Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We do not approve of the collective punishment strategy and make our views on that very well known on every possible occasion. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an analysis of the impact on the Palestinian media, but I can see exactly where he is coming from. We will continue robustly to oppose policies of collective punishment.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the vote by the House on 13 October 2014 on recognising Palestine as a state alongside Israel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

This weekend marks 67 years since the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which recommended a two-state solution, and it has been 21 years since the Oslo peace accords, so it is no wonder that Parliaments and citizens around the world are calling for debates and for leadership in implementing plans that were devised and agreed decades ago. However, British recognition of Palestine must be not just symbolic but strategic and used in the wider context of securing that solution.

[Michael Connarty]

I think I half-thank the Minister for that answer, because really he has not done anything, and nor have this Government, to recognise what Parliament has said. By 274 votes to 12 we called for recognition. Some 40% of Labour Friends of Israel voted for that recognition, as did 40 Conservative Members of Parliament. What will it take to get this Government to stand up, do the right thing, get out from under the shadow of the USA and speak for the UK Parliament?

[Mr Ellwood]

Well, I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the right thing. We can only use this card once, and we need to use it sensibly. We need to bring parties back to the table. This Government share Parliament’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state but as a contribution to a negotiated two-state solution. We are in the process of getting people back around the table. That is what John Kerry is committed to, and that is what should happen next.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

A successful TTIP deal would indeed provide great opportunities for the United Kingdom’s very successful automotive industry, which has hit records in both production and exports during the lifetime of this Government. It would also benefit other areas of this country, most notably Scotland.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Minister is trying to catch me out by mentioning Scotland, but he knows that there are major concerns in three areas about the TTIP between the EU and the US. One is food safety, with the use of hormones in the US, which may be forced into Europe. Secondly, there is the problem with the threat to public services and privatisation of the service. The third area of concern is dispute settlement in other agreements, which allows tobacco companies to take countries such as Australia to court for introducing packaging which shows people the damage caused by smoking tobacco. Will the Minister give me an assurance that we will not sign up to these three items without bringing them before the House for agreement?

[Mr Lidington]

As regards food safety, clearly we should be guided at all times by rigorous scientific analysis of what the risks amount to. On investor-state dispute settlements, the United Kingdom is already party to more than 90 of these, and the TTIP would provide explicit protection for the right to regulate, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s fears would be realised.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

While my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Christchurch are in the House, I can be confident that legislation will be properly scrutinised. Without their services, I cannot always be so confident, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for the work they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is absolutely right about the Fundamental Rights Agency, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear where the Government stand on this issue. Bizarrely, we face enacting something and, in doing so, supporting a wholly unnecessary agency. It is unnecessary because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it does the work that the Council of Europe already does. We are already signed up to the European convention on human rights, which is bad enough—if I had my way, we would not be signed up to that—but now it appears that the Government want us to have an EU version of exactly the same thing.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I rise to speak because I am shocked by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The European convention on human rights came about at the initiative of the British Government in the beginning; it was done to bring people together to find ways of applying common standards across the whole of Europe in order to prevent what had happened leading up to the catastrophe of the second world war. Surely he is not saying that he thinks the UK would have been better off not having taken that initiative and that Europe should remain a place of conflict where people do not agree on what human rights everyone deserves in Europe.

[Philip Davies]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a pride in living in the past, and that is fine and dandy, but of course he was talking about what the convention was set up to do in the first place, many years ago, whereas I am talking about the present. I am sure that he did not envisage our having to have ridiculous things such a votes for prisoners as a result of our membership of the European convention on human rights. I do not want to get sidetracked on to something that is not, strictly speaking, dealt with in this group of amendments, Mr Evans. The hon. Gentleman was tempting me down a path that I fear you might have intervened on had I pursued it any further. My point is that whether we are in the convention rightly or wrongly, we are in it and so it is utterly pointless to have the agency trying to mimic what is already being done there.

My second point relates to the agency’s desirability. Even if it was not pointless, it would certainly be undesirable. Let me give hon. Members an example of the types of issues the agency is trying to interfere in. It had a speaker on a panel discussing:

“Guaranteeing access to healthcare for undocumented migrants in Europe”.

We now have a new term—undocumented migrants. I think my constituents know them as illegal immigrants, but in the politically correct-speak of the EU they are undocumented migrants these days. Of course what the agency is trying to do is encourage all these illegal immigrants to access health care in countries such as the UK. My constituents are sick to the back teeth of the national health service being used by illegal immigrants and rather prefer these people to go back to the country that they should be in to access the health care in the country they come from. I hope that the Minister will address the following question: are the Government really using taxpayers’ money to fund an agency within the European Union that is actively encouraging people from within the EU illegally—this discussion was on illegal immigrants—to access this country and use the services provided for people in this country? It would be a ridiculous state of affairs if it was the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government to use taxpayers’ money to fund an agency to give out that kind of advice. If the Government’s policy is that they do not like this particular organisation and do not approve of what is it doing, what on earth are we doing with this Bill? Why are we being encouraged, in effect, to allow taxpayers’ money to be spent this agency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely right. We certainly need no lectures from other countries in the EU about how to protect people’s freedoms; this country has a far better track record than member states of the EU will ever have. I suspect that the Minister will be trying to defend the indefensible, but it is a sad state of affairs when it appears that we in this House are powerless to do anything about these sorts of bureaucracies. We all know what happens with these types of bureaucracies: they grow and grow, and they empire build. They will grow their influence and they will try to do things that they are not supposed to do—things they were not set up to do. They will grow the number of staff and grow their budget, and it appears from what I have heard so far that we are utterly powerless to do anything about it. If the Minister can give me some comfort that we can and will do something about it, fair enough, but it seems to me that either the Government approve of all this nonsense, which would be a terrible state of affairs, or we are powerless to do anything about it, which in my view is equally unacceptable. I look forward to the Minister explaining which it is, but whichever it is, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right to draw the matter to the attention of the Committee and to pursue his amendment, which I support with gusto.

[Michael Connarty]

I rise because I am quite exasperated by speeches of the kind made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). If I really believed that the people of Shipley did not want to have human rights and participation in a convention that tries to guarantee for people across the wider Europe the same human rights that we—as he said, proudly—think we have in our own country, I would be shocked, but I believe that the people of Shipley deserve better. They deserve to hear an explanation of what this is about.

As a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I hear these issues debated at every quarterly session and, I hope, participate with colleagues from both sides of the House to try to point out to many countries that are not in the EU that they are not giving human rights in the right quantity to their citizens, but this is about saying that the EU will have an organisation that will also monitor those things. Some might say, “If you have it in the Council of Europe, why require it in the EU?” The reality is that unless a body has economic and legal might, such as exist in the EU, many decisions, such as those taken by the Council of Europe, do not, I am afraid, carry much weight.

There are thousands of cases against countries in the Council of Europe, which have been found in the Court of Human Rights to be in breach but which are not acted upon by the countries covered by it. There are many cases raised by Conservative Members of countries within the EU where there is a requirement for some muscle to be applied so that people cannot be locked up without trial. One case raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who sadly is not in his place, relates to Malta—our own constituents locked up in other countries.

The point of introducing the change that has been made in the EU is to allow the EU to start to participate in that activity—a role that I believe will be parallel to and supportive of what is happening in the Council of Europe and what is debated in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

[Philip Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the nonsense of this country being lectured about fundamental rights and human rights by an organisation such as the EU, which has as the initiator of all its legislation an unelected European Commission? Surely one of the most basic rights is being able to elect people who make all the decisions. The EU has not even got that far.

[Michael Connarty]

I hope that the people of Shipley are not believing the mythical nonsense that has just been spoken. I have sat on the House’s European Scrutiny Committee since 1998, and the reality is that the European Commission can initiate proposals for legislation, but legislation cannot be agreed in the EU unless it is passed by the European Council, and we are one of 27 countries that take those decisions. A number of people do not like the fact that many of those decisions are now taken by qualified majority voting and there is no veto—I know that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is keen on the return of the veto on everything—but that is the decision that was taken by the House through the Lisbon treaty and, before that, through many other treaties. We have participation in a Council that makes the legislation, not the Commission.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem of the European Court of Human Rights is sheer delay? It has a backlog of 150,000 cases and a five-year delay, on average, before a case is heard. That is unacceptable.

[Michael Connarty]

That is entirely unacceptable. I believe that that point is regularly made in the Parliamentary Assembly by Members from both sides of the House. We have been pressing to change that, so that many cases that are queuing up at the Court of Human Rights, which clearly do not have any chance of being judged positively in that Court, can be dealt with in another manner. Perhaps some of them will not come to the Court—

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Michael Connarty]

No, I do not want to continue with the Council of Europe. I have spoken at length in the House in debates on the functions of the Parliamentary Assembly, which I think is an excellent organisation that brings people back to why we come to Parliament. It is about the application of human rights. We often get tied up in playing our parties off against each other, but if we look through the lens of human rights we can very quickly see where the breaches are. There were huge outcries under the previous Government when we were locking up people for long periods without trial, which I objected to. Many of these things come back to the fundamentals.

The EU is adding its weight. It has more power than the Council of Europe to deliver judgments and make those judgments stick, because penalties apply to things that the EU gets involved in. If we decided to break away from a European directive, we could, as a country, be fined. When, for example, Bulgaria refused to come up to scratch with its legal system, it had all its EU finances frozen until it brought itself up to a standard that was acceptable.

The EU might attract many criticisms, and at times I find it greatly irritating, but I am pleased that it is adding its weight to the need to look at things on a human rights basis and to report on that. That is what the proposal is about.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, in retrospect, that when so many powers were given away by the House under the Labour Government, it would have been much better if they had asked the British people’s permission? The British people feel cheated now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a strong view about that. I do not happen to think that a referendum on an issue as complex as the EU would be debated according to the quality of the information that is required. Referendums become a mass populist vote either for or against a Government. If this Government went for a vox pop at the moment, they might be in great danger of being voted out of office. Why does he not put that to the people?

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest transfers of power happened in the 1980s with the Single European Act and with the Maastricht treaty in 1992? Actually, the current Foreign Secretary voted against a referendum on Maastricht.

[Michael Connarty]

I recall that well, because I have been a Member of the House since ’92, and I remember the very lengthy debates that took place, but this is not about the Maastricht treaty; it is about the proposal in the Bill, which is basically to set up a

“Multiannual Framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency”.

That is the point that is of interest to me, because that is an important thing to do and we should be going forward with it. I hope that we do. If the Government really are about to do an about-face and vote against that, I wonder what their position was in the Council, when this went through. Were they voted down in the Council? Are they about to change their position?

I am interested in the Government’s position as much as anyone else, but I am speaking from my point of view, looking at this as someone who has been on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Scrutiny Committee for a long time. It is important, I believe, for us to realise that, while we might not like the fact that the EU sometimes asks us to do things that we might not have wished to do ourselves—for me, some of those are in fishing and agriculture, neither of which has been massively amended by anything that has happened recently under this Government—human rights will not be harmed in this country but will be advanced markedly in other countries by having the EU alongside the Council of Europe and the Court of Human Rights, fighting for human rights for all in Europe. Who would wish to deny that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Is there not a concern, though, about the duplication and growth of those agencies? Even the European Commission, through Commissioner Šefcovic, said at the end of last year that we need to reform many of these agencies, which have unruly-sized governing boards, and try to prevent conflicts of interest. Just in this particular field, we have the Fundamental Rights Agency based in Vienna, the European Institute for Gender Equality based in Vilnius, and the European Asylum Support Office based in Valetta. Surely the question is, should we be growing this agency and giving it such a big budget and a multi-annual financial framework of such a size before we have undertaken some reform of those agencies?

[Michael Connarty]

I take the point. It is well made by the hon. Gentleman, who speaks from the dual perspective of looking in from the European Union at the effect on other countries, and looking out now from this Parliament at what the European Union is doing.

I find it remarkable that every time the European Union grows, we have a convention that the new member state gets a new Commissioner. At my first meeting in Brussels, I believe I raised the matter with UKRep—why did we need a new Commissioner every time we added a country? Why does every member state have to have an office of some kind because it does not have an office of some other kind? We did it. We were fighting over the universal patent recently, and the most important thing to the UK was where the patent court would be based. It had to be based in London. It was not about whether the patent was a good or a bad thing. There is a problem with the EU in that it sprays benefits around. I believe it has put some institution on Crete—a wonderful island where I have holidayed often, but I could not work out why a major institution of the European Union had been located on Crete, apart from the fact that the Greeks wanted to have their turn.

That has to be looked at fundamentally, but the principle is correct. If the European Union sets up the agency, it will monitor what is happening with human rights, and I hope it will then begin to ask how it can help the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and those who want, as Churchill and many others did after the last war, to base Europe on human rights. The questions will continue about the corpus juris, which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will no doubt talk about, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) will no doubt talk about economic interference.

After all that is discussed, I hope we will all be able to agree that if the EU supports the Council of Europe and does the business, making human rights available to all the people in the EU and then beyond, it will advance Europe in accordance with the original principles of the people who set up the convention, which should be at the heart of our politics.

[Mr Nuttall]

That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), but one with which I fundamentally disagree. It was obvious from the early part of his comments that they reinforced the points that have been made throughout this debate. In essence, we have jumped back from fundamental rights to human rights.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I asked whether we could try to agree on the difference between human rights and fundamental rights, but everyone seems to have jumped back to accepting that fundamental rights is just another phrase for human rights, and that the agency does no more than replicate what is done elsewhere in the European Union by the Council of Europe. What came out of those comments was the fact that if reform is needed, we need to reform the Court, so that it can enforce the decisions made by the Council of Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

The dissemination of hard facts and data on human rights performance across the European Union is intrinsically useful for British citizens and, indeed, those of other countries, because it enables us to assess how one of the basic things that we all wish to preserve—not just in our country, but in neighbouring countries—namely a basic commitment to human rights, is actually happening. It is extremely desirable for the citizens of democratic countries to enjoy human rights almost as a matter of habit, and it seems to me that any body that promotes such a state of affairs, in however small a way, is doing useful things for the British people.

[Michael Connarty]

Even in Shipley.

[Damian Green]

I suspect it applies in Shipley, but it might not. I defer to the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on the people of Shipley. I think that human rights are a good a thing in Shipley, as they are elsewhere.

Europe

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

First, that would be a matter for negotiation, and secondly the changes we can envisage to the eurozone in particular do not involve significant additional transfers of powers from the UK to the EU. Indeed, as we heard at length from the Foreign Secretary, if there were a significant transfer of power in the future, it would trigger the referendum lock legislated for in this Parliament. I hope that that offers some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman that, in any circumstances, if there were a significant transfer of power, the referendum lock would be considered. Frankly, however, it is far from clear that the changes envisaged at the moment—on the deepening of the eurozone—would involve any significant transfer of sovereignty from the UK to Brussels.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am reluctant to interrupt my right hon. Friend, because he is making such salient points, but obviously one of the meat-eaters on the Government Benches wanted to interrupt him. My right hon. Friend’s analysis should have been done by the Foreign Secretary. Is it not a matter of deep sadness that the Foreign Secretary, who knows about Europe and its significance to this country, has been driven into a corner by the ultra-right in his party? Is it not time he stood up to them, as we would, and challenged them over their idea of breaking away from Europe and bringing down the nation?

[Mr Alexander]

I yield to no one in my admiration for the Foreign Secretary, but he is in a difficult position: he is trading on his past Euroscepticism. In order to maintain his position with his Back Benchers, he has to effect the same persona that suggested we had nine days left to save the pound about 4,000 days ago. He is an intelligent man, however, and he has learned in office that Britain’s interests are served by being part of the EU. He cannot be too explicit about the changes he wants to see, however, because it would compromise the support on his own Back Benches. Nevertheless, I fully endorse my hon. Friend’s point; the right hon. Gentleman has learned in office, and that is why his points about Britain standing taller in the world as part of the EU are probably heartfelt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Ottaway]

Yes, but my point is that it is an exaggeration to say that we are trying to play a different sport. We are trying to take a fresh approach. It is the multi-tiered approach that I think is most likely to win the day.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Ottaway]

I will not give way. I have had my two shots, and I do not get a third.

Clearly, we need different arrangements for those countries in the euro, those that are out and those in transition—a group that I suspect will be around for a long time. Call it multi-tiered or an inner and outer group, or whatever, but we have long been at the point where a one-size-fits-all approach is over, and Europe knows it.

The case for sticking with the EU hinges on three main plus points—trade, the single market and diplomacy—and another often forgotten aspect: peace and security. Britain’s trade with the EU is a major success story. Almost half the UK’s exports go to the EU and 51% of imports come from the EU. We export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together. Global success is to be found in single markets. Let us look at the economies of the USA, China, Brazil and India—all single markets with a common currency and common language. The EU single market—a British invention of Margaret Thatcher—has significantly increased EU prosperity since its inception in 1987. We need to be part of it.

Then there is the diplomatic clout that membership of the EU brings. In trade, combating crime and terror, fighting fundamentalism, liberating markets and addressing climate change, we have a strong voice at the table. Within the EU, the UK, together with France, leads Europe’s defence policy. I am proud that our intervention in Mali shows that, when the going gets rough, Europe can count on Britain to step up to the mark.

Some people have called for us to have the same status as Norway, as a member of the European economic area. I do not accept this. If it means stepping to one side and letting others dictate the terms of trade, that is not gaining sovereignty but losing it. We have to be difficult, but stay in.

It is interesting to reflect on Mrs Thatcher’s defining Bruges speech of 1988, in which she rejected the centralised, unaccountable, federal Europe of Jacques Delors. She said:

“The European Community…must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members.”

Far more importantly, she went on to say:

“Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”

I could not put it better myself. Indeed, her words seem rather tame compared with some of the language that we hear today. But the peace dividend that Europe brings still remains uppermost in my mind.

At last week’s Chatham House seminar, the French commentator pointed out that between 1870 and the second world war, France and Germany fought each other three times. In the same period, Britain fought two devastating world wars. In the period since, we have lived in peace. I was born in May 1945, as Europe lay in smouldering ruins. I am part of a generation that has rebuilt that Europe. I have enjoyed a life of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Now is not the time to jeopardise all that we have achieved. The stakes are high, but I believe that we can reach a new agreement with our European partners, and I believe that the people of Britain will back it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will add another point. The recent analysis by VoteWatch Europe, which has been through every decision taken by the Council of Ministers in the past three years, demonstrates that in 91.7% of votes taken in that forum, the UK Government—under the aegis of UKRep and through the Council of Ministers itself—have voted in favour of the proposals in question. That is effectively a forced consensus, because we have only 8% of the votes in the Council of Ministers. When I hear Ministers and others talking about the degree of influence that we exercise in relation to qualified majority voting, I say yes, we have to have alliances, but we know that if others are not going to be in alliance with us, we will not get the kind of result that the British people deserve.

Ultimately, this is about one fundamental question. It is not just about the word “democracy”; it is about democracy in action and its impact on the daily lives of the people of this country. The reality is that someone goes into the ballot station, votes in secret and casts his or her vote based on a manifesto in which they are told what the party in question is offering them in a general election; that is what democracy is all about. When they cast their vote, they expect the legislation to follow what they have been promised. The reality is that, under this system, the whole of Europe is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, with riots, unemployment and the rise of the far right. Let us face it: we have to get real. The fact is that it is not working. That is why our debate is so important.

[Michael Connarty]

I am grateful to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. I have always wanted to ask him this question, so that he can put his answer on the record rather than provide it in a private conversation with me. Is he likely to campaign to come out of the European Union and, if so, on what terms? I want to know, and I think the Foreign Secretary wants to know, on what basis the hon. Gentleman will campaign and vote to come out of the European Union.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful for that intervention for a very good reason. One of the reasons why I believe it is right for the Prime Minister to insist on the “in or out” question is that now, after all the agonising over all these years—including the Maastricht rebellion, for example, which I was able to participate in and lead at the time—all these things have culminated in this referendum. We have fought for a referendum. Precisely because the question is “in or out?”, it raises the question of the European Communities Act 1972 and whether the British people, having voted in the ballot box, should be expected to receive legislation that comes automatically into law when they might not in fact agree with it. That is the problem: that is why I believe we must have the right question, but it must also be at the right time. As far as I am concerned, if that democratic principle is not upheld, I will vote to come out, because the democratic principle is the fundamental issue for the British people, many of whom fought and died for this country.

I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) refer to the fact that he was born in May 1945. I was born on 10 May 1940. That was the day on which Churchill became Prime Minister, and it was over the question of whether or not Britain would be able to govern itself—and much more besides. I follow the line Churchill took about being “associated but not absorbed” with Europe. That is the fundamental question.

In addition, on the economic front, let me make this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and I wrote a pamphlet about a positive way forward for the single market. We believe that there is a positive way forward for Europe, but that what is happening at the moment is that Europe is creating instability by this concentration on a compression chamber when there are all these diverse countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, “one size fits all” does not work. We must have an association of nation states. I appreciate that that challenges the centralisation that has gone on for so long in Europe, and I appreciate that it challenges the democratic deficit. I appreciate, too, if I may say so, that this would increase trade, increase opportunities and help to liberalise the rest of the world in the global marketplace. All these things have to be examined, as we move forward in the debate that has now started.

Given the dysfunctionality of the European Union, the determination to repudiate the idea that we should have a referendum is astonishing. The French had two referendums—I took part in both of them in France—and we did incredibly well in Denmark, too, where there were several referendums. There was a referendum in Ireland and in Holland. Who on earth are these people to turn round to us in this country and say, “We can have referendums, but you can’t”? It is beyond belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

To help the hon. Gentleman, let me point out that what went horribly wrong was that the financial services industry invested in complicated products that it told us would help to manage risk, but it turned out that they made the risks worse. That sparked a financial crisis, and that has led to the problems that I have been describing.

We need a rebalancing of our European economy, and we need to think about how we can address the significant problem of inequality that is being created. In a recent Mansion House speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was not in favour of a stimulus because it would lead to leakage in relation to imports. An EU-wide plan therefore makes sense, because we are part of a trading bloc and we should be working together to improve our shared economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who is sadly no longer in his place, mentioned state aid rules to rebalance areas of the economy that use high technology. It makes sense to work with our European colleagues on rebalancing.

Some commentators have advanced the idea of a youth contract whereby we could use unused structural funds for a European youth guarantee. I would argue that in order to tackle youth unemployment we need to learn the lessons of the projects proposed by the best of our town halls in the UK and the best countries around the world that have used active labour markets to tackle these problems. If there are funds available in Europe, we should work together with colleagues to get them to the heart of the problem.

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend is talking about youth unemployment and employment strategies. Unfortunately, the proposal made by the Irish presidency to have a four-month trigger point at which all young people would have the guarantee of a job, which is better than what is offered in the UK, seems to be getting very short shrift from the UK Government.

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me. For me, being in politics is not about standing in this Chamber thinking that we have all the answers; it is about listening to and working with colleagues in town halls in this country and across the European Union to solve the problem together.

Finally, there is no doubt that if we want to get people in Europe working, we need to trade. In my view, we should listen to the President of the United States of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned reform. Can he, unlike the Government Front-Bench team or anyone else who has spoken, give us the specifics about what needs reform? We do not want to hear about just a vague reform; let us hear the hon. Gentleman’s vision of reform, as it may tie up with the vision of other Members, although it may not.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is an excellent question. I shall talk about three areas where reform needs to take place and will take place under this coalition Government and the next Conservative Government.

Ironically, the first area is the common agricultural policy. It needs to be radically changed so that farmers face less bureaucracy and are able to farm more easily; for that, the strictures of the CAP need to be altered. The chamber for such a change is, I think, the Council of Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Michael Connarty]

This is a grand opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I asked the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), to outline what position he would take and on what issues he would vote to leave the EU—on a matter of emotion, or can he give me some specific issues that he says should persuade his party and his Government to vote no when it comes to a referendum?

[Mr Redwood]

I wish to help restore democracy in our islands and to do that we need to regain the veto. We should not have sacrificed 100 vetoes at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon. This Parliament needs to be able to decide whether a new law goes forward or not; otherwise we will find that in ever more areas—I am just beginning to illustrate some of them—we are a fax or an e-mail democracy. We receive the e-mails or the faxes from Brussels and this Parliament has to put through the measure, whether we like it or not. That creates a tension within our democracy. Successive Governments bring measures to this House and recommend them to this House. They are very fundamental measures, but they often sneak them through this House, or sneak them through upstairs, because they fear they are unpalatable to us. However, they know that there is nothing that the House of Commons can do once the agreement has been made in Brussels—and very often it is made without the wholehearted consent of the British Minister. In the case of this Government, it may often be made against the wishes of the British Minister, but this House is still expected to put through these measures come what may.

That is why we need a Government who resolutely negotiate a new relationship for us with our partners in Europe. Of course, I give no ground to anybody in wanting to maximise jobs and investment in this country, and my recommendations would increase that rather than reduce them, as we find with non-EU members already. However, I also wish to see the Prime Minister’s great speech used as a platform for setting out how we recreate a democracy and secure the right in this House to say no to European laws if we do not like them. We have waited a long time for a Prime Minister who would say honestly that this country does not share the aim of the treaties and of many of the member states of the European Union because we do not wish ever-closer union.

I have heard very few Labour Members say that they want ever-closer union, because they know that that means political, monetary, fiscal, economic and every kind of union known; it means the creation of a united states of Europe. Those who wish to join that, I wish well, but it was never Britain’s view that we wanted to be part of a united states of Europe. The British people, if asked, would say no to that idea. It is up to us now, at this late hour, to say that too many powers have gone and that they need to be returned if we are to restore this once-great Chamber to what it once was.

This Parliament wrestled power from over-mighty monarchs. This Parliament took on those who wished to dominate the continent of Europe and rejected the imperial ambitions of first Spain, then France, and then Germany. Because of the work of our predecessors in the House of Commons, we as a nation said to Europe: “We want a Europe of the free. We want a Europe of independent nations. We want a Europe where people’s sense of local belonging is respected. We are against a tyranny. We are against an over-mighty Europe. We do not believe that Europe can be governed as a whole.”

How proud that vision was, and how right it is that our Prime Minister has reminded us of the foundations of our beliefs: no to ever-closer union, yes to more democracy; no to restrictions and too much centralised government from Brussels, yes to greater freedom to breathe and to decide and to choose among all the smaller countries of western Europe. I suspect that many countries out there and many politicians in them respect that vision and are rather impressed by its boldness. We should all join together now in rallying the peoples of Europe to say yes to friendship, yes to trade, yes to co-operation, but no to centralisation and no to authoritarian interference.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Having listened to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), I have to say that I must have heard a different speech by the Prime Minister. I did not hear that rallying cry in the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe or in the Foreign Secretary’s speech today. It is a dream. It may be a good dream, and I am sure that it is one that the right hon. Member for Wokingham will take into his dotage, but it will never be realised on the basis of what is being offered by his Government. If he really believes that by speaking in that way he can change the route that his Government are taking, he is deluding himself.

The key question for me on the whole issue of Europe is whether, if the policies and procedures that currently exist in the UK’s relationship with the EU remain unamended, it is likely that the Foreign Secretary, given his speech today and his many contributions over his period in office, or the Prime Minister—or, indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition—would campaign for the UK to withdraw from membership of the EU. The answer is clearly no. I believe that that is the case for the majority of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and for the vast majority of Opposition Members. If there were no changes, I do not think that those people would go out and campaign for our withdrawal from the EU. I think that the people of the UK would reject that.

I ask the same question as I asked in the Scottish referendum debate: is the current relationship between the UK and the EU damaging or malevolent? I do not find it malevolent. I find it irritating, troublesome and tedious in its mechanistic way of working. I have seen that as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee since 1998. However, it is not malevolent and it is certainly not damaging to the UK. Every statistic shows that the UK benefits remarkably from its membership of the EU.

There is an issue with competence creep. There is no doubt about that. That is what gets me about this Government who put themselves forward as being reforming. I watch Ministers come forward every week, again and again, with explanatory memorandums saying that they have decided to go for a political agreement or a compromise that gives away power to the European Commission. I have always said that since Lisbon that has been much more difficult to resist. But it is not even resisted. That is not about the EU; it is about the failure of our Governments over a long period to stand up to the Commission when they could have done, to build the alliances that Opposition colleagues and some Government Members have talked about, and to deliver for the UK.

[Mr Cash]

To respond to the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me earlier, would he be good enough to tell me whether it is more important to implement the laws made by consensus in the European Council of Ministers or the laws that his constituents support through the ballot box?

[Michael Connarty]

In 20 years in this place, I have never found it inconsistent to support the European Union. I supported it when I voted in the first referendum, and I supported it when I was the chairman of the Mid Scotland and Fife European parliamentary constituency and convinced a Eurosceptic MEP to see the benefits of Europe. There is no inconsistency between my job as a Member of Parliament and my support for the EU.

The big questions that we should be discussing—the ones that were touched on by the shadow Foreign Secretary—are all included in the Irish presidency agenda. The budget, the next financial perspective, the multi-annual framework and the need to deal with debt in the eurozone are all on the agenda and are being discussed on a daily basis by the 27 countries and Ministers. We should be discussing low participation in the labour market, unemployment levels and the massive problem of youth unemployment. The only comment that was made by the UK Government on the proposal for a youth, education and sport initiative—interestingly, I am the chair of the Council of Europe’s sub-committee on education, youth and sport—was that it should not be called the youth, education and sport initiative because that spelled “YES”. That was the one contribution from a UK Minister about what is on the Irish presidency agenda on youth employment. The Government have rejected the proposal for a guaranteed job or training place for every youth in Europe after four months of unemployment because they did not want that to interfere with what they call apprenticeships. In fact, apprenticeships in this country are not apprenticeships, but merely in-work training.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

As a fellow officer of the chemical industry all-party parliamentary group, I know that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is Britain’s leading export industry, ahead of the car industry. The chemical industry relies on long-term investment. Does he agree that the political risk premium that we now have will reduce the inward investment that is so important to that industry?

[Michael Connarty]

I totally agree. I would also point to things that are happening in the environment package, such as interference in health and safety in the North sea. Those things are being chased not by the environment directorate-general, but by the energy directorate-general. I know of three or four issues that it is trying to get into an energy chapter that it did not get into the Lisbon treaty. We have to watch the Commission creep and fight against it, as I have said before.

As for what it will mean, what is Fresh Start—the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and his colleagues—really about? Does it mean to renegotiate the 1972 treaty as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) suggested? No, it does not. If not, what is the agenda? It seems to me to be very light. As the hon. Member for Daventry said, the changes suggested are not radical ones that will make the EU a different place when people vote on the issue. That is the reality. It is about changing small matters, but it will not, for example, reinstate the UK vetoes. If that is the Government’s agenda, they are promising people a false referendum because it would not be a different Europe. If that is the case, why not hold the referendum now? Basically, Europe is not going to change, because this is a political ploy before an election, not a genuine attempt to re-establish the perspective on Europe.

Will the UK be allowed to renegotiate A8 citizens back to EU countries—one of the big cries from those in UKIP? No, it will not. Will the UK deny safe working conditions in its factories and building sites? I hope not. I worked in a toy factory in the ’70s. The EU came to the rescue by putting proper guards on the machines and, where they had damaged people, proper constraints. Will the UK return to the days of failed extradition processes? We used to talk of the Costa de los Bandidos in Spain because we could not get the crooks back here. Now we use the European arrest warrant. Will we abandon that? It is a nonsense. Will we make people in hospitals work longer hours? I do not think so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who speaks on agricultural matters, made an interesting point about meat eaters and I had a vision of carnivores in the Conservative party—carnivores or cannibals, I am not quite sure how they should be described because when the right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke I had a feeling that he would happily feed on the bones of his own Government if he could not feed on the bones of the European Union.

Those in Fresh Start basically hope that the EU is changing. Yes, it is changing because of the euro crisis and the crisis of the capitalist economy in Europe, but it is not changing fundamentally in its structures and powers. It will not change unless we repeal the Lisbon treaty and we are not going to do that. All the things that were mentioned about agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are on the agenda of the Irish presidency, as is a more competitive single market. On the reform of the Council and Commission, since the Commission is set in stone, it will make policy and others will choose whether to implement that policy in the Council. My worry is that the feeding frenzy of the carnivores will not be justified by what the Prime Minister tries to do in this fake referendum, and in fact they will feed on the bones of their own Government when that fails.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I do not agree with that statement. The European Parliament has a role that is set down in the treaties, but if giving extra powers to the European Parliament were the answer to discontent over the democratic deficit, the transfer of those additional powers in successive treaties over the past 15 or 20 years would have remedied the problem. It clearly has not, and it is not just in the United Kingdom where politicians are starting to think about how to involve national Parliaments more in European business than they have been in the past. Europe is changing and needs to change further.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The Government are not waiting until 2015. I agree with most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) said about how the coalition is working to shape change at European level in a way that benefits the prosperity and security of people in the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members on all sides have emphasised the importance of Europe for trade and investment in this country—a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Our membership of the single market makes it easier for United Kingdom companies to sell goods and services to the rest of Europe without tariffs, without port checks and with common or mutually recognised standards applying. That point was put to me very clearly by Scottish business leaders when I met them in Edinburgh earlier this week. Our location in the single market makes us a more attractive destination than we might otherwise be for foreign direct investment, with the UK still getting a larger share of that than any other member of the European Union.

It is true, as many hon. Members have said, that we need to do far more to step up our trade with the emerging economies of Asia and Latin America. Frankly, if the UK could match the success of Germany on that count, our economic performance would benefit significantly. We still sell more to one German land—North Rhine-Westphalia—than we do to the whole of India, so I do not see a strong economic partnership with the European Union and vigorous initiatives to promote trade and investment with the emerging economies as somehow alternatives. It is in the interest of people in the United Kingdom that we are successful in doing both.

In the various contributions to the debate from Labour Members, there have been two chief criticisms of the way in which the Prime Minister spoke last week. The hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) denounced the idea of having a referendum on the grounds that it would cause uncertainty and drive away investment. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, the

“question mark over Britain’s place in the European Union…is already there and ignoring it won’t make it go away.”

He said that people who refused to think about “consulting the British people” were making it “more likely” that the whole population would become increasingly discontented with the European Union and more likely to vote to leave it when the choice was finally put to them, as one day it will be. He said he did not wish them to take that decision.

What is ironic is that the criticisms from the other side ignore the fact that, as their own spokesmen have been at pains to say, although they will not express support for a referendum now, they might change their policy and advocate a referendum within the next two years—despite the fact that their own supporters are saying that that would create enormous business uncertainty. I do not think anything could demonstrate more clearly than that contradiction the incoherence of the Labour party’s position.

I am confident, on the basis of the work that the Government have already done, that we will be successful in reforming the European Union to enhance the prosperity and security of the people of this country, and I support the approach laid out by the Prime Minister last week.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of Europe.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Just to clarify, as well as the rights and responsibilities that will come to Croatia if we pass this accession Bill, is it also correct that it will have to join the Schengen area and eventually become part of the eurozone, with the agreement that it will join the euro?

[Mr Lidington]

Croatia’s accession treaty provides for it to join the Schengen area and the eurozone, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, if Croatia is to join either it will be required to meet some further tests. It is already understood in Zagreb and throughout the Schengen area that it will be at least two years before Croatia can contemplate a successful application. I know from the debates on the bids by Bulgaria and Romania to join the Schengen area that the current members look carefully at the strength of internal and external controls over immigration and asylum before they concede the much greater rights of freedom of movement and freedom from all kinds of border checks that go with Schengen membership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

There are within the treaties articles that can be invoked. For example, if a member state departs from fundamental standards of human rights and democratic values that are embodied in the articles of the treaty, ultimately its full rights as an EU member can be suspended. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) reminds me that when a far right party entered the Government of Austria a few years ago, Austria found that it started to get frozen out of normal EU business. So although they may be blunt instruments that are in the treaties, the instruments are there.

There is a provision in the pre-accession monitoring arrangements under which, if Croatia fails to deliver on what she has promised, the Council is entitled to take all necessary measures to deal with the situation. That might, for example, mean that if Croatia were to fail to carry through the necessary market reforms of its shipbuilding sector—I do not expect that—certain EU financial benefits could be withheld until those reforms had been implemented. I do not think we are as lacking in sticks as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) suggests.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

Let me say this, then I will give way. Croatia has applied for European Union membership both because it sees this as of symbolic political importance and its leaders want to entrench democratic values, human rights and the rule of law in their country, and because Croatia sees some significant economic benefits to participation in the single market. Croatia also wants to move on and apply for Schengen membership. The one thing that Croatia’s leaders know is that if they were to depart from the promises that they have given, their chances of benefiting in the way they hope and their people expect would be reduced accordingly. That remains a powerful motive.

[Michael Connarty]

The Minister has led on to the question that I wished to ask. He mentioned application for Schengen and cross-border rights, but the Schengen acquis requires countries to sign up to a great deal of immigration and co-operation in cross-border law and other aspects. Is it expected that the Schengen acquis will be put in place part by part before the application, or is Croatia not expected to do anything in relation to those things? That is relevant as we struggle with opt-ins and opt-outs.

[Mr Lidington]

What Croatia has to do is what was set out in the negotiating chapters, particularly in chapter 24, to equip itself to deal with the responsibilities of European Union membership. I shall say a little about the borders issue later to try to address those comments. Membership of Schengen requires Croatia and any other member of Schengen to go further. The pace at which any reforms specific to Schengen are introduced and implemented is a matter between Croatia and the Schengen members. It is difficult for me as a Minister for a country that has chosen to stay outside Schengen and has no intention of joining it to try to prescribe what the pathway should be for Croatia’s hopes to join the Schengen agreement.

In its report the European Scrutiny Committee made a number of criticisms of the Commission’s and the Government’s conclusions about the readiness of Croatia to join the European Union. The Government will of course reply formally to the report of the Scrutiny Committee in due course, but as the Committee has chosen to tag its report to the debate today, I thought it might be helpful to respond to the main thrust of the Committee’s criticisms now, during the debate. We will have other opportunities during later stages of the Bill to explore the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and his Committee raised, and as I said there will be a formal Government response to the Committee in due course.

I shall try to deal briefly with three or four of the main issues raised by the Committee in its conclusions. Let me take first the issue of war crimes, both co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and domestic war crimes. On co-operation with the tribunal, I want to stress that not just the United Kingdom but the European Commission and the tribunal itself believe that Croatia is fully co-operating with the tribunal. Indeed, the chief prosecutor, Mr Brammertz, has now said that he sees no need for him to visit Zagreb again and he has taken the decision to wind down the status of the tribunal’s office in Croatia. On 3 May this year, while visiting Zagreb, Mr Brammertz said that there were “no outstanding issues” that might burden relations between Croatia and ICTY. On 7 June, in a statement to the UN Security Council, he said:

“The Office of the Prosecutor continues to rely on Croatia’s cooperation to efficiently complete trials and appeals. In the current reporting period (as at 14 May 2012), the Office sent 18 requests for assistance to Croatia. The Croatian authorities have given timely and adequate responses to the requests made and it has provided access to witnesses and evidence as required. The Office will continue to rely on Croatia’s cooperation in upcoming trials and appeals.”

The chief prosecutor, who in the past has been critical of what he saw as shortcomings in Croatia’s level of co-operation with him, has now said that in his view Croatia has co-operated, and continues to do so, in the way he would rightly expect.

The issue of domestic war crimes is a difficult one. One need only look to our own country’s history in Northern Ireland to see how difficult it can be to get to the truth about some of the most vile murders. There are about 1,200 cases on file relating to domestic war crimes in Croatia, but we need to break that total down into three categories. There are about 400 cases for which trials are pending, about 400 where the accused cannot be found and a further 400 or so where the indictments are in a pre-investigative phase but the perpetrator is unknown—it is believed, on the basis of evidence, that a war crime might have been committed but no individual or group of named individuals can be cited as having been responsible. The average length of a trial for a domestic war crime is about six to seven months.

In 2010, four specialised chambers were established to deal with domestic war crimes. In May 2011, new legislation took effect to require the transfer of outstanding cases to those chambers and, in the autumn of 2011, new judges were appointed to those specialist tribunals. So far, 87 cases have been transferred to the specialist tribunals. The Government’s view is that progress has been too slow and that the Croatians need to devote more resources to that work. Our assessment is that the commitments Croatia made can be described as “almost complete” but that more progress is still required. We are confident, given the commitments we have had from the Croatian Justice Ministry, that that acceleration will have taken place by the time we reach the expected accession date.

Some of that progress is simply about procedural reforms: new listing priorities have now been established; prosecutorial standards are being applied better; there is, importantly, improved co-operation between the Croatian and Serbian authorities in investigating war crimes; and the Croatian side has submitted a draft agreement between those two countries for co-operation in the prosecution of such cases. The Commission has said that more still needs to be done to secure the attendance and protection of witnesses, who might well fear for their safety when giving evidence in this kind of case. We think that progress has been slower than it ought to have been but are confident about the seriousness with which the Croatian authorities are taking it.

I will move on to borders and address the point that the former Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), made in his earlier intervention. Croatia has been making good progress. She already has 81 fully operational border crossing points and has given assurances that the necessary infrastructure and technology will be in place to support those crossing points and ensure strong border management by the time she accedes to the EU. The most important outstanding element is the need to provide formal border crossing points in the Neum corridor, which is the very narrow stretch of Bosnian territory that divides Croatia. The Croatians have told us that they are on course to complete the border crossing points in that important area next spring.

After Croatian accession, of course, there will continue to be border controls between Croatia and its European Union neighbours. Because Croatia will not join Schengen straight away, those neighbouring countries that are EU member states already will maintain their border controls with Croatia, so any third-country national who got into Croatian territory, whether before or after EU accession, would still be subject to the same level of controls in a country such as Slovenia, and certainly in the United Kingdom, as they are today. I will add that one key advantage for us of Croatia’s accession is that she will come within the scope of the Eurodac regulation and the Dublin agreement on returns and readmissions, which will be helpful to us in the case of any people who manage to get through and abuse the asylum system and need to be returned to Croatia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman is right. According to our figures for 2011, about 2,000 Croatians emigrated to other EU member states and half of those went to Germany. UKBA figures for 2011 show that only 115 Croatian nationals were admitted to the United Kingdom to work.

[Michael Connarty]

I appreciate the Minister’s argument about the small number of those likely to immigrate legally. The problem is that the equivalent-sized country of Moldova, which has a population of 4.5 million, has a trafficking record similar to that of a country with 50 million people. It is used as a gateway. The problem is not legal migration but whether there is a prospect of the mafia—for want of a better word—of the Balkan states using Croatia as a gateway for people trafficking. That would be the concern. Are the police in Croatia up to dealing with such an influx?

[Mr Lidington]

That is a perfectly fair question, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence at the moment that Croatia is being used by traffickers as he says has happened in Moldova. However, people traffickers are extremely professional, well organised multinational businesses. We have to be vigilant and continue to work closely with the Croatian authorities, trying to provide the practical advice, support and training that we have been giving them as they carry out their immigration, asylum, judicial and administrative reforms, so that their own systems are up to scratch in ensuring that they cannot be exploited by traffickers. The Croatian Government would not want that to happen, and nor would we.

Now I want to talk briefly about the Irish protocol. The addition of the Irish protocol to the EU treaties does not have a significant impact for the United Kingdom. It relates to a series of guarantees given to the Irish people as a condition of their ratification of the Lisbon treaty, but it does not change the substance or application of the treaty. It confirms the interpretation of a number of its provisions in relation to the Irish constitution. Helpfully, the Irish interpretation of the Lisbon treaty aligns with our own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for my temporary promotion to speaking on behalf of the Opposition in this debate, which is not, unfortunately, something that has ever been, or is likely to be, accorded to me by those who run my party. Some would say that it is their loss, but it is my great pleasure to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who is my party’s Front-Bench representative and has been assiduous in her work and done a great job since she took over the brief.

I see this debate in three parts. The first is about whether the UK Parliament supports Croatia’s membership of the European Union. I hope that hon. Members—apart from those who may demur from the wish of any country to join the European Union—would not want to deny Croatia or, indeed, the European Union the benefits that they will get as a result of further enlargement. In that spirit, I hope that hon. Members will support the proposal.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend will know, I have been a strong pro-European all my political life, but I am very worried that yet another country is coming in from eastern Europe without a great democratic tradition. Hungary seems to be breaking every rule of a modern democracy, yet the European Union does nothing about it. I am getting more concerned about—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in and the usual courtesy is to listen to a little bit of the debate before intervening. We also need shorter interventions. I call Michael Connarty—it is up to you whether you answer.

[Michael Connarty]

I understand the emotions that are running among those who have been pro-EU in their —[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) should know better than to challenge the Chair. It is not my fault that he may have been somewhere else in the House. If his preference is to be on a Committee rather than here, that is his choice, but he should not expect to walk in and intervene in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What I have said is that it is discourteous to other Members of this House not to have listened a little bit to debate, but instead to walk in and intervene straight away. That is my ruling.

[Michael Connarty]

I repeat: I understand that people who have been supportive of the EU process over many years are now expressing great concerns. Those concerns have been expressed in the European Parliament, and they are certainly expressed at great length in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on the basis of human rights, as some of the issues in Hungary are a challenge in that respect. The question for us today is not what the EU should do about Hungary, however, but what we should do in relation to Croatia’s application to join the European Union.

As hon. Members know, I work on behalf of this Parliament as a member of the Labour delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In fact, I work in the committee on culture, science, education and media, which is chaired by Mr Gvozden—I believe that is the correct pronunciation—Flego, who is a professor from Croatia. He is very dedicated to human rights; in fact, a number of his colleagues are leading the way in challenging their Government to come up to the standards we require in the European Union and to support the application. The problem—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) alluded to this—is that this treaty is one of the ones that, when the Government introduced the European Union Act 2011 and said that they would renegotiate the terms and relationship with the EU in this Parliament, was listed as not requiring a referendum because it is an accession treaty. That is a great pity, because the accession treaty not only allows Croatia to enter, but allows protocols to be added to the Lisbon treaty—that is, to amend it.

It is a great regret for many people in this country that we did not take the Lisbon treaty to a referendum, as we would have had to do if it were a constitutional treaty. Hon. Members will recall that when I chaired the European Scrutiny Committee and we reported on this matter, we came to the conclusion that the Lisbon treaty was not much different from the constitution, apart from a few flags, bunting and anthems. Really, it maybe should have been decided then whether a referendum was required. It will always be a great point of contention with the British people—and, I think people in this Chamber—that we did not get that clarified at the time.

[Mr Cash]

I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party voted en masse for a referendum on that treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I remember the unity of the Conservative party at that time, although most people have forgotten about it, given the number of attacks that the hon. Gentleman has led on his own Government. In fact, if that unity had continued, we would not have seen the ridiculous situation of him and others joining the Labour party last week to vote down his Government on an issue to do with the EU. It might have been better for his party if it had remained unified; for us, it has exposed the faultline that runs through the parties.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just for the record, it was a Conservative amendment that the Labour party supported.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is not a point of order. The other thing is that we are getting distracted from what is before us. Rather than being tempted into discussing the decisions of a previous House many years ago, let us get back to Croatia and Ireland.

[Michael Connarty]

The point has been made that there should be a wider mandate in deciding whether the treaty should go through. It should not just rest with this House. As you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that has been decided before, but the Bill contains provisions on the Irish protocol, which, as has been pointed out, provides only a clarification. It is the same protocol that the UK got in the original Lisbon treaty, but as was pointed out in many debates and in many legal opinions that we received in the Committee, all it stated was what was already in existence—that every country has the right to its own Bank and that no country will lose any rights that it already has because of the Lisbon treaty coming into force.

The protocol did not change anything, but if the Irish people require that reassurance, that is fine. However, it does trigger a change in the Lisbon treaty, and a change in a major treaty should, in reality, be required to be put to the British people—if, as has been pointed out, we are also to get the credibility of the Irish people. They may not do things they like; indeed, I remember when the Irish delegation came to tell us that because Ireland was a small country—one of my colleagues, the leader of the Scottish National party, was at the meeting when they said this—it had to do what Europe wanted, whereas the UK was a big country that could argue its corner much more strongly. The protocol will make no difference to the situation in Ireland, but it is in the Bill and it changes the treaty.

[Angus Robertson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Connarty]

I certainly will, as I named the hon. Gentleman.

[Angus Robertson]

If the hon. Gentleman believes that Ireland does not have clout because it is a small country, can he explain why we are discussing an Irish protocol today?

[Michael Connarty]

The simple point is that it is because unanimity is required for an accession treaty. Clearly the concession was given to Ireland, and the concession for the Czech Republic is still being debated. However, as for what happened in the Lisbon treaty, I take our Irish colleagues’ word for it, because they are the people who have to live day in, day out with the consequences of what is being forced on their Government, citizens and industries by the European Union, because of the European Union’s decision on the present crisis. That is the context in which they were speaking.

Let me return to the question of whether Croatia is fit to be a member of the European Union at this time, which has taken up a lot of the Committee’s time and was referred to by the hon. Member for North East Somerset. As he is in the party of the majority, I would have thought that he would put on record the context and the comments that were made throughout the whole process. For example, when the Minister came to us in March, he said:

“It is important that the Commission’s Comprehensive Monitoring Report in the Autumn is able to reflect significant further progress”.

That was the offer to us, as it were, to say that things were not going particularly well in Croatia on coming together on the aspirations we had. We talked strongly in our Committee about the need for conditionality, because Romania and Bulgaria did not accede with the conditions met. In fact, in many instances they slipped back from the original agreements once they were in. That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer)—and possibly the Member behind me—who intervened to say that once a country is in the European Union, very little can be done to make it speed up. The temptation for economic advancement from the European Union is slipping away as the crisis in Europe becomes more and more of a problem; therefore, the European Union has less and less of a carrot to offer countries, and it would appear that it is not willing to use sticks in the way that might be encouraging to those countries either.

At that time we waited for that report, which duly came to us. The report was not one to fill members of my Committee with joy and pleasure, because it was full of criticism of the Croatian position. It was quite true that some advances had been made, but the report also said, for example, that Croatia needed to

“Complete the adoption of related by-laws, to ensure the implementation of the police law,”

so there were problems in police law. The report said:

“While Croatia’s preparations in the field of migration and asylum are nearly complete, the government still needs to finalise and adopt the new migration strategy,”

adding:

“While border police staffing targets have nearly been met and training continues, Croatia needs to achieve the established recruitment target for border police for 2012”—

this is the autumn report for 2012 we are talking about. The report also talks about the integrated border management plan, which is vital, as the Minister admitted, because of the strange situation whereby a piece of Bosnia splits Croatia in half, so that two borders face each other with another country in the middle, which is a real faultline.

I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the points in the final report of the Committee, for 2012-13, which was considered by the Committee on 24 October. That is the most recent document that we have, and people should take the trouble to read it. I want to highlight some of the deep concerns expressed by the Committee. Paragraph 1.82 states:

“Addressing impunity clearly remains a major challenge, with the majority of war crimes yet to be successfully prosecuted”.

One of the basic demands of the Balkan countries is that they co-operate fully with the International Criminal Court. It is a matter of concern that, when they come into the European Union, there would be no pressure on them to continue in the desired direction. Perhaps it is only the temptation of membership that makes them focus on this issue. The report continues goes on to state that

“further measures are needed to facilitate the protection and attendance of witnesses.”

A country cannot get prosecutions without witness protection, and it cannot therefore be a country that is fully co-operating with the International Criminal Court.

I have mentioned trafficking, and I shall go into more detail in a moment. Paragraph 1.83 of the report states that the Commission has noted

“in particular that training for judges, prosecutors and others dealing with trafficking needs to be improved, and that sentencing in this area is very low compared to other types of organised crime.”

I recall a comment by a senior police officer in the UK, who caused a great scandal by telling a woman police inspector who tried to pursue a human trafficking case, “We don’t do human trafficking here. We do burglary and violence.” The worry is that Croatia does not see human trafficking as a major problem, but it is certainly a major problem for those who are trafficked.

Paragraph 1.84 of the report states:

“Tackling the scope for corruption in Croatia also still requires much work.”

That was in October, after the matter had been considered by the Minister and his Department, and by our own senior officials who give us evidence and support in our Committee. These warnings cannot be ignored. The paragraph goes on:

“Croatia has not efficiently implemented all legal measures to prevent conflict of interest. Local-level corruption needs attention, particularly in public procurement.”

Corruption is an endemic problem. It comes from the former Soviet Union countries, and it must be properly addressed. Paragraph 1.85 states:

“Croatia needs to ensure that a strong system is in place to prevent corruption in state-owned companies.”

Again and again, we are getting strong warning signals that Croatia is not yet in a good place to enter the European Union.

Paragraph 1.86, in reference to our call for conditionality, states that

“the Commission is still seeking of both Bulgaria and Romania: an autonomously functioning, stable judiciary, which is able to detect and sanction conflicts of interests, corruption and organised crime and preserve the rule of law”.

Those were conditions for Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, yet both were allowed in without meeting their conditionality provisions. We still do not believe that those conditions are being correctly met by Croatia. The Commission is also seeking

“concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”—

of which there is still no evidence—

“and a legal system capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way…That state has clearly not yet been attained in Croatia. It is doubtful that it will be prior to accession. Yet, despite the demonstrable ineffectiveness of post-accession monitoring, that now seems the only option open to the EU.”

It is as though we are heading for the only doorway, but that doorway will not lead to reality for the people of Croatia, and we must be concerned about that. I aspire to seeing Croatia joining the EU and becoming part of the wider family of Europe. I do not have confidence, however, that when it gets in, its lifestyle and its approach to the issues that we are discussing will be better than they were before it joined the EU. The factor that is changing things is the attraction of going into the EU, but that will be lost once Croatia goes through that door.

I want to raise the matter of human trafficking, because I think that people are blind to what is going on. I want to talk about human trafficking for slavery as well as that for prostitution and sexual abuse, which is massive. The latest figures, which I read in a pamphlet entitled “This Immoral Trade”, suggest that 27 million people are in some kind of slavery around the world. That situation is not helped by what we know is going on, through our work with the EU group, Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking. That work is based on the work of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which is based here in London and should be commended.

Concern has been expressed that there is trafficking from Montenegro and Bosnia into Croatia. Although the numbers involved are relatively small, this appears to show the inability of the authorities to protect the victims. There is also a question about trafficking from Turkey through Bosnia. The Human Trafficking Foundation in London has gathered quite a lot of statistics on that matter. In many places, the movement is not only into Europe but into the middle east, which illustrates a new way of targeting people for exploitation. I would like the Minister to tell us what he has been doing with the Croatian Government to make them more aware of the growing number of people being trafficked through Croatia into Europe.

Reference has also been made to Slovenia in this regard. It has a weird situation, in that it grants 300 artistic dance visas every year. The women involved turn out to be employed in strip clubs and brothels in Europe, having come through Slovenia. That is a bogus use of such visas to help traffickers, and we wonder whether these subjects will be discussed. Will the Minister reassure us that, if Croatia comes into the EU, he will encourage it to join the organisation that I have just mentioned, Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking? It could then join us and other European countries in trying to stop this vile trade.

I am worried by the lack of awareness of judges in this context, and by the low tariffs being applied in cases of trafficking because of the low status afforded to the activity. We need assurances that the accession process will mean that Croatia will have to sign up to the directives on human trafficking and on the exploitation and sexual abuse of children.

Turning to the final point in my three-part analysis, I want to know what lessons have been learned from the process. Article 49 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which deals with a country applying to join the EU, states:

“The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”

That is what we are doing today. When the Minister was asked about Schengen, he said that an application to join Schengen would be expected from Croatia within a couple of years, but he did not say whether there would be an obligation on it to join. I should like clarification on that point, and I imagine that colleagues from the various parties and constituencies in Scotland would as well, as this is a hot subject. Would an accession country have to join Schengen, and what would the conditions be?

There is another question to which we have not had a clear answer. At the moment, we are torturing ourselves over various parts of the acquis communautaire and the Amsterdam treaty, including the opt-ins and opt-outs. For me, the significant thing about 2014 will not be the anniversary of some battle that took place at Bannockburn, down the road from where I used to be a councillor in Stirling. It is that we will have to decide—I believe we have to take the actual decision in 2013—whether to opt out en bloc from all the co-operation that we have set up on policing and immigration—all the things that are fundamental to the Amsterdam treaty and are part of Schengen—that give us a unified rule of law that protects all our citizens and takes on those who wish to damage their lives. In that situation, would the acquis have to be signed up to piece by piece, or could Croatia just sit there for two years and then say, “Let’s not make an application for Schengen; let us not bother; it is too much trouble. Our people will get the right to travel after four or five years in any case, without Ministers having to sign up to Schengen”? The Minister has not clarified that.

We do not know what the conditions are. Can a country really say yes to join the EU, but not bother applying to join Schengen two years hence—or must it join Schengen? This issue is important for this country, for Croatia and for the future debates that will take place about other countries that wish to break away from one country and then reapply for membership of the EU.

I think it is important that we get some answers in the context of Croatia. I would be deeply concerned if the Minister told me that Croatia need not apply for Schengen membership in a couple of years’ time—that it does not need to apply. The attraction is that its citizens will be able to travel, but we hear that so few of them travel in any case. Will they not bother? Will they not become part of the wider protection system that I always thought Schengen was about—throwing a ring around the European Union to protect our citizens from the lack of rule of law, and to co-operate across citizenships and across the police and other authorities.

In the finality, I welcome Croatia coming into the European Union, but I do not do so blindly. I worry that those who drive the machine that is the European Commission want enlargement at any cost—regardless of the fact that it might bring in more problems. We have got to stop the Commission from doing this. Unfortunately, from the reports we have had from the Minister and from our Committee, it seems that we have not done well enough as yet—but I will vote for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), as we served together in the European Scrutiny Committee for over a decade. I am delighted to participate in today’s debate—first, because of a connection I have with Croatia that goes back 21 years to when I was given one of my first journalistic assignments as a new, young and keen journalist working in Vienna. I was sent down to Croatia to report from the front line of the Croatian civil war. It was a bizarre experience. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have been to Vienna—a splendid city. I found it remarkable that it was possible to get into a car and drive for three hours to the border crossing at Spielfeld—shortly after the Austrian army had stationed tanks to stop any incursion from the then former Yugoslavia, although Slovenia had declared independence by that stage—and then to cross the border and drive for another two hours through Zagreb and just past it to the city of Karlovac, which was the front line in the war at that stage. I was there to interview refugees and others in Croatia for a broadcast that was intended to bring home the realities of the situation in Croatia for the purposes of the largest charitable collection for refugees in the former Yugoslavia, Nachbar in Not or Neighbours in Need, which was in the process of being established.

Let me pass on a couple of recollections. It should be borne in mind that this was only 21 years ago. I recall talking to a priest outside his church, and asking him where the front line was. He replied “Right there”, indicating the corner of the very street on which we were standing, and suggested that it would probably be a good idea for me to get off the pavement and out of the firing line. Shortly after that, I spoke to a group of women who had just arrived from just south of Karlovac, which was then occupied, after being forced to leave their homes. The fate of their husbands and children was uncertain: they did not know whether they had been taken into captivity or worse, and they were understandably beside themselves with worry.

There I was, in my early twenties, having just driven down a motorway from a western European country into the middle of what was a circumstance of total horror for people living in Croatia. Now, only 21 years later, here we are, discussing the pros and cons—or rather just the pros, given that, as far as I am aware, no one opposes it—of allowing Croatia to join us and the other European Union member states. We have not really discussed the fact that Slovenia has been, very successfully, a member of the EU since 2004. Looking back at what has happened in both Slovenia and Croatia, which will shortly be in the EU together, is breathtaking.

I am strongly in favour of Croatia’s membership, which has already been voted on in the European Parliament. The result there was overwhelming, and I welcome it. All four groups of which most of us are part—the European People’s party, the Social Democrats, the Liberals in the European Parliament and the Greens-European Free Alliance—voted almost unanimously in favour of Croatia’s accession.

I want to take up some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. There are a number of important points to be made about Croatian accession. There is still work to be done. I suggest that anyone who is interested in the subject should consult the House of Commons Library research paper 12/64, and also the recent European Scrutiny Committee report entitled “Croatia: monitoring the accession process”. All the Committee’s members have been looking closely at issues on which further progress is required, notably those relating to judiciary and fundamental rights.

Pages 8 and 9 of the House of Commons research document deal with questions that I think should be put on the record. It states that

“a detailed new negotiating chapter on judiciary and fundamental rights… applied… to Croatia”

with

“31 ‘benchmarks’ (compared with between three and six for most other chapters), covering”

areas such as

“judicial transparency, impartiality and efficiency; corruption and organised crime; minority and other rights; refugee return issues; and full cooperation with the ICTY”

—the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

Those are all very important, but specific reforms that are still needed between now and accession, as has been pointed out by the European Commission. On 10 October, only last month, it produced findings on Croatia, pointing out that specific reforms are still needed in respect of: implementing and advancing measures set out in September 2012 for increasing the efficiency of the judiciary and reducing the court backlog—that was addressed by the Minister for Europe—and adopting the new enforcement legislation, in order to ensure the execution of court decisions and reduce the backlog of enforcement cases. The number of civil, commercial and enforcement cases outstanding in the courts has increased in 2012. The Minister made the point that a large number of cases have been dealt with, but more cases have come into the queue and that is not a good indication of the sustainability of implemented reforms.

I have not yet heard any mention of the fact that post-accession safeguard clauses are in place. It is important to understand them, because there are many concerns about Bulgarian and Romanian membership and what has happened subsequently. That is a prism through which we must understand the position on Croatia, because the monitoring mechanisms for Bulgaria and Romania are not being replicated in relation to Croatia. However, three safeguard clauses and various transitional provisions in Croatia’s accession treaty can apply for several years after accession. They are designed to deal with difficulties that might be encountered after membership and are as follows: a general economic safeguard clause; a specific internal market safeguard clause; and specific justice and home affairs safeguard clauses. I know that the Minister is listening closely so perhaps he will help us by setting out the Government’s position on whether there is full confidence that the safeguard clauses will deliver what everybody requires from Croatia.

It is also worth noting that queries about Croatia’s accession have also been raised in the Parliaments of other member states. Within the past month, there have been pretty outspoken commentaries from the president of Germany’s Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, the chairman of the European committee in the Bundestag, Gunther Krichbaum and the SPD’s European spokesperson, Michael Roth. They are not Europhobes—they are not anti-European in any way—but they have asked a series of questions, so it is important that we should examine the points they have made.

We should also note that in reaction to those points other senior figures in Europe have intervened to suggest that the concerns are not everything they have been cracked up to be. Thus, European Parliament president Martin Schulz has intervened subsequent to those views being expressed from the Bundestag, and in recent weeks the European Parliament’s rapporteur on Croatian accession, Hannes Swoboda, has said that

“new obstacles should not be created for Croatia. There are some issues which Croatia must solve, and it is feasible. Enthusiasm in Europe for Croatia's entry in mid-2013 should not wane. I am absolutely certain that Croatia will be in in mid-2013, a small portion of work remains to be done, but one should be serious and not set new obstacles”.

That is helpful in putting into perspective where the outstanding issues lie.

[Michael Connarty]

Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast for countries that wish to take on the mantle of European Union citizenship, but is he not playing it a little light? He is quoting someone from the European establishment, which is determined to have a greater Europe that it will administer. The worry is that when Croatia comes in, its citizens will find that the people who should protect them will start to slide back and the life they hoped to have will not be realised.

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point but this is not simply about the citizens of Croatia. It is also about all other EU citizens; we are talking about the impact on other EU citizens who will be in Croatia in the future. That is why these provisions are important to citizens here and there and why I asked the Minister for Europe to clarify the point about the safeguards. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely and everybody—citizens of Croatia and everybody else in the EU—wants to be reassured that the uniform minimum standards will be upheld everywhere. That is, after all, the advantage of the European Union.

Now that I have spoken about Croatia, I want to touch on the matter of the Irish protocol. I intervened to ask for clarification on the point about tax-varying powers, which are very important to the Irish Republic. It shows that as a small member state of the European Union, Ireland has been able to influence the process by seeking protocols and clarification on such important subjects. If they were unimportant, we would not be discussing them. Every single member state of the European Union is discussing in its Parliament the priorities of the Irish Government, as we are today.

Rather than concentrating on tax, I want briefly to mention Ireland’s defence and security priorities. It is important to acknowledge that Ireland views the protocol as very important in its maintaining its peacekeeping role and traditions and we should take the opportunity to reflect on that. Why? In my 11 years in this place, I have never heard anybody pay tribute to the scale of Ireland’s contribution to the United Nations. There have been 56,000 individual missions to 54 different UN peacekeeping operations. That service has not been without cost. To date, 85 members of Irish defence forces have given their lives in the cause of world peace.

The high standing of the Irish defence forces in UN peacekeeping is reflected in the senior positions that have been held by Irish military personnel: force commander in Cyprus; force commander on the Syria-Israel border; force commander in Lebanon; chief of staff in the United Nations; troop supervision organisation in the middle east and in Liberia; and chief military observer on the India-Pakistan border. Most recently, of course, we saw the European Union’s endeavours to deal with the genocide in and its impact on the countries neighbouring Darfur, which was commanded by Irish Lieutenant General Patrick Nash, who was the EU’s operational commander to Chad and the Central African Republic in 2008. In addition, an Irish general commanded the multinational task force centre in Kosovo in 2007 and defence forces officers serve in key positions in UN headquarters in New York. The importance of the protocol and Ireland’s UN commitments have been underscored by Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore, who stressed the triple-lock of approval for international missions involving the UN, the Irish Government and Dail Eireann.

Today we are affirming those priorities and that is a good thing. It is good to reflect on the contribution made by Ireland to the EU and the UN. It is also good to reflect on the role of smaller countries, both those in the EU and those that are joining. The Minister helpfully clarified that Croatia, a country with a population of fewer than 5 million, will join other EU member states of similar size, that is, Denmark, Finland and Slovakia. He confirmed that it will have 12 MEPs, a commissioner —an important role, as we all know how powerful the Commission is—and seven votes in the Council of Ministers. In addition, Croat nationals will take up important EU posts, with Commission plans to hire 249 Croat officials, one of whom will serve as a director general. That is extremely beneficial for Croatia.

Let me contrast that with the position of another European nation with a population of 5 million that is entitled to only half the Croatian entitlement of MEPs, has no right to nominate a commissioner and has no guaranteed votes in the Council of Ministers. That nation, of course, is Scotland and I look forward to Scotland having full membership rights after the 2014 independence referendum. Unlike Croatia—perhaps I can clarify accession mechanisms in response to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk—Scotland would assume its membership from within the European Union, as recently outlined by the honorary director general of the European Commission, Graham Avery.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

I shall make my point, then give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to respond. I listened with great interest to what he said, and I am now clarifying the matter that he raised in the debate.

In recent parliamentary evidence, Graham Avery said:

“Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years, have acquired rights as European citizens; for practical and political reasons, they could not—”

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

If the intervention by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] It is not in order, in which case I am disappointed that I will not be able to complete the answer as I would wish.

[Michael Connarty]

Having read the opinion—it has been given in writing, I think, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—on the question of Scotland’s accession, has the hon. Gentleman read the other 13 submissions that contradict Mr Avery and do not take the same position, to say—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know that Mr Robertson wants to get back on to the subject, and that no hon. Member wants to distract him. He is not a man who is easily distracted.

EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The budget for the special representative and his or her office and team has to be found from within the existing budget of the External Action Service. It will therefore have to be found at the expense of other potential items of expenditure. I have no doubt that some people will argue that, given the creation of the role, a bigger budget is needed, as with any EU special representative role, but we do not accept that. We continually resist calls for increases in annual and multi-annual budgets and seek to bear down on the costs of, and to secure better value for money in, individual special representatives’ missions and common security and defence missions more generally. I do not want my hon. Friend to think that this will lead to a vast new bill.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Some members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have a different view from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Some of us hope that the fundamental focus of the Council of Europe on human rights might reinfect the body politic of the European Union and add human rights to some of the agreed trade policies that have ignored human rights.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point for the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is important to put on the record that I supported giving the Minister a waiver so that he could go to the Council and support this document, rather than having to break the scrutiny reserve if he had to do so. The reason was that we were going to have a debate anyway, and in the document there is much to support. I want people outside who listen to this debate and who do not spend all their time reading European documents to know exactly what we are supporting.

On 25 June 2012, EU Foreign Ministers adopted an ambitious EU strategic framework and action plan on human rights and democracy. It included an ambitious human rights package consisting of 36 policy areas, ranging from the fight against the death penalty, effective support for democracy, the eradication of torture and the promotion and protection of children’s rights. A division of that work into not fewer than 97 actions has been agreed, and I hope will come into effect, in full respect of national competences—a point made by the Minister. Indeed, only with a joint commitment between the EU and its member states can change be made on the ground.

The action plan sets out a wide variety of external policy activity agreed by all member states. The 97 potential actions have seven headings: human rights and democracy throughout EU policy; promoting the universality of human rights; pursuing coherent policy objectives; human rights in all EU external policies; implementing EU priorities on human rights; working with bilateral partners; and working with the multilateral institutions. The last one is very important because the non-governmental organisations now feel that they have been invited in to the discussions in a way that they have not felt the EU institutions have dealt with them in the past.

The appointment of a human rights representative or envoy will be the first ever thematic envoy. There are many at the moment in parts of the world, but not on a theme such as human rights, and that will be fundamentally important.

The document assigns responsibility for each proposed action to the European External Action Service, member states, the Commission or a combination of two or more of them. It is clear that there is a commitment to consolidate consultations with civil society, which is fundamental.

I think that when these measures are combined with the decision of the EU to sign up to the convention on human rights, there has to be a fundamental rethink of how the EU carries out its policies. The director of Amnesty International’s European institutions office, Nicolas Beger, who was today debating with me in another place on this issue, said:

“We never thought we would see such a positive move forward”.

He commended Cathy Ashton, who has done so much in a way that people did not believe possible. As Hollande said to Sarkozy, “The reason you lost is you underestimated me.” We underestimated Cathy Ashton’s ability to deliver.

We have to ask the EU to look again at its trade agreements. If they are in breach of human rights, which are fundamental to the Council of Europe, the EU has to consider why it did not take on human rights conditions in Colombia, Israel, Peru and Sri Lanka, and it must look again at conditions in Turkey. All of them contain breaches of human rights. If this is going to work, the action plan and the envoy must speak up for human rights defenders before they are thrown into jail or killed by repressive regimes, and we must make sure that we do not sign trade agreements that allow continued breaches of human rights. That is what I see in this policy, and I hope that, by supporting it, we will see forward movement that we have not seen from the EU for some time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course it is our view that the Assad regime should go—that was our stated view from last summer—but as my hon. Friend knows, that is not the united view of the whole United Nations Security Council, so this resolution and the work of Kofi Annan is based on a political process. However, that is a process, as set out in the Annan plan, to lead to a plural democratic political system. Of course, the regime will try to use a ceasefire and a political process to its own advantage; but the more it is a genuine ceasefire and a genuine political process, the less it will be to the regime’s advantage.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

9. What representations he has made to the Government of Israel on the increase in demolition of Palestinian houses in the last year.

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

I raised the issue of demolitions in the west bank with the Israeli ambassador on 23 February, and again with the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Meridor, on 19 March.

[Michael Connarty]

I thank the Minister for that half an answer—it might have been useful to tell us what the Government said. There has been a 40% increase in demolitions in the last year, 26,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished since the Oslo agreement was signed, and 14,000 people have been put out of East Jerusalem through the withdrawal of their right to live there. Is this not in fact ethnic cleansing, and are the Government of Israel not now heading for a racially based apartheid regime similar to South Africa?

[Alistair Burt]

I am happy to give the second part of the answer—now that that part of the question has been asked. The situation is as the hon. Gentleman indicated: the UN reported an increase in demolitions of some 40% last year. We have made representations to Israel on this issue, and we think the demolitions are very destructive of the peace process and the relationship that needs to be built. This has to be set in the overall context of the relationship between the Palestinian authorities and Israel, because settlements, demolitions and related issues must be part of an overall peace process, which is why we have pressed both parties to continue their engagement.

Israel and the Peace Process

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that we need to break the logjam. Mention was made of the peace process in Ireland, and I certainly never thought we would see a peace process there in my lifetime. I welcome what has been done there so that we can have a proper democracy and a proper arrangement between people on that island.

Similarly, we have to break the logjam between Israel and Palestine, but there has to be good faith on both sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rightly reminded us, Israel has, over the years, agreed to put the issue of settlements on the table. To get peace with Egypt, there was an agreement to remove settlements, and they were removed; to get peace with Gaza, settlements were removed; and to get peace with the west bank, settlements were removed. The Egyptian peace treaty was highly successful, but such success has not, sadly, been the case in Gaza, and that is a problem for the Israeli Government.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I do not know how anybody can say that the issue of the settlements in the west bank was somehow solved by a treaty. When was the hon. Gentleman actually in the west bank? Every time I have been there, the settlements have increased, and the settlers’ violence against innocent Palestinians has increased exponentially. What land is the hon. Gentleman talking about? It is not the one I visit.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was in the west bank last October—

[Michael Connarty]

How many settlements?

[Bob Blackman]

I saw many settlements. I also saw how the Palestinian people have been sold out by their own lawyers—their own people. Palestinians have sold land to the Israelis and given them the opportunity to build houses on it. They had claims over that land, but, unfortunately, they sold them. They went through the courts, and their lawyers sold them out. It is difficult for someone who has been through a legal process to complain when it has gone against them.

Where we go now is quite clear. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups oppose Israel’s right to exist and they refuse to accept the Quartet principles. Until such time as they openly say, “We accept Israel’s right to exist”, no meaningful peace talks can take place. That is where the British Government have a clear duty. They must ensure that pressure is put on the state of Israel and the Palestinians to enter negotiations in line with President Obama’s excellent speech setting out how the peace process could proceed. The Israeli Government were quite keen to commit to that up front, but the Palestinians seem to want to delay; they do not seem to want to enter talks. They must understand that unless they enter talks rapidly, the prospects for a two-state solution will diminish by the day, and we could end up with a three-state solution—the state of Israel, a Palestinian state in Gaza and a Palestinian state on the west bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important debate.

Until the events of the Arab spring, it was generally suggested that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key issue—indeed, the only issue—in the middle east. It is now abundantly clear to everyone that that is not, and never was, the case. Despite that, it is vital that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is resolved. Both peoples have the right to self-determination, and it is a tragedy that Arab and Jewish nationalisms came forward at the same time and became embroiled in such conflict.

Israel, of course, has been under threat since it was set up in 1948. The issue since then has been not its borders, but its existence. In 1948—1947, to be more precise—the United Nations made one of a number of offers of a state to the Palestinians. However, Arab states invaded the new state of Israel and rejected the concept of a Palestinian state at that time.

Much discussion centres around the significance of Israeli settlements. The origins of that settling movement were in the 1967 defensive war, when Israel, whose existence was threatened by all its neighbours, went to war, won that war, survived and as a result ended up occupying lands beyond the boundaries that it had had before. I do not want to go into any long, historical debate, but it is significant for everyone to remember that at the Khartoum conference after the ’67 war the Arab states came together and uttered the “three nos”—no peace, no recognition, no negotiation. It was after that that the settler movement went forward so that we are in today’s situation.

That interpretation of settlements is, of course, valid only for people who accept the existence of a state of Israel, and look at settlements as land occupied as a result of war, which was then not negotiated on. The people who do not think Israel should exist at all use the word “settlements” in a rather different way when they talk about Israel being occupied Palestine. When I listen carefully to people who criticise the state of Israel, it is sometimes clear, sometimes less so, on what basis they are speaking.

We are told that the current major impediment to peace is the existence of the Israeli settlements. The obvious question that must be raised when they are described in that way—not as undesirable but as the major, or only, obstacle to peace—is why Israel’s forcible withdrawal of 8,000 settlers, and its soldiers, from Gaza in 2005 was followed not by peace in Gaza but by the election of Hamas, which declared that it would fight for ever to get rid of all the state of Israel, and by the continuation of rockets being fired from Gaza to Israel—to Sderot and other places.

Hamas has a charter that is blatantly anti-Semitic and talks about Jews ruling the world and being responsible for the Russian and French revolutions—events that I seem to remember took place before the state of Israel was set up. Of course, Hamas was and still is supported and armed by Iran, which also armed Hezbollah in Lebanon and has been moving missiles and arms to Hezbollah there in recent weeks. The forcible removal of 8,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza by the Israeli army did not result in peace at all, so the settlements are not the only obstacle to peace. I support what the Israeli Government of the time did. It was the right thing to do, but it is clear that settlements are not the sole obstacle to peace.

Peace—recognition of the rights of Palestinians and Israelis in two states—can come about only through negotiations, and anyone who wants that end knows that negotiations must be about borders, the status of Jerusalem and refugees. A number of very detailed and protracted negotiations, involving international support, have taken place and come fairly close to resolving some of those difficult issues, but they have never quite been concluded.

Each side will have its explanation of who is at fault. Gilead Sher, a senior negotiator on the Israeli side who has worked extensively with Palestinians, and who to this day is working on the west bank persuading Israeli settlers to prepare to leave, has said clearly that a solution was never reached in the negotiations in which he was involved, because the Palestinians were not willing to signal an end to conflict. They could not or would not do it. That view was echoed by President Clinton who tried so hard to bring about a solution.

What is happening now, and what is there for the future? The past is relevant and important in this protracted and difficult conflict, but people must look to the future if a solution is to be found. In recent years, major progress has been made by the Palestinian Authority on the west bank, working with Tony Blair and the Quartet in developing the economy of the west bank and instruments of government for a future Palestinian state.

That work has been done effectively, but it is extremely disturbing that at this moment, as the Palestinian Authority is talking to Hamas about a unity agreement, the architect of those substantial improvements in security and in Palestine’s economy and autonomy, Prime Minister Fayyad, is being told that as a result of the unity negotiations he should go. There is intense pressure on him. Last week he was going; this week it is a little less clear. That is an ominous sign. The Palestinian who has worked to develop a Palestinian state and economy is now told by Hamas that his services are no longer required.

[Michael Connarty]

I respect my hon. Friend’s strongly held views on these matters, but she has spent all her time talking about the Palestinians. As we heard from Opposition speakers, at the moment the Israeli state is demolishing houses, surrounding and crushing East Jerusalem, moving large numbers of people out of their homes and, it would appear, condoning an attempt to emasculate the Palestinian community in East Jerusalem. Surely she should talk about what the Israeli Government are doing, because they are obviously not aiding the peace process.

[Mrs Ellman]

I certainly do not support every move of the current Israeli Government, but I have to remember that under previous Israeli Governments, whom I did support, it was the Palestinians who were the block to peace; whatever policies may be going on that people may disagree with, the fundamental point here is that it is the Palestinians who at this moment are refusing to go to the negotiating table and settle the conflict, when there is an opportunity to do so on the basis of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The only way forward is a return to negotiations on the basis of two states living in co-operation and peace. I hope supporters of all the parties involved will do their best to bring those negotiations forward, so that there can indeed be an agreement leading to a peaceful future.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is rather missing the point. The question before the House is that we should have a proper debate about legality. There will not be a vote, as far as I am concerned, because we need to have an open discussion among Members of Parliament, not only in the European Scrutiny Committee, as has been the case so far. We have heard evidence from many distinguished lawyers and economists, and from the Minister for Europe, although sadly, and deeply regrettably, not from the Foreign Secretary, who has twice declined to come before us. He did say that he would come on 27 March, but that is far too late for the purposes of our proceedings. The most important thing is that we have an open and transparent debate about questions that otherwise would not get across to Members of Parliament, let alone to the people at large.

I have just spent two days in Brussels as Chairman of the Committee, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison). We had an extremely constructive dialogue with members from the national Parliaments and Members of the European Parliament. The only remedy that is provided in this time of economic and, I submit, political crisis in Europe is more Europe, not less. That completely misses the point.

As I discovered only a few months ago at the multi-annual surveillance framework meeting, some people want further European institutional change towards greater political union. In effect, they say that the solution to the problem is the European Parliament, rather than the national Parliaments, although they do want us to be involved so that we can sign our own suicide note. On economic matters and the multi-annual surveillance framework, they want more money to be spent, irrespective of the failure of the European economic systems that they have put in place. The Minister for Europe, who was at that meeting, will recall that he, I and others who were being realistic about this matter were simply astonished by the continuing stream of determination to seek more and more money for the European Union, through the financial transaction tax, by increasing its resources and through the common commercial tax base.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

No one can beat the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for diligence. However, I will not be staying to take part in this debate for one reason: I am disappointed at his timing. The Committee has yet to hear from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, we have not yet finished our evidence sessions and we have not yet presented our report. I know that the Government are desperate for something to fill the gap in this debating hall, which has frankly turned into a disappointing—

[The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household (Mr Mark Francois)]

Do you think we put him up to it?

[Michael Connarty]

I am not immune to the value of the Whips, but I honestly believe that they have got themselves into such a situation that they have allowed even this debate because they are desperate to fill the Order Paper.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is too long. It is very enjoyable, but too long. Secondly, although I do not usually comment on the content of debates at all, I feel that I must do so for the benefit of the House. I know that it will please the senior Government Whip—I must get my seniority right—when I make the point that this debate was granted by me. It was nothing whatever to do with any Whip, senior or junior, and that is the end of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That was not really a point worthy of comment, but I will certainly reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who is my colleague on the European Scrutiny Committee. The question of legality has already been canvassed. The Government have demonstrated that in the letter written by Sir Jon Cunliffe, on their instruction, to the secretary-general of the European Council, which expresses severe reservations about and, in effect, disputes the advice of the legal adviser to the European Council. Without wishing to prejudice what the European Scrutiny Committee may conclude in our report, the fact is that there is already sufficient notice of the concerns over legality for the matter to be considered by the whole House, rather than just in the Committee, as important as that is. There is one simple reason for that: silence or acquiescence can be assumed to be consent. I will explain that point in a moment.

While the question of legality is allowed to continue without challenge, and while it is decided whether the European Court of Justice should be called upon to make a judgment about this matter, which will itself take time, we are depending on the action, legal or otherwise, of the Prime Minister, who is going to the Council tomorrow. It is therefore important for us to at least indicate our view in this debate, in amplification of what the European Scrutiny Committee is considering and what it may yet conclude. I cannot make any assumptions about what its conclusion will be. We have certainly had the most powerful evidence from the likes of Professor Paul Craig, who is by no means unknown in European Union circles as a person of immense stature.

[Michael Connarty]

I am about to leave the Chamber, because I believe that this is not the right time to debate something that we are considering in the European Scrutiny Committee. I am used to all-party Back-Bench Committees being run as the fiefdom of the Chair. However, as a former Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I think that it is extremely discourteous, when we have not finished our inquiry or published our report, to have a debate on something that the Chair of the Committee sees as a matter of interest. It is wrong to do that and I think that it should be discussed in the Committee. I am now going to read my papers for the Committee sitting at 2 o’clock so that we can have some debate.

[Mr Cash]

I will reply to that point simply by saying that it is important that we, as a House, consider matters as they are going on concurrently. There should be no presumption that other Members of the House necessarily know the detail of the matters that we are discussing.

European Union

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I will give way one more time, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) who is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Michael Connarty]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman but I think he is perhaps getting carried away by his own conclusions before using logic. Clearly, the crisis that faces all the countries in Europe, and most other developed countries, comes from the profligate madness of the casino-based banking system that all the countries joined in with. The eurozone might be under greater pressure, but it is not in as bad a condition, in reality, as the US economy at this moment. It is just that, unlike the US, it is not united enough to deal with the crisis as one country.

[Mr Cash]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but with about 47% youth unemployment in Spain and in Greece, for example, and 30% in Italy, and so on, youth unemployment is a really serious problem, and there is not the same problem in some of the other countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I am afraid that both the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats are completely out of their depth on this subject. For the Deputy Prime Minister to say that this historic vote, which will change the whole future of the European Union and our relationship with it, is bad for Britain is simply absurd. I do not want to go further than that, but I want to get on the record the fact that it is irresponsible of the Deputy Prime Minister to make such a statement. To claim that influence can be retained in a room when you know in advance not only that everyone will vote against you but that they all have the power to continue to do so involves living in a fantasy world not unlike that of “Alice in Wonderland”.

Let me turn briefly to the question of this attempt, this device, this spurious method that people are trying to stitch together to give the measure some degree of authority despite all the realities of the crisis in the eurozone and in the European Union as a whole. There is an attempt to give the European Court of Justice and the European Commission some jurisdiction over this so-called separate treaty. I am not at all sure that it will be a treaty—at best it will only be an agreement—but people are calling it a treaty. I am very worried about the looseness of the language; I want just to make that point on its own.

The main objection to reinforcing the eurozone by means of an intergovernmental agreement is that the rules agreed under the European Union treaties—by which I mean EU primary legislation—by the 27 member states for the operation of the eurozone are to be modified by a separate agreement that does not have primacy over EU treaty law, and so cannot modify or be in conflict with EU treaty law, and that has not been agreed to by all 27 member states. It is vital to stick to that principle, which is at the heart of how the European Union functions. I might be critical of how the European Union has developed under the existing treaties, but those who are against us cannot have it both ways.

As for the objective, the hope seems to be that the provisions of an international agreement can be incorporated

“into the treaties of the Union as soon as possible.”

That is in the statement on the agreement. In other words, the objective of getting the arrangement stitched up into the new treaty has already been set. I must advise the Government that it will not be in their interests to give effect to the proposal through a stitch-up or a device. The European Scrutiny Committee, of course, will be considering all those questions. In addition, the EU treaties require unanimity, so in order to make such a change unanimity would be required—unanimity that would have to include the United Kingdom. That would lead to a great deal of trouble for the Government if they were to attempt to achieve a stitch-up.