United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend asks why use the word “reaffirmed” rather than “exists”. I have chosen that particular word, but other words could be substituted for it. I am not saying that it is the only word that could be used in clause 1 to convey the meaning that I wish to get across. I think it is a good word, and unless and until somebody comes up with an amendment that they think is better, I would like to keep it in the Bill. If my hon. Friend would like to join me in considering the Bill in Committee in due course, I am sure he will have the chance to move amendments and speak to them to explain why he thinks his choice of words is better than the words in the Bill.

May I take the House back briefly to the “Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”, which was the title given to the Conservative party manifesto at the last general election? On page 114, under the subtitle “Promote our national interest—an open and democratic Europe”, it is stated:

“The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees—on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation—with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.”

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I understand that the Ministry of Defence has had to pulp several books because it does not like them. Is it correct that Conservative central office has tried to pulp all the previous manifestos?

[Mr Chope]

I do not know, but I think my hon. Friend is perhaps a bit harsh. I hope that all Conservatives in this Parliament, who were elected on that manifesto, are trying their hardest to ensure that its words are implemented. My hon. Friend is in the forefront of trying to achieve that objective.

We were also promised in an informal meeting of the Conservative parliamentary party that there were red lines around our policy on Europe in the coalition agreement. We therefore believed that the words that I have just read out would not only remain part of the Conservative party manifesto but be inherent in the coalition manifesto.

I do not want to go back over the European Union Bill because we had long discussions about it, but recent events have brought home to me the fact that the gradual erosion of our sovereignty remains a live issue. We had a debate on Wednesday evening, which is, in a sense, unfinished business, because the Division is deferred to next Wednesday, about the fact that the Government have decided to use section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 so that the Prime Minister can agree to amend article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union next weekend to establish a permanent stability mechanism for the euro.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made one of the most interesting interventions in that short debate when he asked:

“Would it not be more appropriate for an intergovernmental agreement to be reached among the member states of the eurozone, rather than have some change to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union?”

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe replied:

“It would have been possible for the member states of the eurozone to have come to such an intergovernmental agreement, but they chose not to do so.”

Surely if member states want to set up intergovernmental arrangements centred around the euro and the eurozone, they should be allowed to do so. There is no reason for the Government, controlled by Parliament, to be dragged into that process. It then became apparent that Parliament was being asked to give the Government authority to negotiate away some of our powers because it was thought sensible for us to be party to an unnecessary treaty amendment. If it is not necessary, why are we doing it? How is that consistent with what was said in our manifesto?

Later in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said:

“Should there be any suggestion of amending the draft decision at the European Council—there is no such suggestion from any quarter at present—”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 422-24.]

However, as I said, I was in Brussels for three days at the beginning of this week and I picked up a copy of European Voice, a newspaper that circulates there. An article on page seven, under the headline “MEPs confident of getting say on bail-out mechanism”, states:

“MEPs expressed optimism on…8 March that EU member states will accept their demands to link a permanent bail-out mechanism for the eurozone more closely to the EU institutions.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend has failed to look at today’s Order Paper and failed to notice that I do not have one Bill but several, and therefore I have a conflict of interest. If I speak too long on one Bill, I may jeopardise the chance of being able to speak on my next.

[Mr Bone]

Just before my hon. Friend concludes, I want to put in my bid to be on the Bill Committee. We have heard from several hon. Members that they want to be on the Committee, and I would like to add my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

He wants to be on it too!

[Chris Bryant]

No, this is an application not to be on the Bill Committee. I have heard these arguments so many times that I have no desire to hear them all over again, even if it would give us an opportunity to hear the whole of the Minister’s speech on the subject. May I point out to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that greed is a sin? Taking so many private Members’ Bills on one day might be thought somewhat greedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I would just like to get this out of the way, if I may, because it is quite a useful and explicit affirmation of what we could do in practice to ensure that there is no doubt about what is being done. The new clause in question could be phrased in this way: “Any Act of Parliament or legal instrument expressly stating that that Act or instrument shall be ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’ or ‘notwithstanding the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998’ shall be construed by the courts of the United Kingdom as having the effect of disapplying and overriding any Act or legal instrument to which it refers.” That would put the position completely on all fours with the evidence that we have received from the constitutional experts.

For many years, I have said that we need a way to get round the problem of provisions emanating from the European Communities Act 1972, and the treaties and legal instruments made under it, being inconsistent with our national interests. To achieve that—in line with cases such as Macarthys v. Smith under Lord Denning and Garland v. British Rail Engineering under Lord Diplock, which remain good law despite what the Supreme Court has said recently—we need, precedent to an Act of Parliament and in relation to European Union legislation, to use the expression “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972” to make it clear that we are legislating subsequent to an existing enactment and expressly inconsistently with it. That would oblige the courts to give effect to the later legislation. There are occasions when it is clear that the Government would want to do that but cannot do it, or do not want to do it, or would prefer the whole subject to go away. I am looking closely at the Minister at this point. There is nobody who wants this subject to go away more than the Prime Minister does.

It is a problem. I recognise the dilemma, and I have to say, in all fairness, that I have absolutely no doubt about the need for the remedy. I understand that there are inconveniences in having the European Union producing legislation that this country does not want, which might have been thought to be a good idea in the past. Some thought that the working time directive was a good idea, but it has turned out to have all kinds of unfortunate consequences. The same could be said of other matters such as the over-regulation of business.

When we were in opposition in 2006, I tabled an amendment to the then Government’s Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, based on the “notwithstanding” formula, in order to improve the opportunities for British business, helping it to grow and get away from unnecessary burdens imposed by the European Union. During the afternoon that I proposed that amendment, a series of Whips’ meetings took place. The Whips came to me and said, “Bill, would you be good enough to allow us to adopt your amendment and to put in Tellers?” When the vote took place on the words

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

teams of the present Government walked through the Lobbies to support my amendment, which they had adopted—and six weeks later on a whipped vote in the House of Lords, they reconfirmed it. There was no doubt about the intention there. The principle is thus established by the European Scrutiny Committee report, by the evidence we received and by the conduct of the Prime Minister who was then the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is generous. Could the whole problem be solved by putting those magic words on the front of every Act of Parliament, thus forcing the courts to interpret the Act of Parliament as the supreme law, not the one from the European Union?

[Mr Cash]

We could do that, although it might not be desirable or necessary to do it for every Act of Parliament. I shall come on to some cases later, but we are about to go into an adjournment, if that is the right expression, when the Prime Minister will make an important statement on Libya and the UN resolution. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made an important point, which clearly summarises the position. It would not need to apply to every Act of Parliament, but only where it was necessary in respect of European Union law or the European convention on human rights—on issues like votes for prisoners, for example.