, therefore, but if, by some chance, the Tories win the next election, there will be huge disappointment. The situation will be the same as the Labour party faced under Harold Wilson in the 1970s: there will be a huge split in the Conservative party, leading to its being out of office for a long time—after all, it took Labour 18 years to be re-elected to office following that split in our party.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it was more damaging to run out of money and go to the International Monetary Fund or to offer people a referendum, as that Labour 1970s Government did?

[Mark Hendrick]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that none of the money offered by the IMF was used by that Labour Government. It was there as a back-up.

The Conservatives do not want a social Europe, with working time protection, holiday rights and health and safety regulation. The single market is about the free movement of goods, capital, services and labour. The right of workers to move around freely in the European Union is as important as the rights of capital, goods and services to do so. I have always supported the free movement of people whose countries are members of the EU. With the imminent accession of Romania and Bulgaria, we should seek to extend full rights to workers and not object to their having equal freedoms to other Europeans. Some 50% of the Polish people who originally moved to the UK following their country’s accession have now returned, because of the economic condition of our country under the current Government. The rest are making a valuable contribution to the British economy.

We know that every country’s economic fortunes are cyclical. Our economy is bad at present, in part because of the irresponsible policies of the current Government, but it will get better at some time in the future. Therefore, it is important that we continue to take workers from other countries; after all, 2 million Britons work elsewhere in the EU.

[Mike Gapes]

My hon. Friend mentioned people returning to Poland. In part, that is because, as a consequence of Poland’s membership of the EU, its economy has been growing much faster than ours.

[Mark Hendrick]

That is right. Many Poles are returning to Poland with money in their pockets and are growing businesses there. The Poles will be customers for many goods and services produced in this country, so these events are mutually beneficial; there is not one-way traffic in respect of who benefits.

The European Union is not simply a one-way transfer of sovereign powers; it is about pooling sovereignty, so the sovereignty that resides centrally is worth more than the sum of the constituent parts. That gives the European Union power in what is a global economy, so we can ensure that we get the best deals in trade and can project our influence in a world increasingly dominated by economic powerhouses such as the United States and China.

As 50% of our trade is with the EU, exiting the single market would have devastating consequences for our economy. In other areas, such as justice and home affairs, we have had great success; the European arrest warrant is one example of that. When the current Government or a future Government set out their shopping list for renegotiating competences and our relationship with Europe, Labour Members need to put our case for a social Europe and a Europe of security, where justice and home affairs measures play a crucial role in ensuring international co-operation to fight common enemies, such as drug trafficking and terrorism.

My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary says this is about arithmetic. That is true, but it is about much more than that. It is about geography, too—after all, Britain is in Europe—and it is about culture and history, because we are a European nation. Let us play our role in strengthening a united Europe for all the peoples of Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

We have heard from John the optimist, but I am not sure about his approach. I speak as a sceptic and a definite, confirmed optimist.

Being the MP for the wonderful constituency of Macclesfield, I have little incentive to leave these shores, but in the two parliamentary overseas trips that I have made, my world view has changed quite fundamentally. The first trip, led by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) and with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) accompanying us, was to China. There I saw for the first time the rapid changes going on in the world economy—the opportunities and the challenges of increasingly competitive, dynamic and globalised marketplaces.

The second trip was a visit to Brussels with the all-party group for European reform, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). It was another eye-opening visit, but one that told a very different story about the challenges and opportunities of globalisation. Of course Europe’s economic interests were discussed, but the participants in that discussion got lost in the fog of political point scoring and diplomatic manoeuvres to patch up the eurozone. That sort of howling at the moon is rendering the EU an increasingly uncompetitive, increasingly undynamic and increasingly parochial place, and it is something that Conservative Members are determined to address.

[Mark Hendrick]

I remember our visit to China, but does the hon. Gentleman not think that the UK has far more influence around the world through its membership of the EU and the weight that that adds, so we should stay in the EU? Given that there are countries—Germany, for example—that do far more trade with China than we do, is it not important that we stay within the EU?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need shorter interventions. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken—[Interruption.] He should know better. I do not mind interventions, but they must be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The biggest uncertainty and biggest danger for the British economy is the chance that Labour might be elected to government. There could be no greater uncertainty for the British economy than that—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) mentions democracy from the Opposition Front Bench—absolutely damn right. That is why we should trust the British people, because they will have the final say. We should be able to agree on reform of the European institutions.

[Mark Hendrick]

rose—

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who used to travel regularly to Strasbourg when he was a Member of the European Parliament, as I did, as well as to a third institution in Luxembourg.

[Mark Hendrick]

I am interested by the hon. Gentleman’s shopping list of powers that might need to be repatriated, but may I ask him about the mechanism? I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have considered Switzerland and Norway. Would he prefer a relationship like that between one of those two countries and the EU, and if not, why not? Does he think that his Government can obtain their own relationship in some other way?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is where the pessimism of Labour’s negotiating position has undermined our chances of getting some of the things that we have wanted in the past. I do not see either model working for us. We want a British model, which might be within the European Union but, if we do not get what we want, might be outside it.

I strongly believe that we need to negotiate a better settlement with the EU and that we should give the British people a say in it. I was delighted by the Prime Minister’s speech last week—as, I am sure, were the majority of the British public—although I was very concerned that the Leader of the Opposition said on the BBC’s “Politics Show” that he did not think that the European Union had enough power. Let me illustrate why I was concerned. The European Commission often asks for extra powers, and we have recently received its work programme, which contains proposals to harmonise and get rid of anomalies in the VAT system. In other words, the plan is to get rid of the anomaly whereby we can charge less VAT on energy, for example. That would increase fuel poverty in the United Kingdom, and I do not think that the European Commission should have more power to do that. We should retain the power in the UK to differentiate our own policies.

There is a divergence going on, and if we are going to stay in the EU, we need to ensure that we negotiate hard to ensure that that is in the British interest. If it is not, the British people will decide and they will decide to walk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Who governs? That is the fundamental question before us in this mighty debate today. At what point does a self-governing country have to say it is no longer self-governing because the body of European law and the wide-ranging body of European decisions are so fundamental that Ministers and this Parliament can no longer effectively govern the country?

Too many of us have watched as Governments have given away mighty powers of self-government from these islands and from this once great Parliament to the European institutions, and we have worried greatly. This has been done in the name of the British people, but it has not been done with the consent of the British people. There has always been an excuse not to trouble the British people, and so often outside this House political parties have misled the British people.

The British people were told that they were joining a common market. It was very clear from the treaty of Rome onwards that they were joining a political, economic and monetary union in the making. They were told that they just belonged to a single market, needed to guarantee jobs in certain export industries. There were two misleading things there. First, we do not need to belong to the EU to export to the EU. Many other countries outside it export much more successfully than we have done from inside it. Secondly, it was always a far bigger and more noble venture in the eyes of its architects, its fathers and mothers, than a mere single market or internal market.

I ask Members of this Parliament to look around and see what has been done in their names—to see how difficult it is now for Ministers of the coalition, future Ministers and Conservative or Labour Administrations to do many of the things they would like to do or their electors wish them to do, because so many powers have been given away. The bigger the corpus of European law becomes, the more constrained are not just our Ministers, but this once-great Parliament.

[Mark Hendrick]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cars exported from the UK to mainland Europe today are a result of foreign direct investment to the UK because the UK is within the European Union, not outside the European Union?

[Mr Redwood]

No. That is a trivial point compared with the issues that I am raising, and it is entirely wrong, because there are many countries outside the EU that attract as much as or more inward investment than we do. I want, as does the hon. Gentleman, to keep those jobs, and we will continue to attract and support that inward investment as long as we have a satisfactory enterprise economy here and a decent market. We have a very large market of our own. That is why those investments come here.

The hon. Gentleman needs to look around and see how many powers have been taken away. We can no longer have an agricultural policy of any kind unless it is the approved one from Brussels. Our fishing grounds are completely controlled and regulated from Brussels. Our energy policy is greatly circumscribed by a large amount of European legislation, regulation and price control, and many more decisions coming along on climate change and energy, which means that it is very difficult to have an enterprise-oriented energy policy in this country.

We find that we do not control our own borders. We have no say over who comes here from the continent of Europe, and they have come in very large numbers in recent years. Many of them are welcome, but a sovereign country has the right to decide who comes and on what terms. We were always assured by Governments that we kept control of our welfare policy—that that was a matter for domestic consideration. We now find that the EU presumes to instruct us to whom we give benefits and what benefits we give them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That is true, which is why current policies and statements are potentially putting us at a competitive disadvantage.

There are those who argue we would be better off outside Europe, and that we should have an in/out referendum now. I respect that position—although I totally disagree with it—but that is not what is before us. It is worse than that. We will have five or more years of indecision because this Prime Minister has put party advantage ahead of Britain’s national interest. We will have five years of companies looking at Britain and asking themselves, “Should we invest? Can we be sure Britain is going to be part of Europe?” The Prime Minister will not even tell us what the red lines in respect of Europe are going to be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said earlier, they will involve, for example, driving employment rights down to the bottom to try to ensure that we are competitive with the rest of the world.

Europe is our major trading partner and we need to be at the centre of it. We will not achieve that by standing on the sidelines, or, as this Prime Minister seems to do, by threatening to take our bat and ball home if we do not get our own way.

Much has been said about the free movement of people throughout Europe. This is nothing new. I grew up in the region of the north Nottinghamshire coalfields and went to school with people with Italian and Polish names—the children of people who had settled there after the second world war. Conservative Members who represent areas such as Lincolnshire will be aware that many generations of immigrant workers have come there to pick fruit and other agricultural produce. That has added to, not taken away from, this country’s prosperity.

[Mark Hendrick]

My hon. Friend, coming has he does from the north-east, will remember the “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” generation who went to work in Germany because they could not find work in this country under the Thatcher regime.

Commission Work Programme 2013

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman criticises the Commission for trying to do something about cross-border crime. He was against the introduction of the European arrest warrant, but it is working well and providing tangible results. Why is he critical of it?

[Mr Cash]

For the simple reason that we would have achieved the same results had we put in place our own operation through our own legislative system. Furthermore, there are many examples of the European arrest warrant being used to convict innocent people in absentia, including someone in Staffordshire who was recently convicted of a murder that they could not have committed because they were serving in a restaurant in Leek at the time. There might be some advantages to aspects of the co-operative arrangements, of which I am in favour, but that does not mean that the panoply of powers associated with the European arrest warrant is justified.

The Government have expressed reservations about certain proposals, but the key question is: what are they actually able to do about this? We can express reservations and argue against the proposals, but the qualified majority voting system operates in such a way as to prevent us from exercising our much-vaunted influence. I have to say to the Minister and the Government—and through them, I hope, to the Prime Minister in relation to the speech that he is about to make—that if that influence cannot be effective, it is worthless.

I have considered the evidence that has accumulated over the past 40 years since we came into the European Union. I wished you a happy new year earlier, Mr Speaker, but we must also remember that it is the 40th anniversary of our accession to the European Union, through the European Communities Act 1972. This is a time for serious reflection. It is a time not only for mere reform but for a fundamental change in the relationship. There is a disconnect between the legislation that is going through the House, in relation to the implementation of sections 2 and 3 of the Act, and what is being offered to the British people in manifestos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The European Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation. Nevertheless, it does not have the sole right to agree legislation; the initiatives the Commission formulates are the result of discussions in the European Parliament, and increasingly in the Council of Ministers. When we talk about democracy inside the European Union, it is important to recognise that this Parliament has a pivotal role. If anything has clearly come out of the debate, it is the fact that this Parliament does not take European legislation and formulation as seriously as it ought to do.

[Mark Hendrick]

Is it not the case that the European Commission is made up of Commissioners directly appointed by democratically elected Governments and they are interviewed by Members of the European Parliament before their appointment? Members of the European Parliament are directly elected as well.

[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—

Israel and Palestine

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On 29 November, the United Nations General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine’s status to non-member observer. The Assembly voted 138 to 9 in favour, with 41 nations abstaining, including the UK. The USA supported Israel and voted against upgrading Palestine’s UN status.

The vote should be welcomed as a symbolic milestone in Palestine’s ambition for statehood, rather than as “unfortunate and counter-productive”, as the US Secretary of State has chosen to describe it. Enhanced UN status brings Palestine closer to the international community, its organisations and values. The Palestinians can now take part in UN debates and potentially join bodies such as the International Criminal Court.

By abstaining in the vote, Britain has made itself less relevant to meaningful engagement in the search for peace. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) warned the Foreign Secretary before the vote:

“Abstention tomorrow would be an abdication of Britain’s responsibilities.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 231.]

The UK did not stand on the side of progress but instead chose the politically expedient option. I would be interested to know what the Minister believes was achieved by the UK abstaining from the vote and how that strengthens the goal of a two-state solution.

In response to the vote, Israel announced on 30 November that it will build 3,000 new housing units in the west bank and East Jerusalem and withhold more than £75 million in customs duties. Israel’s response to the perfectly legal move of upgrading Palestine’s UN status is an illegal move to try and ruin a two-state solution and withhold Palestinian money. The proposed housing units would be built in the Ariel, Elkana, Efrat and Karnei Shomron settlements in the west bank, and in the settlements of Pisgat Ze’ev and Gilo in occupied East Jerusalem, according to the Ministry of Housing and Construction. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, if implemented the plans would make the two-state solution “almost inconceivable”, because in effect they would largely cut off occupied East Jerusalem from the rest of the occupied territories.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It might come as no surprise that I have a slightly different opinion. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that if there is to be peace in the middle east between Palestine and Israel, recognition of the state of Israel has to come first?

[Mark Hendrick]

Yes, I do. It is important that Hamas recognises Israel and that Israel is there to stay.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is not just Hamas. In August 2010, the Palestinian Authority’s Minister for Tourism said that the Palestinian goal was to bring about an end to Israel, so senior members of the PA also need to come clean and recognise the state of Israel’s right to exist, do they not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to one member, not members, of the PA, and it is not the majority view among Palestinians. The majority view is that Israel should exist alongside them, and a two-state solution is what most people would want in Israel and Palestine.

The negative impacts of the E1 plan on the prospects of a viable and independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, cannot be overestimated. If fully implemented, E1 would deny East Jerusalem its last remaining area for future growth and economic development. In addition, the location of E1 and its massive size would assure Israeli control over the key junction area connecting the northern part of the west bank to the south.

Israeli ambassadors to the UK, France, Sweden, Spain and Denmark were summoned to hear condemnation of the plans, but no further action has been taken, unless the Minister can give me an update.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it should not be a surprise that the E1 development is going ahead, given that all the infrastructure was in place for quite a while and that this announcement comes on the back of all the roads and other infrastructure that already exists in that area, which is problematic in itself?

[Mark Hendrick]

The fact is that that infrastructure should not be in place and that Israeli settlements should not be on Palestinian land—full stop. To say that it is a result of previous illegal development, and that there should therefore be future development, is illogical.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Hendrick]

I shall give way one final time.

[Bob Blackman]

I think the key issue of settlements is one of the concerns. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that Israel has habitually given land for peace in a series of settlement destructions to enable a peaceful solution to take place, and that the biggest obstruction to peace is the failure of the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate with the Israeli Government on a proper peaceful solution for the whole region?

[Mark Hendrick]

The hon. Gentleman talks about giving land for peace, but the land Israel has given did not belong to it in the first place. The only land of any size that has been given is Gaza, but the Israelis have made it plain that they do not want Gaza; they want as much of the west bank as they can take. While the building of settlements by stealth is going on, Israel claims to want peace but in the meantime does everything it can to build these settlements, which we know will be an obstacle to peace.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Hendrick]

I will not, because I want the Minister to have time to respond and I still have quite a bit to say.

Despite vigorous efforts to win over European countries, only the Czech Republic supported Israel on 29 November. The move signals a widening gulf, not just between Israel and Europe but between Europe and the United States. Israel’s response might well be a bluff, given that bellicose rhetoric will play well with the settlement wing of Likud ahead of the elections on the 22 January. It has been reported that President Obama secured a commitment from Israel not to construct any units in E1 back in May 2009. However, whether or not this announcement is sabre rattling, it remains another chapter in an intractable dispute that is at the heart of geopolitical instability in the region. It is also a further clear sign that Israel is not committed to securing a two-state solution. Israel is continually changing the facts on the ground, which is an obstacle to peace, and at the same time blames the Palestinians for not entering into talks.

Let us remember that settlements are not residential enclaves, but virtual military barracks—fortified castles that separate Palestinians from their schools, places of business and extended communities. They threaten the safety of Palestinians who venture near, consume the lion’s share of the region’s water and prevent normal movement of people and goods. The result is ethnic segregation and discrimination, with Palestinians treated as second-class citizens in the occupied territories that belong to them. There are also more than 1.25 million forgotten non-Jewish citizens of Israel—principally Muslims and Christians—who are treated as third-class citizens. Indeed, both Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela have compared Israel’s segregation of Palestine to apartheid.

[Michael Ellis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Hendrick]

I will not, because I have very little time.

[Michael Ellis]

Just me.

[Mark Hendrick]

Everybody says that, but then there are lots of people.

According to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Israeli settlers in the west bank consume approximately six times the water used by Palestinians. There has been a threefold increase in the number of settler housing units in 2012 compared with 2011. The settler population was estimated at more than 520,000 last year. When I first visited Palestine in 2002 the population was 50,000, so there has been a tenfold increase. The UN also estimates that there are around 540 internal checkpoints, roadblocks and other physical obstacles that impede Palestinian movement in the west bank. The demolition of Palestinian structures is on the rise, displacing more than 1,000 people in 2011. The Palestinian economy is also severely constrained by Israeli restrictions on access to markets and natural resources. The annual cost of this has been estimated at €5.2 billion, or 85% of total Palestinian GDP, which has led to the Palestinian Authority being dependent on large amounts of funds from the EU and other foreign donors. Between 1994 and 2011, the EU gave €5 billion to Palestine. However, the impact of Israel’s paralysing constraints on Palestinian access to markets and resources is too great to be covered by aid alone. The PA currently faces an acute budget crisis.

The real tragedy of this tit-for-tat conflict is the human collateral. The continued loss of lives on both sides is truly appalling. I am concerned that inertia has set in and that the international community has become an observer of a tragedy that is regularly broadcast across the world, with hope of finding a viable resolution lost. Last month Israel launched a major offensive on Gaza —Operation Pillar of Defence, so-called—killing the military commander of Hamas in an air strike. After continuous bombardment, a ceasefire was negotiated between the two sides. The UN confirmed that 158 Palestinians and six Israelis were killed. The fatalities included a pregnant woman carrying twins, an 11-month-old boy and two infants. The reality of these statistics on the ground is truly appalling. The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported:

“On 4 November, Israeli forces stationed in an observatory tower shot and killed a 23 year-old mentally-challenged Palestinian…It was not until two hours later, following coordination with the Israeli military, that a Palestinian ambulance was permitted to reach the area”.

The fact remains that this is an uneven conflict. Some 1,377 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza war from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, while 13 Israelis died in the same period. More recently, statistics from the OCHA for casualties and fatalities prior to 6 November show that 71 Palestinians were killed by Israel in the Gaza strip in 2012, with 291 injured. In the same period, 19 Israelis were injured by Palestinian fire from Gaza and none were killed.

I call on the Minister to press the European Union and the Israelis to secure an end to the siege of Gaza. Even our Prime Minister once described Gaza as a prison, so it is incumbent on our Government to demand the freedom of the prisoners who are being subjected to collective punishment because of the sins of a minority. When I questioned the Foreign Secretary on a statement last month, he refused to comment on what he regarded as proportionate. I can only take from that the embarrassment that he might feel if he tried to explain away Israel’s grossly disproportionate response to terrorist rockets fired from Gaza.

I should like briefly to talk about the Quartet’s road map for peace, which was first announced in 2002. My first visit to Israel and Palestine was in 2002, when the road map was a source of hope for peace. At that time there were 50,000 settlers in the Palestine territories; there are now more than 500,000, and peace seems much further away. Ten foreign ministers of the European Union’s Mediterranean states—Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia—sent an open letter to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in 2007, in which they stated unequivocally and without any diplomatic nuance that they believed the road map had failed. The letter stated:

“We might as well admit it straight away”.

It went on to say that this was

“the recognition of a shared failure we can no longer ignore: the ‘road map’ has failed.”

It is clear that there is no credible plan on the table to achieve a two-state solution or peace, and I believe that the UK has a responsibility to work with our European partners to create a credible plan and to use all the instruments at our disposal to bring pressure to bear on Israel. The settlements are illegal under international law, specifically article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention and United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the overwhelming majority of states share this view. Israel controls the borders, airspace and coastline and has overwhelming control of life in the area.

The establishment of settlements has created a discriminatory two-tier system in the west bank, with settlers enjoying the rights and benefits of Israeli citizenship while the Palestinians are subjected to Israeli military law. This year, I had an opportunity to visit a prison in the west bank, where I observed children as young as 14 being tried by a military court for throwing stones at an Israeli defence force vehicle. One of the children received a two-year prison sentence from military officers who should not have been in a court in Palestine; indeed, that court should not have been on Palestinian land in the west bank.

In a recent report, the former EU Commissioner for External Relations, Hans van den Broek, gives evidence of how EU member states have helped to sustain the Israeli settlements. He stated:

“As settlement construction has continued and accelerated, however, we Europeans have failed to move from words to action. So far we have refrained from deploying our considerable political and economic leverage”.

Will the Minister tell us what the UK Government are doing to apply pressure on Israel to cease settlement building, either bilaterally or multilaterally through the European Union? The Foreign Secretary has made it plain that it is impossible for an EU of 27 countries unanimously to agree to economic sanctions against Israel, but he has yet to say whether he would be in favour of sanctions against Israel in principle if agreement on sanctions could be found across the EU at some stage in the future. I invite the Minister to comment on that point.

The most recent estimate of the value of EU imports from the settlements, provided by the Israeli Government to the World Bank, is €230 million a year. That is approximately 15 times the annual value of EU imports from Palestinians. With more than 4 million Palestinians and over 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the occupied territory, that means that the EU imports over 100 times more per settler than per Palestinian. The most common settlement products sold in Europe are agricultural products such as dates, citrus fruits and herbs, and manufactured products including cosmetics, carbonation devices, plastics, textile products and toys. Despite its firm position that the settlements are not part of Israel, Europe has been accepting imports of those settlements’ products with the origin designated as Israel. I believe that the UK Government should lobby the EU member states to adopt our own policy of consumer labelling for all settlement products and also for manufactured goods. Beyond the trade in settlement goods, some European-owned companies have invested in settlements and related infrastructure or are providing services to them. Examples that have been reported include G4S.

Adding to the contradictions at the heart of the EU’s policy towards Israel’s illegal settlements, the EU has failed fully to exclude settlements from the benefits of its co-operation programmes and bilateral agreements with Israel. In several cases, EU public funds for research and development have been used directly to support activities in settlements. The newly ratified EU-Israel agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products is an example of the EU’s failure to insist on a firm distinction between Israel and the illegal settlements. The Government need to raise this with the European Commission. At the heart of the UK’s policy towards Israel is the contradiction between recognising that the settlements are illegal, running counter to achieving a two-state solution, and our continuing to trade with the region through the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the House any updates on recent developments in the political situation in Israel and Palestine.

I also want to press the Minister to assure me that his Department will consider the following proposals for action against inertia: the suspension of appropriate strategic dialogue meetings with Israel to show that the UK is prepared to act in opposition to Israel’s settlement policy; the use of Government advice to discourage businesses from purchasing settlement goods and from all other commercial and investment links with settlements; a ban on the imports of settlement products, as called for by Ireland; the championing of the exclusion of all settlement products in the EU and European Free Trade Association from preferential market access by insisting that Israel starts designating the origin of settlement products other than by “Israel”; the exclusion of settlements from bilateral agreements and co-operation instruments with Israel by means of explicit legal provisions and safeguards; the removal of organisations’ funding settlements from tax deduction systems, as happens in Norway; the prevention of financial transactions to settlements and related activities by means of applying restrictive measures as a more comprehensive approach; the issuing of guidelines for European tour operators to prevent support for settlement businesses; and no longer selling UK-supplied components that can be used in the conflict.

As I have said, there is tragic complacency in the international community and the UK about the latest developments in the Palestine-Israel conflict and an observable lack of commitment from the key players towards securing a two-state solution. I believe that the UK has an important role to play and we should not underestimate our influence, particularly in Europe, in leveraging more political and, more important, economic pressure on Israel. That will require moral and political leadership and action, but we should not shy away from that and I urge the Minister to use his office to promote peace in the region by pushing for a two-state solution.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) on securing this important debate and apologise on behalf of my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has responsibility for the middle east and is, I am afraid, out of the country on Foreign Office business.

Right at the beginning of my speech, I want to contradict the hon. Gentleman’s view that there is complacency at the heart of the international community and in the UK Government. I can assure him that there is no complacency at all. Indeed, the UK worked intensively to support Egypt and the United States in facilitating the negotiations to stop the conflict. The UK is continuing to provide international development support both to the Palestinian Authority and in Gaza, where it is providing health and social services to the population. That help is available for as long as it is required.

I also want to make it clear that the settlements that the Israelis have built and are proposing are condemned by us. Settlements are illegal under international law and undermine the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and those working for a sustainable peace. We look to Israel to take all necessary steps to prevent settlement construction.

The Government’s central objective is to ensure a rapid return to credible negotiations in order finally to achieve a two-state solution, which I believe all Members of this House want to see, irrespective of which side of the debate they are on. That has been and will continue to be the guiding principle that determines our policy on this issue. We firmly support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees. That is the only way to secure a sustainable end to the conflict and it has wide support in this House and across the international community. We strongly believe that achieving such a solution is firmly in the interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians and the wider region.

I have to acknowledge, however, that we are gravely concerned about the dangerous impasse in the peace process, particularly over the last two years. We believe that the window to a two-state solution is rapidly closing. That is why we took the stance we did on the Palestinian resolution at the UN General Assembly, which was guided by the principle of how to create the right environment for a swift return to talks and the strongest possible foundations for the peace process.

In support of that principle and objective, we sought a commitment from the Palestinian leadership immediately to return to negotiations—without preconditions. This was the essential answer to the charge that by moving the resolution, the Palestinians were taking a path away from negotiations. We also sought a reassurance from the Palestinian leadership that it would not immediately pursue action in the UN agencies and the International Criminal Court. Our country, the UK, is a strong supporter of international justice and the International Criminal Court, and we would ultimately like to see a Palestinian state represented throughout all the organs of the United Nations. However, we judge that if the Palestinians were to build on this resolution by pursuing ICC jurisdiction over the occupied territories at this stage, it could make virtually impossible a swift return to negotiations, which is what we all want to see.

[Mark Hendrick]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. First, what is the point of upgrading Palestine’s status if it does not get the benefits of an upgrade? Secondly, if settlements continue as they are, it is unlikely that there will ever be meaningful discussions. Thirdly—I have forgotten the third point.

[Mark Simmonds]

As this is the hon. Gentleman’s debate, I will allow him to intervene again if he remembers his third point.

I understand the points he made. What we have to do is to look forward to try to bring together all the respective parties that are interested in trying to find a satisfactory two-state solution. As part of that, a Palestinian state will, I hope, be a full member of the United Nations at some point in the future.

[Mark Hendrick]

My third point is that a peace process has been mentioned, but there is not really a peace process to speak of at the moment. All we had were meetings convened by the Egyptians to try to stop the conflict in Gaza. We would all like to see a peace process continue and the Minister agrees with me about a two-state solution, but there is just nothing happening on the ground.

[Mark Simmonds]

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come on, time permitting, to exactly what we are doing to try to stimulate, encourage and facilitate the peace process and get it back on track. It is not true, however, to say that nothing is happening. There are, for example, ongoing talks chaired by the Egyptians between the Palestinians and the Israelis, albeit not directly as the two sides are in separate rooms. The two key elements coming out of that are, first, the need for Israel to ease the restrictions on Gaza, particularly so that economic activity can take place; and, secondly, the need for Egypt to tackle the arms smuggling into the Sinai, which is Israel’s main concern about the rockets that are going into it.

We engaged intensively with the Palestinians before the vote in the General Assembly, and in advance of it we urged Israel to avoid reacting in a way that would undermine the peace process and to return to the negotiations. We made it absolutely clear that we would not support a reaction that sidelined President Abbas or risked the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. We have made it very clear to the Israeli Government that their decision to build 3,000 new housing units on the west bank and in East Jerusalem, to unfreeze the development of the area known as E1 on the west bank and to withhold tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority is not acceptable. The settlements plan in particular has the potential to alter the situation on the ground on a scale that threatens the viability of a two-state solution.

Middle East

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. It is very important to prevent wider proliferation in the middle east and for Iran’s nuclear programme to be solely for peaceful purposes. That is the purpose of the negotiations that we are engaged in, as well as the sanctions that we are applying to Iran. My hon. Friend reinforces the importance of this very well.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his response to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Foreign Secretary declined to say what he felt was proportionate. When an organisation such as Hamas gets international sympathy and support, and unprecedented support in the region, does he not think Israel’s approach is a mistake, and if so, is he willing to say so?

[Mr Hague]

I have made very clear my views about a ground incursion, but I have also said many times that Israel is making a mistake through settlement building, through not easing access into Gaza and through not, so far, making a more decisively advantageous proposition to the Palestinians about a two-state solution than it has made in recent years. So we are very clear about all of that and very clear about mistakes that have been made. Now we have to bring an end to the mistakes and make progress on a two-state solution before it is too late.

Middle East and North Africa

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a very high priority for the Department for International Development in all the work that it does, and it is an important priority in our Arab Partnership fund. I listed earlier some of the projects that we are undertaking: for instance, to train and assist female candidates for election in Egypt. Of course, we cannot ensure that such things happen in those countries—we are not a sovereign power—but we can transmit the right signals and encouragement all the time, and we do so. The Prime Minister very much did that in his meeting with national transitional council members in Tripoli a few weeks ago. I will be visiting Libya and many other north African countries shortly, and I will return to that subject constantly.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would not a successful resolution on UN membership for Palestine strengthen the hand of Fatah, whereas at the moment, with the prisoner exchange, Hamas is looking as though it is more successful than Fatah?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has an important point. It is true that how we act at the United Nations and how we promote negotiations must support the work of the moderate leaders of the Palestinians. I do not think that Israel is going to have better partners than President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for reaching peace and a two-state solution. That is why we should not be dismissive of their efforts and what they have brought to the United Nations, with President Abbas’s speech on 23 September. It nevertheless remains the case that a return to negotiations is the only way to bring about what we want. The simple passing of resolutions, if passed in a form that makes the situation worse in some ways—the US Congress has threatened to cut off funding and the Israeli Government have threatened to withhold tax revenues under certain scenarios—would not bring about that negotiated solution. That remains our paramount interest in our approach to these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is certainly no tiptoeing here. Our involvement in Afghanistan will remain very, very strong over the coming years—both the military effort over the next few years and our long-term commitment to Afghanistan through economic co-operation, development aid, governmental expertise and so on. My hon. Friend refers to local governance and devolved decision making, which are important issues in Afghanistan and must be considered as part of the whole debate on reconciliation by the High Peace Council and in meetings between the Afghan and Pakistani Governments as they discuss the matter. Ultimately, that is for them to determine.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps he is taking to maintain a close bilateral relationship with China.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

Across government we have regular visits and exchanges with the Chinese authorities at ministerial and official level. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hosted Premier Wen of China for the annual UK-China summit on 27 June. In line with our commitment to boost exports and inward investment, the summit announced £1.4 billion-worth of trade deals.

[Mark Hendrick]

As the Minister has just mentioned, £1.4 billion-worth of trade deals were signed between China and the UK. After his visit to the UK, Premier Wen went to Germany and signed deals worth £9 billion, which is six and a half times the value of the deals signed with the UK. There were 13 Chinese Ministers in Berlin signing deals with 10 German Ministers. The Economist described the UK visit as a “sideshow” compared with the German visit. What are the Government doing to make sure that the UK does not play second fiddle to the Germans when it comes to economic partnership with China?

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the attention and effort he affords to China, because I share his objective that British society and British politics as a whole should engage with China at a much higher level. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary announced only a few weeks ago that as part of our network shift we will put an additional 50 staff into China to ensure that Britain plays an increasingly large role in what is now the world’s second largest economy.

European Union Bill

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, the Labour party will be asked before future general elections what its approach would be. It will be asked to give the commitment to maintain the referendum lock; otherwise people will know that it would propose in office to do exactly what it has done before—give away the rights and powers of the British people without the consent of the British people. If the Labour party wants to go into a general election on that basis, let it do so, but it would be wiser for it to adopt this framework for the future.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will give way, but I want to make some more progress and get through my speech, as well as taking interventions.

The second way in which power will be transferred from Britain to Brussels, as defined for the purposes of the Bill, will be by granting an EU institution or body, through treaty change, a new ability to impose further obligations or sanctions on the United Kingdom or on individuals and organisations within the United Kingdom.

That point has been the subject of some debate, although some of that has been based on scant acquaintance with the content of the Bill. It has wrongly been claimed that Ministers will be able to use a significance test on any future treaty change. That is not true. The Bill places an absolute and unqualified referendum requirement on the transfer of competence, the creation of new competence, or the removal of limits to existing competences and upon a whole raft of vetoes. The Bill also provides that the consent of the British people will be required if the Government wish to agree to certain other specific decisions—for example, joining the euro, joining a common European army, or joining the group of countries that have shared border controls.

If the only reason for a proposed treaty amendment being caught by the referendum lock is that it would, while not transferring or extending competence, confer upon the EU the ability to impose new obligations or sanctions on this country, we need to be able to distinguish between important and minor changes. We are providing a workable, sustainable solution to prevent referendums being held on matters that we could not justify to the public as having the significance to merit a referendum.

[Mark Hendrick]

The right hon. Gentleman is making it plain in his remarks that the Bill is not aimed at the current Government; it is aimed at a possible future Labour Government. He says that he would not trust a future Labour Government, but does he trust his current partners? He has described the Liberal Democrats as wanting to go all the way towards a united states of Europe, so what is his position? Does he trust them, or does he trust us?

[Mr Hague]

The Bill is aimed at all Governments, including our own, any future Governments and any combinations of Government. Yes, we have new partners in government and, on the basis of the past seven months, I trust them a great deal more than I would trust the Government we had before the election. Let the hon. Gentleman be absolutely clear about that.

On how the Bill works and ministerial accountability for decisions on whether to hold a referendum, a Minister of the Crown will be required to make a statement within two months of a treaty change being agreed by member state Governments. That ministerial statement will have to give reasons why the treaty change does or does not require a referendum, and those reasons will have to refer to the criteria set out in clause 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been quite dismayed by some of the contributions to the debate, from both Government Members and Opposition Members. It is well known that the Bill is supposed to be red meat for some of the Eurosceptics on the Conservative Benches, many of whom have wanted referendums in the past. I remember them asking for a referendum on the Nice treaty, then on the constitution and then on Lisbon.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Surely it should be blue meat, not red meat.

[Mark Hendrick]

Depends how much blood is on it, I think.

The modern Conservative party has become a surrogate for the old Referendum party. It is quite fortuitous that my speech was preceded by that of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the son of Sir James Goldsmith, who served with me in the European Parliament. I remember the damage that the Referendum party did to the Conservative party up and down the country, and it is interesting to see that Sir James’s son now sits on the Conservative Benches.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The Conservative party did a lot of damage to itself in the 1997 election, because it lost the trust and confidence of the people. The Referendum party was merely trying to fill that gap, and I am very proud to be the son of the man who launched it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very proud, and I am sure that Opposition Members are very proud to have him in their ranks, but unfortunately for them, the UK Independence party has taken the Referendum party’s place and is pushing the agenda even further to the right. It is even more vehemently anti-European than the Referendum party.

[Kate Hoey]

Why do my hon. Friend and other Members keep referring to Euro-realists and Eurosceptics who want to see a real debate and a referendum as somehow being on the right? Does he not accept that many members of the Labour party, many Labour MPs and many Labour-supporting people in the country think that what is going on in Europe is wrong?

[Mark Hendrick]

I thank my hon. Friend, but in my opening remarks I referred to the opinions of some Members on my side of the House, and of course she is among them. I do not think that the mainstream of the Labour party is particularly against referendums. We offered a referendum on the euro should the five tests for entry into the single European currency have been met, and we offered a referendum on the European constitution, which, as Members know, was dropped because of the referendums in France and Holland. A new treaty came forward, for which we had committed to no referendum, which was why there was no referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

The Bill is not about democracy or a referendum. For many Conservative Members it is not about any future competences of the European Union; it is about getting out of the European Union altogether. I am sure that it was introduced to try to satisfy some of the Conservative Eurosceptics, but as we have seen from today’s debate, it goes nowhere near far enough to do that.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman consider that one of the main reasons why the Bill is before the House is that his party failed to deliver on its promise to provide a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

[Mark Hendrick]

No, we failed to provide a referendum on the European constitution. As Members know, the constitution fell because of referendums in France and Holland. What came afterwards was a constitutional treaty, namely the Lisbon treaty, on which no referendum was ever promised.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Hendrick]

Yes, but for the last time, because everybody is taking up my time.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there should have been a referendum on that constitution?

[Mark Hendrick]

No, I do not. The party view was that there should have been one had the constitution been put to the House, but it was not the constitution that came to the House; it was the Lisbon treaty. That is quite clear.

The referendums provided for in the Bill are not about voting on any specific competences that might go to the EU, they are cover for showing general dissatisfaction with the EU per se. They are the thin end of a very thick wedge, moving us towards withdrawal from the EU. The Bill is a sop to the Eurosceptics, in the same way as bringing the Conservatives out of the European People’s party in the European Parliament was a sop to them. The Government promised a Bill to protect sovereignty, but it does not do that. It does not change the position between this country and the EU at all.

Problems arise from the fact that this is a coalition Bill and the Liberal Democrats cannot be seen to have had no influence on it. It is noticeable that there are no Liberal Democrats in their places as I speak, whereas the Conservative and Labour Benches are quite well populated. They say that they are a more pro-European party, yet for some reason they are in with the Conservatives on this Bill and are looking more like a referendum party than a pro-European party. In Cheltenham last year, the Foreign Secretary talked about the Liberal Democrats being on a road to a united states of Europe, but it is clear from the Bill that they are on no such road.

The Conservatives do not want a sovereignty Bill, which is why the Bill has become a joke. Clause 18 does not protect sovereignty in the way that the Conservatives promised at the general election. All it does is protect the status quo, which I will discuss in more detail later. For what it is worth, the Bill is aimed at Ministers, although not Ministers of this Government, or presumably of a possible future Conservative Government. It is aimed at tying the hands of a future Government of some other political hue who may wish to accept that decisions made by an EU of at least 27 member states may be of benefit to the UK.

Irrespective of the merits of the changes to a treaty, a future Government would be forced to get legislation through both Houses of Parliament before putting it to the country as a whole in a referendum. The clear intention is that any further movement of powers to the EU is stamped on.

We already know that there are referendums to elect mayors, and that processes are being introduced for electing police commissioners. All that is happening while this country is undergoing an age of austerity and billions of pounds of cuts are to be introduced in the coming years. Incurring extra expenditure in the future on the useless referendums set out in the Bill would be ludicrous. A treaty change may make perfect sense even to a Conservative Government, but they would be forced to get legislation through both Houses and put the matter to the country.

In a fast-changing world, we need the EU to take coherent, decisive action, but the Bill will act as an impediment to, and create inertia in, decision making. The Bill should have been called the “EU Inertia Bill” or the “EU Foot-dragging Bill”—it is for Conservatives who have not forgiven the previous Conservative Government for the Maastricht treaty and those who still blame Ted Heath for Britain joining the European venture in the first place.

Before the election, the Prime Minister, who only last week described himself as the son of Thatcher, said:

“If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations”,

but of the 1975 referendum on membership, Margaret Thatcher said that referendums

“sacrifice parliamentary sovereignty to political expediency”.

He is hardly the son of Thatcher, is he?

Let me get to the nub of the issue. Traditionally, the Conservative party is not just economically and socially conservative; it also seeks to conserve existing British institutions—the monarchy, the House of Lords, the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty, MPs as representatives rather than delegates, and no written constitution. While in government, the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Macmillan and Baldwin has never offered the public a referendum. Given this Bill and the proposed alternative vote referendum, the Conservatives seem to offer referendums only on proposals that they want the public to reject.

Instead of simply stating general principles on offering referendums, the coalition has gone through the treaties line by line and set out a mish-mash of issues on which a referendum will be called, and gives a shorter list of issues on which one will not be called. That approach is not only unnecessarily complicated, but it gives the impression that the Government cannot be trusted to exercise their judgment on whether there should be a referendum on individual decisions and treaty changes.

Under the Bill, the extension of the ordinary procedure on environment policy will require a referendum, but as other hon. Members have said, the accession of Turkey to the EU will not. Which will have the greater impact on the UK? Angela Merkel’s proposals on the eurozone would not be subject to a referendum because the provisions do not apply to the UK. That assumes that because the UK is outside the eurozone, events within it do not affect the UK. We may not be signatories to the stability and growth pact, but the pact and the stability of the eurozone doubtless have an influence on the stability of the UK economy.

The Bill is bad law and dubious politics. It is an act of posturing by the coalition. The Government are trying to satisfy Eurosceptic Tory Back Benchers, but achieve neither of the objectives that they set out to achieve. The Lib Dems are a fig leaf to hide the Conservative’s embarrassment at Britain’s membership of the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot of interest and little time, so I need short questions and short answers.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the multilateral surveillance procedures for EU budgets, which apply to all member states, whether they are in the euro or not. Is he aware of Com. (2010)526, which makes it plain that we have to provide more financial information to the European Union, whether we are in the eurozone or not?

[Mr Lidington]

When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took part in the taskforce, he ensured that we would not need to supply anything to the European Commission that had not been given to Parliament first or that the Commission would be unable to find through the intelligent use of Google. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has anything to be afraid of.