Somalia
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Nine Members are trying to catch my eye. The winding-up speeches will start at 5.36 pm, so if hon. Members take roughly between seven and eight minutes each everyone will have an equal footing. If Members cannot show self-constraint, I will help them.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not prepared with a suitable Shakespearean quote to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), but I want to pick up on his last point about humanitarian assistance. Somalia, of course, was the country worst hit by the famine in the horn of Africa. Just as one cannot deal with the famine without looking at the underlying security issues, one cannot approach the security issues without taking into account the famine and the circumstances that led to it.
I want to make a couple of points on the famine in the horn of Africa. It has been said time and again that it was both predictable and predicted. I am sure that Members will have seen the excellent report recently produced by Save the Children and Oxfam, which concluded:
“There were clear early warning signs many months in advance, yet there was insufficient response until it was far too late.”
There was a failure to respond at many levels—by international organisations, international agencies, countries throughout the world and countries in the region. The UK Government were one of the first to respond, and their role was very positive, but together the world community did not act, in spite of the repeated warnings that many Members will have read and heard about over the past year.
The question must be: why was there such a failure to act in time when there were such clear warnings? Several features had their role to play, including a lack of flexibility among the system in place to respond to the crisis and, in Somalia in particular, the non-existence of state organisations and a lack of security for NGOs and other actors, but the report from Oxfam and Save the Children makes another important point: when such information from early warnings systems is produced, action has to be based upon those early warnings, and it has to take place at that point, not when one is certain that there is going to be a crisis. If we wait until there is certainty, we will find that the crisis is well upon us and much harder to deal with.
Governments and NGOs have a difficult issue to deal with in their approach to crises. The resources of countries and NGOs are of course limited, and I can well foresee the criticism that would be made if emergency supplies were put in place and then not fully utilised, but we must accept the conclusion is that, if necessary, a risk must be taken by making early preparations to avert such famines. That is why the proposals in the recent humanitarian emergency response review, the Ashdown report, are relevant. Its recommendations on stockpiles of supplies and the means to deliver them have to be considered and put in place in Somalia and elsewhere, so I should be interested to know how the Government will apply the report’s conclusions in their approach to the conference in a couple of weeks’ time.
We are focused on Somalia, but there are increased warnings of another hunger crisis breaking out elsewhere in Africa, in the Sahel region. This debate is of course about Somalia, but it is noticeable and concerning that many features that are described as contributing to the potential crisis in the Sahel are similar to those that we heard about a couple of years ago in relation to the crisis in the horn of Africa. We are told that there were late and poor rains in 2011, that food prices are now too high for people to afford at markets and that instability is arising both from internal factors and from the knock-on effects of developments elsewhere in Africa. I should therefore be interested to know also how the Government will ensure that the international community responds in advance of any crisis in the Sahel.
That point relates to the Somalia issue, because, as we have seen in the horn of Africa, famine can destabilise a much wider area than the one most badly affected. Given that we face also a worrying increase in the tension between South Sudan and Sudan, we in the world community could well be faced with a massive area, stretching from west to east Africa, of hunger, disease and instability, which, as well as damaging the countries and peoples directly affected, is bound to have effects on neighbouring countries, including those that have recently made substantial economic, developmental and political progress.
Those are big issues, and there are limits to what the UK can do. This country has been a major provider of emergency aid under this and the previous Governments, but we have to get the world to mobilise and to focus consistently on the issues. The Save the Children and Oxfam report makes the point that one reason for the international community’s lack of response to the developing crisis in the horn of Africa might have been other events, such as the Arab spring, the global recession, and the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and I am sure that that is right, but there are certainly as many—if not more—crises affecting the world now as there were two years ago, so there has to be some way of providing a continued focus on the long-term solutions that are required to prevent such crises from developing in the first place.
I do not have time to develop all the points that I would have made. However, we need to consider the kind of proposals that were outlined in the Save the Children and Oxfam report, such as the proposal for a charter to end extreme hunger. That would look at longer-term solutions to ensure, above all, that countries have resilience so that when crises and natural disasters happen, they can respond internally without having to rely on emergency assistance on every occasion. There is obviously also a need to resolve the security issues.
Finally, the role of the African Union is extremely important. It should not be seen just as a proxy by which richer, western powers can get forces in on the cheap; it must be something much more than that. At the end of the day, African countries, leaders, peoples and organisations, such as the African Union, will have to provide the long-term support to deal with immediate security crises and other crises. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what further support the UK can give the African Union, both in its organisation and for specific missions, so that it has the ability to respond to crises, such as those that we are seeing in the horn of Africa and that we may see in western Africa. Clearly, it will not provide the sort of development assistance that comes from richer and more developed countries, but its role can be important, and should become increasingly important, in providing security, technical and political support. I hope that it will have the full support of the UK Government as it develops that role.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am extremely grateful to you for taking note of the time constraints, Mr Lazarowicz.
Sarah Newton
I do not believe that my point reflected negatively on the vast majority of Somalis living in our country, who make a very positive contribution. That point has been made well by Members this afternoon and I concur with it. However, we must not put our heads in the sand and ignore professionals who are accountable to this Parliament and the professional advice that they give us.
I welcome what the Government are doing to re-establish an embassy in Somalia and the efforts of the UN to re-establish its base in Mogadishu.
In the weeks around the forthcoming major conference on Somalia, hosted by the Prime Minister, I hope that our media play their part in helping people up and down the country—especially people in places such as my constituency, who do not have day-to-day contact with the Somali community—to understand why it is important that they support Britain’s continued involvement in Somalia. As we are all in the Chamber today, it is clear that all parties understand that, but a large percentage of the people who have sent us here do not really understand it and have reservations about why we are continuing our support. That is quite understandable, because people are often susceptible to compassion fatigue, especially when their standard of living is being squeezed and some people are losing their jobs. Many fear that good money is being wasted. With so many conflicts erupting around the world, they might tire of even trying to keep up with what is going on. As taxpayers’ money is being spent, it is vital that we all do our bit to make the case for support. I believe that people will want to support our efforts in Somalia if they understand the risks to our national security and believe that we are really making a positive difference on the ground.
Today, I want to share with colleagues the positive difference that humanitarian aid is making to thousands of people in Somalia, who, we must not forget, are among the poorest and longest-suffering on the planet. I have mentioned ShelterBox in the House before. It is a great Cornish emergency humanitarian aid charity that provides boxes containing shelter, basic cooking equipment, water sanitisation equipment and tools. Its ingenuity in responding to different situations has enabled it to deliver a remarkable array of services in Somalia in its sturdy boxes. The boxes are all packed in and distributed from Cornwall, and enabled by donations and volunteers. Over the past few years, several thousand boxes have been sent to Somalia, and nearly a further 500 boxes, including 50 classroom boxes, are currently en route. That shipment of direct aid is enough to provide shelter for about 1,000 families.
Due to the security risks of working in Somalia at the moment, ShelterBox does not actually have any volunteers on the ground there. It is instead working with a partner agency, a French medical charity called Women and Health Alliance International, which has a long history of working in Somalia. At the main displacement camp in Mogadishu, it has already set up a health centre, where there is a hospitalisation facility using the disaster relief tents donated by ShelterBox. It is providing primary health care consultation rooms, a delivery suite and even a small hospital. The ShelterBox tents not only provide a clean, sterile area for the medical staff to work in but allow patients to be hospitalised while staying with their families rather than being separated. Pregnant women also have privacy while they are having their antenatal consultations and giving birth. The facility has been described by the doctors on the ground as having made
“a dramatic difference to the well-being of hundreds of Somali families in dire need of assistance in Mogadishu.”
ShelterBox’s success in helping people in Somalia is a result of having worked around the world for many years building effective working relationships with local organisations that do not have the bureaucracy and inefficiency of some of the multinational agencies. Wherever it works in the world, it works with locals and, in doing so, it tries to build capacity in those nations to deal with future disasters.
Working in partnership with other countries’ aid efforts and with people in the countries that we are supporting, so that they can develop their own capacity, is rightly at the heart of the Government’s humanitarian aid response. That theme was echoed in a recent report published by Oxfam, which stated that the UN and international non-governmental organisations provided only part of the answer to crises from Haiti to the horn of Africa.
When the Minister responds to the debate, I would appreciate his reassurance that the Government’s admirable plans to publish information on how taxpayers’ money is spent in Somalia will be implemented so that all can see it, just as donors to ShelterBox can go online and see how their money is being spent so well. Publishing that information would go some way towards reassuring my constituents that their money was being well spent and, as a result, build public support for the essential work that Britain needs to continue to do in Somalia.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In my lifetime, Somalia has probably been the biggest and most tragic basket case in the world. It has had severe problems since well before 1991—indeed, I can recall them from when I was a boy living in Aden. However, the 2011 drought, which, as the Foreign Secretary has explained, caused the deaths of between 50,000 and 100,000 people, did, to use a pun, “take the basket”. Half of those who died may have been children, and it is time that we did something about this. Somalia’s government simply is not working and it has not worked at all since 1991. Given those sorts of conditions, it is hardly surprising that piracy flourishes; it flourishes in anarchy. Somalia’s long coast offers the perfect opportunity for attacks on shipping. Of course, shipping is vital to our nation and to many others.
On top of all that, al-Shabaab started to take over Somalia in 2006. Someone born a Somali in Mogadishu must curse. Thankfully, last August, al-Shabaab was ousted from Mogadishu but it is still a huge force in the south. That terrorist organisation imposes very violent rule. As we know and as has been mentioned, it is blocking aid to many starving Somalis. It has unrelenting belligerence, it rejects any possible peaceful political settlement and it is imposing a brutal sharia regime on the people of Somalia. It seems that Somalis are getting very tired of all this and are beginning to turn away from these people, so perhaps opportunity knocks.
With the London conference on 23 February, we must push as hard as we can to try to make a start on sorting this basket case out. The main aim of the conference must, of course, be to try to start on the road to peace and security, and getting some form of decent living standards for Somalis. The situation in Somalia is very difficult, but we must do all we can to help our fellow human beings who are unlucky enough to have been born into it. We are so lucky and they are so unlucky, so let us try to do what we can to help them.
What is really needed in order to help Somalia? What steps shall we try to aim for at the London conference? I see the Minister looking at me and wondering where this is going, so I will do my best to be on message. First, the Security Council resolution we already have does require reinforcing. The international community must show its determination. We already have a chapter VII enforcement action Security Council resolution, but we need the international community to have the courage—I was going to use a different word—to do something about it. We need enforcement action to be taken, in some form or other, to sort out Somalia and we need effective funding for all aspects of that action. I have seen what happens when we have unpaid UN battalions in the field—they flog their petrol and sell their food. There has to be proper funding and the humanitarian operations have to be supported by international action.
A timeline for action is already in place, as the end of the interim Government arrangements are scheduled for August. That gives us five months and, as I know from my own experience, quite a lot can be done in that time. However, quite a lot of that time is needed to sort out a plan. First-class leadership by international organisations and military forces on the ground is of course required. The military forces that go into Somalia must have effective, well-thought-through, practical rules of engagement. The one thing they must not do is back away from a confrontation; they must deal with any confrontation. If they back away once, they will destroy their mandate. We have to be robust about imposing a solution. First-class leadership is required, particularly on the ground, and it must be supported internationally by all Governments.
The initiative also has the continuing problem of piracy. One solution—I am not suggesting it is ideal—might be for the international anti-piracy efforts to be put on the ground in headquarters located in a port in Somalia. That might be considered during the conference, as I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).
What we require most of all at the London conference is what the Germans call a schwerpunkt, which is a Clausewitzian term that I learned in the military. It means a point of concentrated effort, and the point of concentrated effort of the London conference is to make sure that, internationally, we establish determination to sort out the problem of Somalia. That requires everyone to attend with the determination to apply the Security Council resolution to which they have already signed up and to provide the assets, resources and money to help the poor, wretched people in what is, as it stands, a dreadful country. Somalia is not blessed by God, but, my goodness, we must do our very best to try to sort things out for the people who live there and help them.
I wish the Foreign Secretary the very best of luck at the London conference. He will need it. Right now, with al-Shabaab on the back foot, this is probably the best opportunity that the international community has had for a generation to get in and help the people of Somalia. I wish the best of luck to our team at the London conference.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I call Laura Sandys and ask that she sit down no later than 5.36 pm.
National Referendum on the European Union
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stuart Bell
The hon. Gentleman can sit down because I am not giving way to him.
Teesside is the third largest port in our country. We face out to Europe and we export to Europe. The point has been made many times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), that 50% of our exports go to Europe. Why did Nissan come to Sunderland? It is because it has the Tees and so can export to Europe. Many years ago, I heard Hilary Marquand say that in Europe we take in each others’ washing. That is perfectly true. We trade among ourselves and that trade is a rising tide that, as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, “lifts all boats”.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) touched on a significant point, which I put to the Prime Minister. He mentioned that the 17 eurozone members at the weekend elected their own president, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The 17 members of the European Union that are in the eurozone will have their own meetings, outwith the 27 countries of which we are a member. Mr Van Rompuy said:
“Rest assured that we will narrowly and closely inform all the preparation of the summits we shall have in the eurozone, and we shall advise of the results.”
As I said carefully in my question to the Prime Minister, Mr Van Rompuy will have Germany on one side and France on the other, so where will we be? We have opted for a two-tier Europe and we have opted out. I am sure that the Prime Minister will do all that he can—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please resume your seats. We have had 23 speakers so far, and considerably more Members than that still wish to come into the debate. To accommodate as many as we possibly can, the time limit is being reduced to four minutes, still with injury time for two interventions.
Mr Field
I disagree with that. Part of the reason for rearranging our procedures in the House and giving the Backbench Business Committee more power was to try to strike a new relationship with the electorate. What has happened? We are now having a debate that the Government presumably did not want us to have, and they are railroading their Members into supporting them with a three-line Whip. The same is happening on our side of the House.
The truth is that the Government have scored an own goal. The second big change in the House in the years I have been here, along with the cancerous effect of Europe on our democracy in this country, is that the Conservative party has changed radically. People watching the debate tonight need only look at the number of Conservative Members who wish to participate and the number of Labour Members who wish to participate. When I first came here, if someone raised the issue of Europe regularly they were cast as being slightly bonkers or very bonkers. Now we see that the Conservative party has genuinely changed on the issue. Thanks to the Government’s ham-fisted approach in imposing a three-line Whip, the country will not see how significant that change has been and how in tune the Conservative party now is with both Conservative and Labour voters in the country.
I make a plea to Members on my own side of the House. We are getting it wrong on the issue of the representation of England and appear to be a party controlled by our Scottish colleagues. Increasingly, the question will be how England is represented in this Parliament, and so far we are on the wrong side of that debate. Again tonight, by trying to force Members into the Lobby in support of the Government stance, we are in danger of alienating many Labour voters.
When I first stood for election, the turnout was 85%. Last time, it was 60%. How have we managed to turn off 25% of the electorate? It comes down to our conduct as politicians. We were going to make a small move by having debates that we, Back Benchers, could control, but the Government decided it would be better to clobber us with—
Mr MacShane
In the spirit of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), tonight I shall vote for parliamentary democracy and against plebiscites, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the same.
Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just received a communication from an Indian paper called Daijiworld. The headline reads, “India reacts strongly to British parliamentary debate on Kashmir”. We have not even had the debate and already a parliamentary democracy is telling us that we should not be having it. That is not quite a point of order, but this really is an insult from the Indian journalists who say we should not even be debating this in our own House of Commons.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Mr MacShane. Perhaps you have just introduced a new practice in which people stand up and say, “Nearly point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.” You are quite right: it was nearly a point of order but it certainly was not one for the Chair. However, it has been put on the record.
Steve Baker
I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution.
As I was saying, we must not deceive ourselves. Moving on to issues of freedom of movement, of association, of speech and so on, I want to mention a report by Amnesty International entitled, “India: A ‘lawless law’: Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act,” which contains a number of allegations regarding the use of preventive, administrative detentions. The contents include:
“Violations of the principle of legality…Delayed and secret reasons for detention…No access to judicial authority…Restrictions on access to legal counsel…Indefinite detention of foreign nationals…Immunity of officials…Incommunicado detention …Torture…Detention without any legal basis”.
That Amnesty International report deserves an answer.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I remind him of the guidelines about the length of his contribution.
Steve Baker
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have taken my last intervention. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) makes a good point, although I have not read that report. I am seeking to be even-handed, but even so, I have to enter this into the record for the sake of discussion. The “lawless law” report states that by using the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act
“to incarcerate suspects without adequate evidence, India has not only gravely violated their human rights but also failed in its duty to charge and try such individuals and to punish them if found guilty in a fair trial.”
I wish to express considerable humility on this point, because the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act is very much in line with the principle at least of our own control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The House should therefore not be too quick to condemn the principle of what India is doing. It is very much in line with what we have done. In my Second Reading speech on TPIMs, I condemned administrative detention outright and then withheld my vote from it, so I hope that I will escape the accusation of hypocrisy.
We need to consider how these measures arise. Why do democracies turn to such measures? I suggest that when democracy is denied, people turn away from it and end up seeking violence. I am proposing, for the people of Kashmir, a comprehensive policy of non-aggression, peace and democratic self-determination under the terms of the UN resolutions. I accept that the situation in Kashmir can only, and must, be resolved by Kashmiris, India and Pakistan, but we must acknowledge in this place the absolute moral, legal and political equality of the Kashmiri people and take whatever steps are appropriate to secure demilitarisation, democratic self-determination and a prosperous and secure future for Kashmir. I hope that the Government are listening and will take whatever steps they can.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that there is a five-minute limit on speeches.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I have only two minutes left, so I am going to speak very fast. I wish to refer to an article written by Dr Angana Chatterji, the associate professor of social and cultural anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies. Along with her cameraman and a number of other people, she went to Jammu and occupied Kashmir. Her article states:
“Dirt, rubble, thick grass, hillside and flatland, crowded with graves. Signifiers of military and paramilitary terror, masked from the world. Constructed by institutions of state to conceal massacre. Placed next to homes, fields, schools, an army practice range. Unknown, unmarked. Over 940 graves in a segment of Baramulla district alone. Some containing more than one cadaver. Dug by locals, coerced by the police, on village land. Bodies dragged through the night, some tortured, burnt, desecrated. Circulating mythology claims these graves uniformly house ‘foreign militants’. Exhumation and identification have not occurred in most cases. When undertaken”—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sadly, we have to start the wind-ups now, and I apologise to the hon. Lady.
European Union Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 5 to 13 and 15.
Mr MacShane
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution in the late 1970s, which required a threshold that was not reached? That was a grotesque humiliation for the Labour Government and was an exultant moment of glory for the Conservatives as Mrs Thatcher swept forward to victory. You really should not bury your successful past so quickly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am not trying to bury my unsuccessful past.
Mr Lidington
In 1979, I was still a university student and had other things on my mind than the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales. If one takes the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the imposition of the threshold then and looks back at the history of the decade after, which resulted in no move towards satisfying what were genuine aspirations for a greater degree of devolved government in Scotland and Wales, it made the public disconnection from Westminster of the people in those two countries greater over the subsequent years. But this is a matter that historians can argue over.
Mr Lidington
I think that I would test the House’s patience if I were to go into that in detail, particularly as there was a debate on bail-outs a few weeks ago, in which I think my hon. Friend participated, and to which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury responded at some length. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to question Treasury Ministers about that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. For the convenience of the House, I remind Members that just because the debate has the word “Europe” in the title, that does not mean that we can have a wide-ranging debate on European issues. Some latitude has been given, as Mr Cash knows, but could we now please look at the specific amendments?
Mr Lidington
The amendments to clause 6 would introduce huge inconsistency in the referendum lock. They would make the method used to transfer competence or power the determining factor in deciding whether or not a referendum should be held, rather than the fact of the transfer of competence or power itself. There are four ways of amending the treaties to allow transfers of power and competence from the United Kingdom to the European Union. First, there is the ordinary treaty revision procedure. Secondly, there is the first part of the simplified revision procedure, which was the method used recently to agree the recent treaty change on the eurozone stability mechanism. Thirdly, the British veto could be given up using the second part of the simplified revision procedure set out in article 48(7) of the treaty on European Union. The fourth and final way is through the use of a decision or passerelle without formal treaty change.
The Lords amendments seek to remove the last two methods from the referendum lock. I do not see the logic in this. For example, the amendments would mean that were a future UK Government to decide to give up their veto over foreign and security policy under the ordinary treaty revision procedure, there would first have to be a referendum, but if they decided to give up that veto under the passerelle decision in article 31(3), which would have exactly the same effect as a change under the ordinary revision procedure, there would be no requirement for a referendum. I do not think that the British public would understand being able to vote on a treaty change that gave up the veto but not having a say over a passerelle that did exactly the same thing, and there are other such examples. As my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell argued, this would be tantamount to locking the front and back doors of a house but leaving the kitchen window open. It is not the way to restore the trust of the British people.
The amendments would also draw an artificial distinction between a possible future agreement on a common European defence that would involve the creation of a single, integrated military force and other similar decisions that would not. The amendment suggests that the only controversial element would be a decision to develop a “single, integrated military force”, but there would inevitably be confusion over the extent to which such a force would be established. For example, would the establishment of an integrated command structure, an integrated unit or integrated budgets count? That lack of clarity could allow each step to be presented as “not quite” leading to a single integrated military force, and therefore “not quite” justifying a referendum. It is important that we hold to the principle that were a British Government to decide to opt in to a common European defence, that should ultimately be subject to a decision by the British people. A common defence could undermine the pre-eminence or capability of NATO, notwithstanding any assurances provided in the EU treaties. Maintaining that pre-eminence has been a long-standing concern of this and previous British Governments.
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A time limit of eight minutes will be imposed, plus two minutes for injury time. However, I caution Members to frame a six-minute speech in their heads, because that is what they are likely to be allotted by the time they are called.
North Africa and the Middle East
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This is a well-subscribed debate. There is a 10-minute limit on speeches with the usual injury time for two interventions.
European Union (Amendment) Act 2008
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The debate will finish at 8.41 pm, so there is slightly over half an hour left. There will be no wind-up, so the allotted time is for Back Benchers. However, there is no time limit on speeches, so if Members could please show discipline and restraint, more people will get in.
European Union Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
I would very much welcome the idea of having, for example, European questions in the House. I have many proposals that would make the system more efficient. I remind my right hon. Friend of the current Home Secretary’s pamphlet, which recommended not only that European Committees should have their proceedings properly advertised, but that if, for example, 150 Members decided that they wanted to have the matter in question debated on the Floor of the House, there should be a free vote on a motion to overturn a decision taken in the Council of Ministers, whether or not the Government had approved the provision there. Some of us would be more interested in the results of a vote than in a mere discussion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Can we bring the debate back, please, to new clause 1?
Mr Lidington
I will try to bring this part of my speech to a conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying that this has been an interesting discussion of the broader themes involved. We have heard allusions to various Scandinavian models of European scrutiny.
European Union Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend mentions the astonishing sum of £41 billion that will be paid over the next five years by the coalition Government. Is he aware that that is more than twice the £19 billion that was paid to the European Union under the previous Labour Government?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This is a fascinating and amazing debate that would clearly take place if the in/out referendum came about, but if we could now focus on new clause 11, perhaps we could make a little progress.
Mr Bone
Of course, Mr Evans. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will not respond to it, because I might mention it later if I can sneak it in.
If anyone doubts that an EU referendum is what the British public want, they should check my e-mail inbox or my post to see the hundreds of letters and e-mails of support that an in/out referendum is getting. These are coming not only from my constituency or from Conservatives but from Liberal and Labour voters. They just want to have their say on the important issue of our membership of the European Union.
A recent ComRes opinion poll on 27 October 2010 showed that 75% of the British people think that there should be a referendum on our membership of the European Union. A BBC and ComRes poll on 19 March 2009 found that 84% of the British people wanted a referendum. James Pryor, the chief executive of EU Referendum Campaign, said:
“David Cameron and his Coalition will ignore this Poll at their peril. How long will the political elite bury their heads in the sand and misread the public mood. As this Poll clearly shows, the people of Great Britain feel that the politicians have let them down. Only 12% feel that Britain’s contribution to the EU is sustainable and yet the Prime Minister tells us he ‘won the battle’ in Brussels. The Chancellor keeps telling us ‘to tighten our belts’ and yet we still send £48 million a day to the EU. The British public will get angrier until they are given a say on our relationship with the EU and the politicians will have to live with the consequences.”
Mr Bone
The hon. Lady will have heard the Leader of the House confirm in the past three business questions that we have free votes in Committee of the whole House. This is not retrospective. We have free votes in Committee of the whole House.
I shall quote from somebody else, because I can see that the hon. Lady—I will not say that she does not believe me—is concerned:
“The House of Commons’ historic functions were to vote money for governments to spend, and to scrutinise laws. It now barely bothers with the first, and does the second extremely badly. There was a time when legislation that had been formulated after months of civil service and ministerial deliberation was sent to the House of Commons which would pore over it, shape it, send it back, get it back, look at it again—and improve it some more. Bill by bill. Clause by clause. Line by line. Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny. Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?”
I will link this quotation very carefully with new clause 11 in a moment, Mr Evans, but it would be wrong if I did not give the full quotation, because otherwise it would lose its impact and it could be suggested that I was misleading the Committee. It goes on:
“Compare that to today. Let me take you on the journey of a piece of legislation as it passes through the modern House of Commons. It’s likely to have been dreamt up on the sofa of Number Ten. A Bill gets drafted. It’s sent to the House for a couple of hours of routine debate among a few MPs. Then the bell rings, the whip gets cracked and suddenly, out of nowhere, all these other MPs turn up to vote.”
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. That is a good try and the hon. Gentleman is smiling nicely, but perhaps he will now return his comments to new clause 11. I would have thought that there was enough meat in the new clause to mean that he does not need to go outside it.
Mr Bone
I apologise, Mr Evans. I am also sorry that I did not finish the quotation from my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister.
I wanted to make it clear to the Committee that Conservative Members will have a free vote if the new clause comes to a vote. I think that there is some confusion about that, and that the Chief Whip does not quite understand the Prime Minister’s instruction. I just hope that some of my colleagues are not put off voting for new clause 11 tonight because of that.
The people of Britain put us in a coalition Government. We must therefore work together as a team—a unit—that works in the very best interests of this country. The public must have seen certain aspects of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos that they liked. I will deal with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised. I would like to think that the following part is what particularly caught the eye of Liberal voters. To quote another piece of literature that was interesting, although not quite as good as the first:
“The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum”.
That is straight out of a good piece of literature, the Liberal Democrat manifesto 2010, “Change that works for you—Building a fairer Britain”. It certainly works for me, and I hope it works for the country.
European Union Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
May I just clear something up? I am not right honourable, although many hon. Members have recently referred to me as such. Many would doubt whether I am even honourable.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am not calling a Division on this one!
Chris Bryant
I do not think you are able to call one, Mr Evans.
The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) seems to be arguing that we should adopt a French style of intransigence, permanently trying solely to defend the British interest. In the end, such an approach cuts off our nose to spite our face. I do not think that anybody here thinks that the double-sitting arrangement is sensible, and most French politicians would agree in private. If this country starts setting up barriers to try to make it more difficult to change anything in the European Union, other countries will do the same and we will end up keeping some of the anomalies and ludicrous elements of the European Union. That is why I oppose the clause. I would have dealt with all that in a short intervention on the Minister.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, page 7, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and add—
‘(5) This subsection is complied with if—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support a specified draft decision and is of the opinion that the decision relates only to one or more of the following purposes—
(i) to make provision equivalent to that made by a measure previously adopted under Article 352 of TFEU, where that previous measure was adopted following the commencement of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 and the draft decision relating to that measure was approved by Act of Parliament;
(ii) to repeal existing measures adopted under Article 352 of TFEU;
(iii) to consolidate existing measures adopted under Article 352 of TFEU without any change of substance, where those existing measures were adopted following the commencement of section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 and the draft decisions relating to those measures were approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.’.
Amendment 43, page 7, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
Clause stand part.
Mr Cash
The amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and myself, as well as several other Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley), and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) of the Democratic Unionist party.
We are dealing with a very broad provision in the treaty known as article 352, which is generally described as a flexibility clause but which has an ancient and controversial history. Even back in the 1970s, before I came to the House, when I was practising law, I was discussing a very controversial provision known as article 308, and I shall tell hon. Members why. When, in our legal processes and legislative procedures we pass laws, we do so on the basis of what is stated in an Act of Parliament and we consider the words. Some of the remarks I made in the previous debate on clause 7 about abstract principles are related to this issue. Ordinary statutes, particularly in the field of administrative law, frequently make certain provisions after a whole series of propositions in different sections. Right at the end, there is often an expression such as, “And all such measures as may be regarded as reasonably necessary to carry out these functions,” but they are very carefully constrained by the administrative court, and the tests are quite significant. If there is a catch-all provision that has the effect of enlarging the existing treaty arrangements, it is incredibly important to make sure that what is included can be justified and has proper authority.
In the context of legislation that comes to the House and thereafter affects the daily lives of the electorate, we already know, for reasons that I do not need to enlarge on, that the manner in which legislation is implemented could, in a nutshell, be one or two lines or a paragraph in a treaty that are equivalent to an entire Act of Parliament. With that comes a whole process of interpretation that is different from our own, because it is not necessarily precise and because it looks at purposes—it has a purposive quality. Then there are provisions relating to subsidiarity that generally are not adhered to.
When we are dealing with a specific treaty and considering its wording and range, we should ask, when it becomes part of UK legislation through section 2 of the European Communities Act, as enforced by the courts and their system of interpretation, how far and to what extent it was anticipated that the legislation being spelt out, even in a treaty, would result in certain consequences in terms of the precise policies that will emerge from the process. It is incumbent on us to implement the law, under section 2, but at the same time there is a great degree of collateral within which the actual provisions in a treaty are brought into effect, and there is also their effect on the people to consider. In many instances, people could not reasonably have been expected to know exactly how that provision would turn out in policy.
I happen to be a bit of a traditionalist and I think that when we pass legislation it should be consistent with policy making, but sometimes I think that my hon. Friends—I say this with great respect to them—are not necessarily quite as conscious when considering such issues about the direct impact of it all on the electorate, or about the degree of discretion that we are giving both to the European Union and to Ministers in implementing these sorts of provisions.
What is the effect of article 352? I shall explain my concerns about the Bill in relation to that wide-ranging provision, and I shall quote from article 352. It is important to set that out, as it is the framework for my general concern. Article 352 states:
“If action by the Union should prove necessary”—
that is a big question; who says?—
“within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties”—
which have an enormously wide ambit, including what they involve, their purpose, nature and interpretation—
“to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously”—
that is important—
“on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.”
The article continues:
“Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”—
not Ministers, though they have the right to determine whether or not they will apply the unanimity rule.
There is then a provision stating that where subsidiarity arises,
“the Commission shall draw national Parliaments’ attention to proposals based on this Article.”
The article goes on to say that such measures shall not entail the harmonisation of member states’ laws or regulations where the treaties say that there should not be such harmonisation. Finally, it states—this is important—that the article cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives relating to foreign and security policy, and it imposes certain restrictions consistent with limits set out in article 40 of the Treaty on European Union.
That is what article 352 states. It is a very wide provision. It is certainly subject to unanimity by the Council. I therefore assume that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that the veto would be used, were the existing treaties—wide and deep as they are and effective as they are on our constituents—to be amplified by the use of that extremely wide power. I should mention that a few years ago the European Scrutiny Committee went over to see the Commission and its legal advisers. We had a full report on the provision in question, which at that time was described as article 308.
My amendments would knock out the provisions that would enlarge the Government’s capacity to bypass—I use this language carefully—the principles on which I assume Parliament would want to insist. Because of the ambit of the measure, we should ensure that it is used as tightly as possible.
Mr Clappison
I beg to move amendment 14, page 7, line 33, leave out from first ‘of’ to end of line 44 and insert
‘any existing or proposed measure under Title V of Part 3 of TFEU.’.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 27, page 7, line 33, leave out from ‘measure’ to end of line 44 and insert
‘presented to the Council pursuant to Title V of Part 3 of TFEU, apart from a notification in relation to a measure that, at the time of the notification, would if adopted extend the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations.’.
Amendment 99, page 7, leave out lines 34 to 36.
Amendment 98, page 7, leave out lines 37 to 44.
Amendment 47, page 7, line 44, at end insert—
‘(d) the provision of Article 83(2) of TFEU (harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions) that permits the establishment by directive of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area subject to harmonisation measures by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question.’.
Amendment 28, page 8, line 1, at end insert—
‘(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol that would cause the United Kingdom to participate in further provisions of the Schengen acquis, unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the draft decision.
(3B) Subsection (3A) does not apply to a decision that falls under section 6(4)(k).
(3C) In subsection (3A), “the Schengen Protocol” has the same meaning as that given in section 6(5).’.
Amendment 29, page 8, line 1, at end insert—
‘(3D) A Minister of the Crown may not permit the United Kingdom’s participation in the final adoption of a measure building upon the Schengen acquis unless a Minister of the Crown has given an oral statement to the Chamber of the House of Commons on Her Majesty’s Government’s intention that the United Kingdom will participate in final adoption of the measure.’.
Amendment 30, page 8, line 3, leave out from ‘under’ to end of line 5 and insert
‘any of the following unless the draft decision has been approved by Act of Parliament—
(a) the provision of Article 77(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document;
(b) the provision of Article 81(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of measures concerning family law with cross-border implications through a special legislative procedure;
(c) the provision of Article 87(3) of TFEU that permits the adoption of measures concerning operational co-operation between the authorities referred to in Article 87 of TFEU;
(d) the provision of Article 89 of TFEU on the operation of certain competent authorities of a member State in the territory of another member State.’.
Amendment 31, page 8, line 7, leave out from ‘measure’ to end of line 16 and insert
‘unless the notification in respect of the measure has been approved by Act of Parliament; but this provision shall not apply to a notification in relation to—
(a) a measure extending the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations;
(b) a measure adopted under Article 81(3) of TFEU (family law) that determines those aspects of family law with cross-border implications that may be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;
(c) a measure adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU (minimum rules on criminal procedure) that identifies a further specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;
(d) a measure adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU (particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension) that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.
Amendment 34, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of a measure, or to accept a measure, to which this subsection applies unless—
(a) the notification is approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) the referendum condition is met.
(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a notification.
(9) Subsection (7) applies to a measure that includes, at the time of notification by a Minister of the Crown under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol, the extension of the powers of Eurojust to include the initiation of criminal investigations.’.
Amendment 35, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(7) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to accept a measure to which this subsection applies unless—
(a) the notification is approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) the referendum condition is met.
(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a notification.
(9) Subsection (7) applies to the following—
(a) a measure adopted under Article 81(3) of TFEU (family law) that determines those aspects of family law with cross-border implications that may be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure;
(b) a measure adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU (minimum rules on criminal procedure) that identifies a futher specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate; and
(c) a measure adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU (particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension) that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.
Amendment 39, page 8, line 16, at end add—
‘(7) In addition to the approval required in accordance with subsection (1) or (4), as the case may be, a Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 3 or 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of a measure, or to accept a measure, to which this subsection applies unless—
(a) the previous decision by virtue of which that measure is proposed or was established has been approved by Act of Parliament; and
(b) the referendum condition in relation to that previous decision has been met.
(8) The referendum condition is that set out in section 3(2), with references to a decision being read for the purposes of subsection (7) as references to a previous decision.
(9) Subsection (7) applies to a measure proposed or established under Article 82(2) or 83(1) of TFEU by virtue of either—
(a) a previous decision, in which the United Kingdom does not participate, adopted under Article 82(2)(d) of TFEU that identifies a further specific aspect or aspects of criminal procedure to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate;
(b) a previous decision, in which the United Kingdom does not participate, adopted under Article 83(1) of TFEU that identifies a further area or areas of crime to which directives adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure may relate.’.
New clause 5—Approval required in connection with Title V—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification to which this subsection applies unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with subsection (3).
(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a notification under Article 3 of Protocol (No. 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to TEU and TFEU (the “AFSJ Protocol”) and Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis that the United Kingdom wishes to take part in the adoption and application of any measure proposed under Title V.
(3) Parliamentary approval is given if—
(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to give notification in respect of a specified measure, and
(b) each House agrees to the motion without amendment.
(4) Despite any Parliamentary approval given for the purposes of subsection (1), a Minister may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under a provision falling within Title V unless the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament.
(5) A Minister of the Crown may not give a notification under Article 4 of the AFSJ Protocol that the United Kingdom wishes to accept a measure unless the notification in respect of the measure has been approved by Act of Parliament.’.
Mr Clappison
We come to a new subject area, that of freedom, security and justice, which used to be known as the judicial and home affairs pillar of the EU. As the clause stands, it would require parliamentary approval for a UK decision to opt in to certain provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice. At the moment, as I am sure the Committee knows, the UK enjoys an opt-out in that area. Were a decision to be taken to opt in to one of the matters specified in clause 9, parliamentary approval would therefore be needed.
Three such matters are specified in clause 9(2). Generally, they seem to cover further developments in the field that are not specifically set out in the freedom, security and justice chapter, which is chapter 5 of the treaty of Lisbon. I should say that that is a lengthy chapter containing many matters. I think I can see the Government’s thinking, which is to cover further developments in European law and new ideas in the field of family law, criminal procedure and serious crime. I agree with that thinking, as far as it goes, because it means that opt-ins on those matters will require parliamentary approval.
It should be said straight away that that is an improvement on the current situation, in which there is no requirement for approval of any of the important matters specified in the clause. There will therefore be additional protection, if one wants to look at it that way, and there will certainly be an additional role for the House, which will be required to give its approval before the UK can opt in.
My amendment 14 would take matters further in a logical way, by making any chapter 5 opt-in subject to the same parliamentary approval that is required for the three matters specified in the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the Committee that there will be no separate clause 9 stand part debate. If anyone wishes to make any comments relevant to that, now is the time to do so.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I shall speak mainly to the amendments I have tabled, talk about the general opt-ins and ask a couple of questions about the written ministerial statement that was issued last Thursday, particularly on how aspects of it might work in the future. I always have questions about the who and when of decision taking.
My amendment 27 deals with something that is missing from the Bill—the body known as Eurojust. Eurojust is not the European public prosecutor, but it represents a massive step towards a European public prosecutor. Under article 85 of TFEU, its remit falls under ordinary legislative procedure, so a proposal comes from the Commission, qualified majority voting applies in the Council and co-decision applies within the European Parliament. It already has a huge amount of power—or it will have, when it is set up.
In April 2010, the European Commission published a document delivering
“an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens”,
which was an action plan implementing the Stockholm programme. The Stockholm programme is the five-year European Union plan for justice and home affairs measures, which was adopted by the European Council in December 2009. On page 18 of the document, the European Commission states that in 2012, it will make a proposal for an EU regulation
“giving Eurojust powers to directly initiate investigations.”
Even if the current Government do not opt into the proposal, there is nothing in the Bill to require them to seek Parliament’s or the people’s approval to opt in once the regulation is adopted, allowing Eurojust to initiate investigations in the UK, for example. This is a massive step towards the European public prosecutor. I hope the Minister will reassure me that he will address that point at some stage, if not today.
It may be useful if I provide some examples of significant justice and home affairs matters that the last Government opted into. I could have picked any issue in that category, but I chose the issue of asylum because I know that it always gets the blood flowing.
Among other things, directive 2004/83-EC
“on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted”
sets out the rights enjoyed by those who have been granted refugee status. Some of them go beyond the rights approved for the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees, such as those relating to access to the employment market and social security.
Directive 2003/9/EC,
“laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers”,
includes provisions on the rights of asylum seekers to access the jobs market in certain circumstances, and on the accommodation that must be offered to them. Directive 2005/85/EC
“on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for the granting and withdrawing of refugee status”
lays down various restrictions and requirements regarding the procedures that member states can follow in processing asylum claims and withdrawing refugee status. They include specific requirements for the possibility of legal challenge by asylum seekers to various decisions taken as part of the process.
Those pieces of legislation were part of the first wave of the construction of the common European asylum system that was first called for in the Tampere European Council of October 1999. The Commission has been pressing on with further legislation to build that common system since then, and over the past two years it has presented three proposals for directives to replace those that I have cited. The general thrust of the proposals is a desire to further “harmonise” asylum policy and processes across the EU and, as a consequence, to limit national discretion yet further. As it happens, the last Government decided not to opt into those later proposals; but what would happen if this Government, or a future Government, chose to opt into them? It is realistic to assume that, under the Bill, Parliament would have no legal control.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that the Bill constitutes a step forward in one respect, and I congratulate the Minister on advancing so far. The written ministerial statement on justice and home affairs scrutiny laid before the House last Thursday contains a great deal of common sense, but I think that there is a need for further discussion of the consequences that will flow from it with the European Scrutiny Committee and other interested parliamentarians. Let me quote the key passage. It states that
“in circumstances where there is particularly strong parliamentary interest in the Government's decision on whether or not to opt in to such a measure, the Government express their willingness to set aside Government time for a debate in both Houses on the basis of a motion on the Government's recommended approach on the opt-in. The precise details of these arrangements to allow such debates and the circumstances in which Government time would be set aside will be the subject of further consultation with the European Scrutiny Committees, business managers”
—otherwise known as the wonderful Whips who are so kind and gentle to us all in this place—
“and the Commons and Lords Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees. These discussions will also need to determine how arrangements would operate during periods of parliamentary recess and dissolution of Parliament.”
That is all pretty good.
“However, the Government believe that as a general rule, it would be appropriate to do so in circumstances where they propose to opt in to a measure which would have a substantial impact on the United Kingdom's criminal or civil law, our national security, civil liberties or immigration policy. The Government will also put in place analogous arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of decisions to opt-out of measures under the Schengen protocol.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]
The written ministerial statement raises a number of questions. I shall talk about a couple of them now, but I would like to think that discussions can be ongoing and we can flesh out the detail. What would constitute “particularly strong parliamentary interest”? How, therefore, is a debate in Government time triggered? Would it be triggered by a referral by the European Scrutiny Committee? That could be complemented by an additional right whereby a certain number of MPs could trigger such a debate. Does the commitment to a debate and vote cover the opt-in to a justice and home affairs law already adopted by the other member states? The written ministerial statement seemed to indicate otherwise. Similarly, does the commitment cover the opt-in to new aspects of the existing Schengen acquis, such as common visa rules, where this opt-in is not covered by clause 6 of the Bill? Would it cover the opt-in to a pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice law that has ceased to apply to the UK because it exercised the bloc opt-out before June 2014? If it does cover that, how would Parliament be made aware that such an opt-in was being considered by the Government, given that this could happen at any time?
Ms Stuart
At the risk of being accused of encouraging the hon. Gentleman, I must say that when Ministers are terribly courteous it is usually an indication that we are not getting anywhere. The first rule of politics is that until they are rude, we are not getting anywhere. The real problem is that the UK Permanent Representative to the EU is politically unaccountable. My ultimate plea is to have the UKRep stand here once a week, as the Deputy Prime Minister does, and be politically accountable for the negotiations and deals that are done at Brussels. Until we have that, all this is—
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Lady’s comments are going much wider than the amendments currently before us. I believe that there is sufficient meat in the amendments.
Mr Cash
I am grateful for that, Mr Evans, because otherwise the hon. Lady might have tempted me yet again. She knows my soft point, and she knows very well that it would not take me long to get going on that issue, either. But, she is right.
I have tabled a number of amendments, but I do not intend to press them to a vote, because we have had a thoroughly good debate, and I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, think that further consultation between the Minister, his officials, the European Scrutiny Committee and our Clerks might help to ensure that we get the maximum out of the provisions, even if they do not really measure up.
In any case, we know what happens in our votes; we have watched them now for about a week. On one occasion, we reached 45 genuine—as I call them— abstentions. By the way, Mr Evans, your name appeared on one list, but I said, “No, he’s Chairman of Ways and Means; this is not somebody you can count in.” Anyway, on parliamentary sovereignty we had between 45 and 50 such abstentions, which is quite a lot, but it is not anything like as many as the number of Members who rather agree with us in the broadest sense. I shall not go down that route, but what happens in votes is not very edifying. We do not win votes, because people are being told to vote in a way that is inconsistent with what they think, and that is another democratic problem.
Amendments 99 and 98 are mischievous, simply because they were tabled only to demonstrate my concern, which I have just raised, that opt-ins should not be allowed under any circumstances. On amendment 47, however, regarding the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, for Hertsmere and for Daventry are right. I am reluctant to adopt a default position, but for the purposes of debate I want to get out into the open something that concerns me, because the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions, on which I dare say books could be written, ought to be as restricted as possible.
Article 83(2) of TFEU, as I state in amendment 47,
“permits the establishment by directive of minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area subject to harmonisation measures by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question.”
In a nutshell, I should like that to be one of those measures—from the written statement to which the Minister has referred—that ought to be discussed properly.
Let us think about what the harmonisation of criminal offences and sanctions affects and what its consequences are for the people whom we are elected to represent. If I cannot win the vote on my desire to throw out the whole measure, my minimum default position, however cynical and unhappy I am about opt-ins anyway, is to attempt to include it in the arrangements that the Government have provided.
Those are my thoughts on this group of amendments and on my amendments. If I sound a little concerned about them, I hope that Members will understand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, I see the provision under discussion as an enormous step. I am not sure that it is beneficial, because it assumes that there will be opt-ins. There are 30 or 40 of them, and there have already been eight in the past few months. The trend exists, and I do not see anything holding back the tsunami. Indeed, I see the tsunami being built up, and that is not in the interests of the democratic principles by which this House is elected.