Point of Order

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to put on record my congratulations to the Government on bringing in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which of course was not a point of order for the Chair. I assure him that he will have an opportunity to speak to the issue that he raises when the Bill has its Second Reading in the House.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]

William Cash Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to sneak in during the last few minutes of this debate. It is always right that Mansfield should have the last word on such subjects, so I will take full advantage.

I warmly welcome this Bill, and it was a privilege to sit on the Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and to feel his passion and understanding of the subject, which is hugely important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) just said, for the levelling-up agenda.

I was pleased to see skills and education investment at the heart of last week’s White Paper, because we need a long-term change in communities such as mine in Mansfield to make sure that people have better life chances. We are already seeing the benefits of that agenda. My hon. Friend pointed to examples in Loughborough, and I can point to further examples in Mansfield and North Notts.

Last year, the towns fund funded what we call the knowledge exchange of business innovation and growth. That will support local businesses in north Notts so that they can do things differently, automate, look to the future, grow and employ more people. There was also funding for robotics and automation in neighbouring Ashfield and similar funding for aviation and engineering in Newark. North Nottinghamshire has benefited greatly from £140 million-odd of investment through the towns fund, and a lot of it is going to skills and education, for which I am grateful.

I read in a briefing earlier this week that further education and technical skills contribute £26 billion to the economy. I have no idea how that was worked out, but it sounds like a very big number. Its importance should therefore be clear to all of us. Education is not just about getting a university degree and swanning off to work in whatever sector. I hear so often from employers that they take on first-class graduates with excellent qualifications on paper who simply are not equipped for the workplace. Other routes have to be built with employers, so that workers suit sectors such as engineering, where practical work experience and technical skills are so important. People cannot learn it all in a classroom, and this Bill helps us to deliver for the long term, with the kind of change that will build opportunities for people in constituencies like mine.

I welcome the lifetime skills guarantee and the finance that comes with it. In a post-covid era, more and more adults are finding that the sectors in which they work and the things for which they are qualified simply are not viable anymore. If we are to rebuild, grow and allow such people to get back into rewarding work in sectors that are growing—there are plenty of them—we must support them to retrain with the finance they need, and it needs to be flexible.

If I could make one plug, it would, as always, be for West Notts College and Nottingham Trent University—I could bang on about them forever. Edward Peck, the vice-chancellor of NTU, has fantastic ideas about how we could pilot the lifelong learning loan, and how we could ensure it is flexible by allowing people to study units at individual organisations and transfer them around the country over their adult life, so that they continue to build their qualification and take it with them. It is important that it works flexibly, and I would love to have that conversation with any of my wonderful hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. The skills Minister is coming to talk to me and NTU tomorrow, for which I am grateful.

Partnerships with employers and universities are key to providing long-term opportunities for people in my constituency, young and old, who will benefit from the Bill long into the future. That is why I am delighted to support it today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an important and statesmanlike statement on Ukraine. This evening, Mr Putin has recognised the two separatist regions in Ukraine as independent states, with dangerous parallels to Germany’s recognition of the Sudetenland in 1938. In these circumstances, do you accept that it would be appropriate to have a further statement, as soon as possible, on the new Ukrainian situation? The Defence Secretary himself stated today that he would update us as necessary, and this may well be the reason for making such a statement tomorrow or as soon as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he said, the Secretary of State did undertake to keep the House updated, and I am sure he will do so. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the House will be debating the sanctions regulations tomorrow. I also know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point that he has made.

Improving Education Standards

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that. I also give credit to the Minister, because I know how much she engaged with me and other colleagues on Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group earlier this year when we had a particular problem with apprenticeships, which has been largely solved thanks to the work of the colleges and the Department. I thank her for her support.

There was a survey of sixth-form colleges in October 2017. Emails from the Government to us Back Benchers say that surveys are rarely designed to be helpful. However, in this case, even if the survey is not entirely accurate it makes some extremely important points. For instance, 50% of colleges that responded said they had dropped courses in modern foreign languages. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards for what he said about foreign languages, which are vital. I was not aware of the Mandarin programme, and I will have to see how many of my local schools, if any, have taken it up. I am a passionate supporter of the teaching of modern foreign languages, especially as we move into an interesting time in the coming years.

Thirty-four per cent. of respondents had dropped courses in STEM subjects, and 67% had reduced student support services, which are incredibly important, particularly for the 16 to 19 age group, in which people are under quite a lot of pressure, not least from social media. Seventy-seven per cent. were teaching students in larger classes, and I could go on. There were clearly pressures, and I know my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, who has responsibility for further education, will be looking hard at that survey and no doubt engaging with the sixth-form colleges and further education colleges to see how these matters can be addressed.

I feel passionately about readiness for work and soft skills, which are vital for our country’s future and our young people’s future. I have the honour of chairing the international Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and I met the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) a few months ago to ask him whether he would mind editing a book on the future of work, an area in which he has a lot of expertise. He did so, and we launched the book at the World Bank meetings in Indonesia at the beginning of last month and here in Parliament a couple of weeks ago.

The book’s examples from around the world, whether from Singapore, South Korea or Argentina, clearly show that everybody is facing this issue of the future of work. There are huge changes coming up, whether through artificial intelligence or the next generation of technology, and we have to prepare our young people not necessarily for those individual skills—skills and techniques move on—but for the ability to change and to accept the need to retrain. They need flexibility in the way they think about the future. That has to start not when people have left school, college or university, but at primary school. It does not have to start too early, but perhaps in year 6 and moving on into year 7. Many schools and colleges are trying to do that work, but they need support; they need recognition for that in the curriculum. Readiness for work is vital.

Let me mention one small step we have taken in Stafford. With some friends and colleagues, I started a schools debating competition a couple of years ago, whereby schools and colleges can come to the House of Commons to compete against each other in a friendly, competitive manner. We are very pleased with the results. One thing young people have said to me is that it gives them much greater confidence to speak in public.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I commend what my hon. Friend is saying and the work he is doing, because I am his next-door neighbour, and Stafford and Stone run together in a lot of these matters. We are both fighting hard to get the best possible standards for our constituents.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Clearly, some of my constituents go to schools in his constituency and vice versa. I have experience of the issues faced by rural schools, including small ones, but he has much more experience of that than I do.

Overseas Voters Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Clause 3 would apply only to British citizens who were ordinarily resident overseas, not those who happened to be on holiday. The latter group would be brought in only in the event of our extending internet or online voting to the United Kingdom electorate, and it is important to distinguish between those two groups. It is much more complicated to deal with people voting while on holiday than with those who are resident overseas.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s Bill because, as he would say himself, this is about the rights of British residents to vote in a general election. Has he made any comparison with other countries—perhaps, although not exclusively, in other parts of the European Union—that have similar arrangements? Should the Bill apply not only to parliamentary elections but, for example, to a referendum on the EU?

[Mr Chope]

I understand that the franchise for an EU referendum includes all those who are eligible to participate in a parliamentary election, and I would stick to that. If we encouraged more people from overseas to register, they would be able to participate in a national referendum that had been extended to all registered voters.

I sometimes monitor elections on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and almost all its 47 countries have more extensive systems for facilitating voting by their diaspora, as it is described, than we do. Many countries extend voting arrangements to providing facilities in embassies, consulates and other places, in addition to postal or proxy votes. Those countries believe—quite rightly—that their diaspora is an important part of that country, and that people should be encouraged to participate in its affairs. That can best be done by participating in elections. We are probably well behind the curve by comparison with the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe. That is another reason why the Bill needs immediate attention rather than putting on the back burner.

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On my hon. Friend’s remarks about the coalition, I have read his piece on the “ConservativeHome” website, and perhaps he would be good enough to look at mine, because I very much agree with him. The problem is not just the question of institutional issues; it is also the practical reality of the Liberal Democrats having the capacity, in relation to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and in other respects, to frustrate the government of this country by a Conservative majority.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is not for me to speak for the Liberal Democrats—unfortunately they seem to be absent from the Chamber. May I say that I always read my hon. Friend’s speeches with the closest possible attention? Both he and I were, of course, in coalition in our beloved Conservative party with a social-liberal leadership. I sometimes think that the Conservatives on the Treasury Bench would rather be in coalition with the Liberals than with the likes of me. If that is true, it is no surprise if party membership is under stress.

The contrary system to ours involves a host of smaller parties combining in smoke-filled rooms—although they are probably smokeless now—in order to make deals and hash out a coalition that may be contrary to voters’ wishes. That is often the continental system.

Of course, the Act we are talking about today moves against the spirit of the idea that one Parliament cannot bind another. That is rubbish anyway, because if somebody gets a majority in the next Parliament, they can simply repeal this Act in an afternoon. All the checks and balances are meaningless in any event, because one Parliament cannot bind another.

So, looking to other parliamentary democracies outside the Westminster system, we see that fixed terms are a rarity. Often they are based on the peculiarity of local circumstances, such as in Germany or Switzerland. France, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands all provide for early Dissolution more easily than is envisioned under this Act.

One highly esteemed political scientist, Juan Linz, described in 1994 the capability for an early Dissolution as a critical antidote to the temporary rigidity of presidential-style systems. Linz was wise to point out that the power of Dissolution allows for stronger Governments who are more capable of responding to emergencies or to changes in democratic expression. He wrote that the fixed tenure means that the

“political process therefore becomes broken into discontinuous, rigidly determined periods without possibility for continuous readjustments as political, social and economic events might require.”

Indeed, I think the whole idea of fixed-term Parliaments has a Blairite feel to it, in a fawning admiration of the American style of government.

While a long line of thinkers, not least Russell Kirk, have been keen to point out the British roots of the American system, in fact, as you will know, Mr Speaker, it is very different from our own. Our daughter-Parliaments in Ottawa, Canberra and elsewhere have grown up in a very different way from the American system. The United States does not even have general elections, with different portions of both its Houses being elected in fits and starts every two years.

There is also another factor in the American system which we must avoid importing to these islands—this is an important point, which we have seen in this Parliament. With America’s fixed terms, the first half is spent legislating while the second half is spent in campaigning and raising money for the coming election campaign. The fixed date of the election is inherently conducive to that kind of mentality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes, that is true, but we all know—my right hon. Friend has been a Minister as have I—that the moment the election is called, civil servants do not allow Ministers to do anything. In theory, we still have Ministers in charge, but in practice we do not have a Government who can do anything. It is worrying that under this Act of Parliament we could have such a long period of, effectively, no Government.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my hon. Friend be good enough to give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

For the second time.

[Sir William Cash]

Yes, indeed. With respect to the role of the civil service—of Lord Gus O’Donnell specifically—in putting this coalition together, an extraordinary amount of power was exercised by civil servants in relation to the coalition discussions, which included the proposals for this Act.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I did not know about that, but my hon. Friend raises a good point, and I am very worried about it. Frankly, this coalition shows us that coalitions are a bad idea. It would have been much better to have had a minority Government. We could have gone to the people after a year or 18 months to seek a proper mandate. That has been done twice by Labour in the 1960s and the 1970s. There was no constitutional outrage, debate or scandal about it. Harold Wilson did it twice and nobody seemed to worry very much. People said that it was necessary to have a coalition to deal with the deficit. Leaving aside the fact that we have not yet properly dealt with the deficit anyway, a Conservative Government could have got on with dealing with the deficit from day one. They had the mandate to do so, and they could have renewed that mandate after a year or 18 months, and we would now have a much stronger Government.

We find ourselves stuck in a lowest common denominator straitjacket, which no one voted for—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

The benefit of our having a final year and knowing it is a final year is that we can plan for how we can sensibly use that final year. I absolve my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) of this, but is all the nonsense of “It will be a zombie Parliament unless we pack the last year full of inconsequential legislation, so that we can we pretend that we are macho and running the country” the best that we can do?

My Committee has produced two reports on this issue. We have studied it in great detail, and have heard from highly expert witnesses. We concluded that the fifth year of a Parliament could, because we would know that it would be the last year, be very different culturally—although not this first time round, because we are not used to it. Let us return to the default position of the old dogfight! Let us all slam each other over the Dispatch Box! But perhaps we could use the last year very constructively, rather than entering a state of paralysis or conducting ourselves in our normal, conventional way—often disgracefully, in the eyes of the public.

[Sir William Cash]

Did the hon. Gentleman’s Committee take evidence from Lord Norton of Louth? If so, can he remember what conclusions Lord Norton reached?

[Mr Allen]

I am afraid that I cannot remember, but Lord Norton of Louth—who is a very distinguished Member of the other place—gives evidence to us regularly, and I am confident that if we did not take oral evidence from him, he would have submitted some written evidence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being able to recite it. No doubt he can do so.

Let me return to the points made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). We can plan our lives here better. We, Members of Parliament—not the Government—can plan our lives better, in the parliamentary interest. That means not being told what to do. It does not mean being told how wonderful it is to be able to have a debate of our own choosing on days such as this. Aren’t we lucky to be able to have a couple of debates every so often? Aren’t we lucky to be allowed out into the playground? That is better than being told every second of our waking day what agenda is being set by the Government, and hearing the nonsense that somehow Parliament is deciding stuff. Of course it is the Government who are deciding—but, on this occasion, we have made a little bit of an inroad on behalf of Parliament.

Those were very good points, and I shall be sure to write them up and pass them to my local Member of Parliament; so the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster can expect a letter in the morning.

Let me explain a little about the importance of what a fixed-term Parliament allows us to do, first as a Parliament, secondly as an Administration and a Government, and thirdly for the electorate. What does a fixed-term Parliament allow us to do as Members of this House, and as members of Select Committees and other institutions in the House? For one thing, it allows us to have a sensible legislative programme. Until the advent of the fixed-term Parliament—and I look forward to the legislative programme of the next one, because by then we shall have learnt a few lessons—it was the same every time. An election was won, and no one was sure how long the Parliament would last. It was a case of “Let us stuff the big important Bills through the House at the earliest opportunity.” Then there will be a ton of Second Readings before the Christmas of the new Parliament, things will be pushed through and often written very poorly, and later on we will have a period in the doldrums when things are drifting along because most of the legislation has already gone through.

That is anathema to what I suspect virtually all colleagues in the House would support me on, which is pre-legislative scrutiny. A fixed-term Parliament allows us, for the first time ever, to plan our legislative programme, because we know when the beginning, middle and end are. Things that require more work and more detailed analysis by the civil service to produce a draft can be prioritised—really important, practical things that can involve the British public and bring them with us. The Scottish example has shown what fantastic accidental glory democracy can deliver us. Imagine if we planned our next employment Bill and talked to working people and employers. Imagine if we really thought carefully about what a climate change Bill could do three years hence. Imagine if we had a Parliament talking to the electorate because it knew how it could plan its legislative programme. What a different Parliament it would be if we decided to go that way—a Parliament that might earn people’s respect.

Pre-legislative scrutiny would allow this House to present a Bill and say, “Here’s our draft, let’s have a Second Reading and agree the principles, and then we’ll give it to an expert committee of colleagues of all parties to look at for a serious period”—three, four, five or six months—“to really get to the bottom of this and get the evidence together.” A Government who were listening could then enable that to happen—not once, because we have made a persuasive argument on the Floor of the House and won a vote, but as a matter of course because that is the way we conduct our business. We would then be in great danger of producing good law that did not require our coming back the next year to put right the things that were got wrong because we did not take our time or that needed a thousand amendments from the other place because our legislative process was so poor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I opposed the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill before it was enacted at every conceivable point during the procedure for simple reasons. First, I regarded it as fundamentally undemocratic, but I also believed that it will not stand the test of time. The reasons for that have been ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) was a little more circumspect, but he indicated none the less that he is not very happy with the idea of fixed-term Parliaments. I stand by everything I said in 2010, and I believe that those of us who took a stand against the Bill before it was enacted, including in the House of Lords, have been proved right. The Act needs not only to be reviewed, as provided for in section 7, but it ought also to be repealed, and that is why I am speaking in this debate.

The Act was also conceived in very dodgy circumstances. It arose without pre-legislative scrutiny and there was no consultation whatsoever. It was not in our manifesto, but it has profound constitutional implications that I will try to touch on in a moment. It was designed to give succour and support to the coalition. Indeed, it is embedded in the whole concept of the coalition—in a moment I will explain some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) about that, and the bearing that it has not only on this debate but on the whole of this unfortunate episode and this unfortunate Act of Parliament.

I wrote to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on 10 May 2010, before the coalition was entered into. I urged him in the strongest possible terms not to enter into a formal coalition with the Liberal Democrats, although I explained that if there were to be an informal understanding—perhaps Supply maintenance or whatever —that would be another thing. Hon. Members have already mentioned this, but had we had a minority Government at that time, which I urged on my right hon. Friend, I think we would have won a general election quite soon afterwards, because nobody would have voted for the Labour party under any circumstances. We would have demonstrated that we had a good case by pursuing Conservative policies at that time, and that would, of course, have included not having a fixed-term Parliament.

In a letter in today’s Daily Telegraph I suggest that the time has come for the coalition on the basis that the Liberal Democrats are using their power of votes to frustrate the 304 Conservative Members of Parliament and their Prime Minister on a whole range of important matters of not only constitutional but also political significance. I understand that the referendum is still under discussion, but the Liberal Democrats have clearly indicated that they do not want one. The same applies to the question of boundary changes—the list is long. I do not mean to elaborate on those issues, but I have no faith in the coalition, and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is a vehicle by which it has been given a constitutional support mechanism that, in my judgment, is completely unjustified by subsequent events.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

My hon. Friend says he is concerned about what the Liberals are doing in standing in the way of this Government and Parliament, and particularly of Conservative Members, but the Conservatives are also not allowed to agree with the Labour party on anything. The Government cannot introduce a Bill with the support of the Labour party because the Liberals may veto it.

[Sir William Cash]

That is an important point, and I endorse very much what my hon. Friend has said.

The arrangements in the Act are effectively a stitch-up, just as they were when we first considered the Bill back in 2010. I am glad to note that section 7 contains a requirement for the Prime Minister to hold a review, and only MPs can sit on the Committee that will review this Act. The fact that the Lords had to insist on that provision demonstrates that the Government would not have got the Bill through had they not made that arrangement. The whole thing is effectively in suspension anyway, and it is therefore a natural consequence of the limbo that this unfortunate and unacceptable enactment has put in place that the Act is up for repeal, subject to what is decided in 2020. I believe that it should be reviewed much sooner than that, and I am speaking in this debate because I very much endorse the proposals of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

On 24 November 2010 I said—and I stand by this:

“What does such innovation say about the coalition? It certainly demonstrates its determination to stack the cards firmly in favour of the coalition and the Whips.”

I said the Act was

“not modernising, but is a reactionary measure. It is not progress, but a step backwards, along the primrose path, undermining the constitutional principles that have governed our conventions and been tested over many centuries. The proposal has been conjured out of thin air, for the ruthless purpose of maintaining power irrespective of the consequences…we are supposed to be “Working together in the national interest—”

that was the theme of the moment—

“I fear that on this Bill, on this matter, we are working together against the national interest.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 318-9.]

What are the consequences of what we are now considering? The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is still in place and it should be repealed. Clearly it will not be repealed before the end of this fixed term, but I wish to dwell on a number of points that have been raised. I freely acknowledge that some of these arguments, which have not been given general circulation, were put forward by Lord Norton of Louth. I mentioned him in an intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I hope that his Committee asked Lord Norton for his views, with which I entirely agree, and I will encapsulate them.

Lord Norton makes the point that there are real problems with the 2011 Act, and that fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. That is the real problem. I tabled an amendment on the confidence motion and the 14 days—I do not need to go into that now because it was not accepted although the vote was quite close with only about 50 in it. I tabled an amendment to the arrangements that were being proposed at the time, and it certainly evoked an interesting and lively debate. My concern was that the whole parade that would take place within the 14 days, including the confidence motion and its arrangements, would be very much governed by powerful whipping to ensure that people fell into line with what the Government wanted. I was concerned that there would be a constant stream of people walking up and down Whitehall, just as we saw on television screens when the coalition was being put in place, and that the people who would make the final decision on the final wording about the holding of a confidence motion—including an affirmation after 14 days that the House had confidence in the Government—would not only be driven by the Whips, but would exclude the voters. Surely that is the real point. Why are we here? Who elects us? It is not our House of Parliament or our Government: it is the voters’. If things have gone completely awry and there is a case for an early election, as prescribed by the Act, the simple principle is that we should go back to the voters. We should not have a stitch-up within the Government, with the Whips making certain that people vote accordingly.

Fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. The outcome of one election cannot be undone until the end of the stipulated term. One Government could collapse and inter-party bargaining could produce another. In those circumstances, voters would be denied the opportunity to endorse what amounts to a new Government. That is a fatal position for us to have adopted. It is so undemocratic. Indeed, an unstable and ineffective Government may stagger on without achieving anything—we heard remarks to that effect from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).

In 1991, the then Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Waddington put it thus:

“Is it better for a government unable to govern to go to the country to try to obtain a new mandate or for the same government to spend their time fixing up deals in which the unfortunate electorate has no say whatsoever? The people not the parties should decide who governs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1991; Vol. 529, c. 260.]

What wise words. In essence, fixed-term Parliaments rob the system of our hallowed flexibility and limit voter choice. That choice is limited by this Act.

Although the policy of the Liberal Democrats was for four-year Parliaments—I concede that—agreement was reached quickly in May 2010 for a five-year term, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who has written about that period, indicated that the object of the Act was to allow time to implement plans before worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. But five-year terms mean that the voters have fewer opportunities than before to go to the polls, and most post-war Parliaments have not gone their maximum length—now a five-year term is an absolute requirement.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by having a maximum length—which is not the norm, as most Parliaments lasted slightly under four years—the voters are denied the right to say what they think about policies and perhaps change their mind sooner rather than later?

[Sir William Cash]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes huge sense. These are simple questions. It is not an abstract, theoretical argument: it is about the simple question of whether, if the Government are ineffective or have gone badly wrong, they should be kept together with Sellotape because they satisfy the requirements to stay in a coalition—which is itself a stitch-up—under a provision in an Act of Parliament. As I wrote to the Prime Minister in my letter of 10 May 2010, that will work against the interests of voters and, effectively, the national interest.

[Mr Allen]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is making a strong argument for the direct election of the Government, just as we are directly elected? It would be terrible if he were to pay the price personally at the next election for the faults of the Government. The Executive should be for election so that members of the public have the right, which exists in most western democracies, of directly electing their Government rather than using him as a proxy.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not accept that proposition, but we do not have time to go through all the implications. I also completely repudiate his suggestion of a written constitution, and I suspect what the hon. Gentleman has just said has something to do with that.

The revelations by the right hon. Member for Yeovil about the coalition negotiations also implicitly accepted the argument that fixed-term Parliaments facilitate long election campaigns. That is where we are now. We are in an election campaign already, and questions arise about the amount of money that is being generated for financing purposes. That is a practical objection, the realities of which we are seeing as I speak. MPs are not expected to be very visible in Westminster during this Session, and I need only look at the Opposition Benches to see that only two Opposition Members are listening to this debate.

As was made clear in evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, knowing well in advance when the next election will take place encourages Governments to manipulate the economic cycle to their maximum advantage. That is a not unknown characteristic of Chancellors of the Exchequer, and we will have the autumn statement soon. But that substantial question has to be addressed.

The Act was a consequence of the need to build trust between coalition partners, and that is clear from all the books that have been written about the stitching up of the coalition. There was no agreement by the Conservative party that I would regard as proper agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, we had a meeting at which we were told certain things about what was going on between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and there was some doubt about that, if I may put it that way.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public made no mention of their desire for a fixed-term Parliament when we were out campaigning?

[Sir William Cash]

That is true. There was no consultation or any attempt to discuss the implications for the voters. The negotiators were not particularly well versed in constitutional arrangements and the Act did not do what its short title suggests. In fact, the Act provides for semi-fixed terms. It includes provisions that allow early elections in certain circumstances, so to call it a fixed-term Parliament is a misnomer. Certain procedures would allow an early election. It is just that the circumstances that would enable that early election would be stitched up—as was the original coalition. They would enable early elections, but to what extent would the voters be involved? That is essentially undemocratic, and it also gives false hope that voter choice may not be as limited as under strict fixed-term provisions.

An election can be triggered if a vote of no confidence is carried against the Government and, within 14 days, a new Government is unable to carry a vote of confidence, or if two thirds of all MPs vote for an early election. It can also be triggered if everyone agrees on the need for an early election, but that seems extremely improbable. It is difficult to imagine when the idea of two-thirds of all MPs voting for an early election could ever be employed. Parties are hardly likely to vote for an early election if the opinion polls are not propitious. A Government could seek an early election by engineering a vote of no confidence in themselves, but, for heaven’s sake, if that were to be the case—I have had that put forward as quite a serious proposal—it is hardly likely to promote the reputation of, and confidence in, the parliamentary system.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act says nothing about what happens where a Government implode and then resign but the provisions in the Act are not triggered. We would then be in what has been described as the Belgian situation—Parliament continuing without a Government being in existence. I believe profoundly that the Act is an aberration. I think it is wrong. I think it is undemocratic. I think it requires repeal. I am aware that there is provision for it potentially to be repealed in 2020 under section 7, but it should happen much sooner, and as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex so wisely said, perish the thought that parties are partisan or non-partisan in these events. Of course they are. If the economic climate warrants the Prime Minister going to the country in the belief that he or she will win, I find that perfectly pertinent. I see no problem with that whatever. As I said, it keeps everybody on their toes.

This tinkering with the constitution, which is what we did, was not thought through and not much debated. The electorate certainly did not have a choice on fixed-term Parliaments. I believe that we tinker with the constitution at our peril. I admit that I voted for the measure at the time, but I was green and naive in those days, and I would not vote for it now. We are, as a consequence of this Act, stuck in a situation that does not satisfy Parliament or the parties and certainly not the electorate.

Over the last two or three days of debate, we have heard many Members saying how awful they think the public think we all are. I disagree. My view is that we should stop self-flagellating and get on with our jobs. We should stand up for what we believe in and tell the country exactly where we stand on issues. Sadly, in a coalition partnership, it is difficult to do that.

Finally, I would have liked the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to contain a sunset clause, but sadly it did not. As Members have said, it is to be reviewed in 2020. When the Minister makes his winding-up speech, I would be grateful if informed us where exactly the Government stand on this issue. I am sure that the shadow Minister will do exactly the same.

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to the question of whether people outside know what we are doing, does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that they are now much more in a fog than they were because of the identity of the Conservative party being lost in this amorphous coalition—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There have to be short interventions. Sir William, you have already had a speech. We do not want you to make another one. A short intervention was all that Mr Drax needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the other Members on both sides of the House on securing the debate. It is a debate of great constitutional significance, as we have heard. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 repealed an important and long-standing aspect of the royal prerogative which allowed Prime Ministers to dissolve Parliament when they saw fit. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I found myself in agreement with pretty much everything he said this afternoon and I will do my best not to repeat it.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the repeal of the prerogative. Does he believe that if the Act were repealed, either under the motion or in 2020 under the provisions of section 7, that the prerogative would revive? I imagine that he has had a chance to look at that issue.

[Stephen Twigg]

I will return to that issue, which relates directly to a point that the hon. Gentleman made. He referred to the review, and I welcome the fact that there will be a review, but I am certainly not persuaded by anything that I have heard today that it would make sense to do what the motion says and repeal the Act. I would like to set out the reasons why.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) suggested that Labour had supported a fixed-term Parliament because of our predicament following the general election in 2010. The problem with that argument is that it was in our manifesto prior to the 2010 general election. Labour was committed to a fixed-term Parliament. Our view was to have a four-year fixed-term Parliament, and we were persuaded by our review of policy in preparing our manifesto of the democratic case for having a four-year fixed-term Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely. I wonder whether the motion should have been worded, “That this House supports the repeal of the coalition agreement”, because most of the speeches from Conservative Members seem to be more about rehearsing debates about the coalition than the issue before us.

Fundamentally, this debate is about the power of the Executive in Parliament. I believe that the Act enhances the role of the House by removing the ability to dissolve Parliament whenever a Prime Minister saw fit. That seems to be the absolutely central argument in favour of a fixed-term Parliament. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) talked about voter choice, but the system prior to fixed-term Parliaments did not give voters more choice; it gave choice to the Prime Minister and the leader of the party in government. That is not a democratic argument at all. In a modern democracy we should not accept that form of unaccountable power. The Act imposes constraints that give more power to this House versus the Executive.

[Sir William Cash]

It is the pressure exerted at the point we reach a confidence motion that demonstrates what is going on outside as well as inside. Had there been a similar situation over, for example, the Maastricht treaty, I have no doubt that there would have been a resurgence of voter opinion at that time. I think it is democratic, not the other way round.

[Stephen Twigg]

As the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, the Act retains the ability of the House to pass motions of no confidence in the Government of the day. That safety valve to which he refers still exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

We have had some great contributions from both sides of the House. There were seven Back-Bench speeches, from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax). They all made some thoughtful and insightful points about the Act. The arguments put forward can be summed up as follows: the Act is an aberration, it is a political stitch-up and it strengthens the Executive over Parliament and the public, and that it therefore should, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, be reviewed and repealed. I will address each of those points in turn.

First, on the issue of review, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset explicitly asked about, it will be for the next Government, whether of a single party or of coalition parties, to evaluate how the Act has operated in this Parliament, and what, if any, lessons can be learned, and how they can make best use of their own fixed term. Not only will such an appraisal assist the next Government in their planning, but it can help to inform any amendment that might be needed to the Act.

I turn to the case that was made for repealing the Act. There has not been consensus about whether the argument is about having a shorter fixed-term Parliament or not having any fixed term at all. It is interesting to note that the right length of a Parliament has been debated in this House over centuries, which should come as no surprise in our 800-year-old democracy. It is striking how, at different points in our history, the case for shorter, and indeed longer, Parliaments has been made. In the 17th century—in 1641 and again in 1694—we had Triennial Acts requiring Parliament to be called every three years; I am sure the hon. Member for Great Grimsby would agree with that. From 1716 we had the Septennial Act, setting the maximum duration of a Parliament at seven years. That was amended in 1911, to set the maximum at five years, and finally repealed in its entirety only in 2011.

[Sir William Cash]

In my hon. Friend’s historical survey, has he noticed that the reason why the Triennial and Septennial Acts were passed was to suit the convenience of the Government of the time? In the case of the Septennial Act, it was also to do with the Jacobites and the rest of it, but it has always been for the convenience of the Government. That is the purpose of such Acts; there is no great constitutional principle.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. There were, of course, many other times when Parliament has considered whether we have the right balance for our time. During the era of the American revolutionary war, a Bill for annual Parliaments was moved year after year by a small but committed core of Back-Bench supporters. In response to my hon. Friend, I would say that our debate today continues the fine tradition of probing our constitutional arrangements, and, yes, it is right to continue to probe and to ask the right questions, but he and his colleagues’ concern about the fixed nature of this Parliament is not new in our democracy.

EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that the UK has for some time been one of the prime movers in the argument for a comprehensive transatlantic trade deal, which is a point I will return to later.

The fact that this debate has been initiated by Back Benchers from both sides of the House does not absolve the Government from the responsibility to ensure that the public are properly informed about the negotiations and the potential for this deal, or that the House has a regular opportunity to debate progress and scrutinise the actions the Government are taking to secure a successful agreement. That cross-party, and indeed all-party, support and interest was evident two months ago when, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentioned, we set up the all-party group, which I am fortunate enough to chair. We are working closely with the well-established and well-regarded British-American Parliamentary Group, of which Mr Speaker is the distinguished chair. We have set up working relations with the TUC, the CBI and Which?, and we have now been offered welcome administrative and policy support from BritishAmerican Business, which of course is the joint US-UK chamber of commerce.

The aims of the all-party group are: first, to provide a focus for UK parliamentary cross-party support for a comprehensive trade and investment agreement; secondly, to contribute to better public understanding of the potential benefits that such a deal could bring to consumers, workers and businesses across Britain; and thirdly, to strengthen the scrutiny that Parliament can exercise over Government actions towards securing such a successful agreement.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman may know that the European Scrutiny Committee is looking at the whole question of the scrutiny of this agreement and, indeed, other free trade agreements. One of the problems is that the negotiating mandate is not available to Parliament on the conventional basis until the conclusion of the agreement. We are pursuing that matter with the Prime Minister, and I have just received a letter from him about it. I shall refer to that in my speech.

[John Healey]

I am grateful for and interested by that intervention. I will come to the general questions of the relationship between the UK Parliament and the UK Government and the requirement for a better and more formal system of scrutiny of decisions and involvement in the European Union. I will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks when he contributes to the debate.

Finally on the all-party group, we see this as active but time limited to the period of negotiations towards what we hope is a successful conclusion of the deal. Personally, I hope that Presidents Obama, Van Rompuy and Barroso are right when they declare that they want this deal done within two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is quite a big ask to do it in seven minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I will not attempt to go through all the issues for that reason. I am extremely aware of the time constraints, so I will try to concentrate on the main issues and set out some headline points that are worth bearing in mind.

Curiously enough, I approach this issue in line with the EU constitution, by applying the precautionary principle. I would not want to be over-enthusiastic about something until I knew what the terms were. There has been a great deal of hype about this issue and some exaggerated views expressed. I would be cautious, for a variety of reasons, about making any assumptions that such an agreement will ever happen, given the Doha round and all that happened there. Nor would I wish to become over-excited about it necessarily bringing the benefits that have been described, because nobody knows.

Part of the reason for that is that the negotiating mandate is not available, as I said in an intervention. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have correspondence with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade, Lord Green. At the moment, the whole thing is under discussion. Let me quote from a letter I received on 10 July from the Prime Minister, in which he said:

“Both the EU and the US are aiming for the maximum level of ambition”—

I am always keen on ambition, as long as it does not vaunt itself—

“in these trade negotiations.”

The letter continues:

“This means that all sectors are within scope, except, as I mentioned, the audiovisual sector”—

that was in reply to a point I made the other day in response to a European summit statement—

“although there is the option to include the sector at a later stage in the negotiations.”

The letter continues:

“The areas normally covered in a trade agreement with a developed nation will be included. This ranges from trade in goods, services, public procurement, to regulatory issues and rules in intellectual property rights, sustainable development and customs. Some of the issues covered are areas of Member State competence or shared competence; the EU’s negotiating mandate was therefore agreed by consensus.”

Whenever I hear the word “consensus” in the context of EU administrative arrangements, I get slightly concerned, to say the least, because it means that a deal has been done behind closed doors. We know that the negotiating mandate is being discussed behind closed doors, and we need to know who is going to benefit most from these arrangements, and in which sectors.

We have only 12% of the votes in the qualified majority voting arrangements. This is an exclusive competence of the Commission, which drives the entire operation. It has no particular interest in what goes on in the United Kingdom, and I am entirely dubious about the claims that this agreement would generate £10 billion-worth of advantage to the UK. I do not know whether it will, and I do not think that the people who are saying that know. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I would like to insist—so far as I can—that we be given all the necessary information.

[Julian Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 12 or 13-person team from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign Office that focuses on trade should try to achieve some of the things that he is looking for when influencing the UK’s position in this deal?

[Mr Cash]

I am sure that they will do their best, but whether they will do well enough has yet to be established. If we do not know what is going on during the negotiations —and if we do not even know what the mandate is—I must express my concern on that count alone.

I shall continue to quote from the Prime Minister’s letter:

“As David Lidington told your Committee when he appeared before it on 4 July, while the confidential nature of such negotiations means that formally depositing documents is not possible”—

which I have to say concerns me greatly—

“Ministers will keep the Committee abreast of significant developments in writing and we are happy to offer the Committee informal, private briefings on the progress of negotiations.”

We will be monitoring all this. I see that the Chairman of the Business, Innovations and Skills Select Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), is in the Chamber, and I would be happy to exchange ideas and thoughts with him on this. He was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee with me for many years.

[Mr Jenkin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge will be to reconcile the differing objectives of the member states? That will be extremely difficult because, as a major European economy, we uniquely depend on imports, and we export more to the rest of the world than all the other member states except Germany. At the same time, we are dependent on trade with the EU. We have a unique set of circumstances and a unique economy, and it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to reconcile our requirements with those of the other, very different economies of the EU in one single agreement.

[Mr Cash]

I very much concur with that.

A number of extremely learned articles have been written about this matter, and they show that many European countries stand to be gravely disadvantaged by the deal. I cannot claim that we would be exclusively enhanced by it, but many of the Parliaments and trade associations of many other countries will also be watching these developments. Several countries will be given quite a jolt. An article entitled “Transatlantic free trade: boon or bane for economic cohesion in the EU” states:

“in a broad free trade agreement, trade activities between Great Britain and Sweden as well as between Great Britain and Spain are expected to drop by about 45%. Likewise, Sweden’s imports and exports with Spain and Finland will decline by 40%, and Irish-Dutch trade relations will shrink by 35%.”

All those factors must be taken into account.

However enthusiastic we may be about the concept of free trade, it is important to ask whether the deal is actually to be beneficial to the United Kingdom. It is our task to secure such benefits, and not only that of the EU. We also trade with the whole of the Commonwealth, and our trade relations with the emerging countries, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world have been improving. We have a net surplus of trade with the rest of the world of about £15 billion a year, according to the latest figures for 2012. However, we have a trade deficit with Europe. The figure for 2011 was minus £47 billion; it is now minus £70 billion. The Germans, on the other hand, had a surplus in 2011 of £30 billion, and it is now £72 billion. Many people believe that the United States will benefit the most from the deal, and those figures suggest that it will weigh up all those factors when dealing with these questions. This is a potentially difficult situation that will have to be dealt with.

An article in the Financial Times states:

“There would also be damage around the world from a sweeping US-EU deal. Advanced countries such as Canada, Australia and Japan would suffer, as would many emerging economies. Mexico and Chile, which have strong trading ties with the US, would be among the worst hit, along with most of Africa, Asia and Latin America—with the exception of Brazil.”

Brazil is in a lot of difficulty at the moment, however. The article continues:

“China’s trade flows with the US would shrink”.

There are many elements of all this that need to be thought out.

In the short time left, I shall draw the House’s attention to an article in Economia by Zaki Laïdi, entitled “Europe’s bad trade gamble”. Mr Laïdi is Professor of International Relations at the institute of politics known as Sciences Po in France. I am not saying that he has all the answers, but his article is well worth reading and can be obtained from the Library.

There are many conflicting views of the benefits that could be derived from the deal. The European Scrutiny Committee has made inquiries of the Government, and I would dispute the advantages of the EU-Korea free trade agreement. We know what the position is with regard to the EU, but unfortunately we cannot make any comparison with that arrangement to substantiate the claims of advantages for the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for many years and I totally agree with him. We need to look properly at procurement policies to realise that point, but I will not get tempted further down that path now.

As far as I can see, the big issue for the motor industry is that, for the UK and the US, tariff barriers are relatively low but that is not quite the same as the barriers between the US and the EU. One of the challenges for the British negotiators as part of the US team is to ensure that the EU does not concentrate only on overt tariff barriers. If that is the case, there will be a general benefit, but the EU will benefit disproportionately. In case anyone considers this to be an anti-EU argument, let me make it absolutely clear that I think we have a far better chance of prosecuting a good deal as part of the EU negotiation than we would if we were not part of it—but this particular issue does need to be addressed. The fact is that the removal of non-tariff barriers within the US is considerably more important for stimulating exports or reducing costs, and the British Government must concentrate on those as part of the EU negotiating team.

Let me highlight a few areas where I believe the British Government need to get behind those who are already engaged in this work. The first relates to how the myriad of technical regulations—quite understandably in respect of road safety and the environment—dictate a range of different regulations in different countries. Standardising them provides a big challenge. I know that the European Automobile Manufacturers Association and the American Automotive Policy Council are working on this at this moment, but it is up to the Government to see that that work comes to a positive conclusion and give it all the support they can.

Secondly, on the global scale, the United Nations is working on standardising global technical regulations. Although this might not be part of the specific brief of the EU negotiating team, it would be helpful if the EU and the US, working with the UN, standardised their approach so that the standardisation of regulation applies not just within the EU and the US but throughout the rest of the world. That would provide a further impetus for both sides.

Another issue affecting our dealings with the US is the disparate and federated nature of its regulatory bodies. There are national federated bodies involved in regulations on environmental protection and road safety, but there are, of course, state bodies as well. That provides a specific challenge to get the sort of coherence and pace of reform that we need to conform to the timetable.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Bailey]

I could not possibly resist the temptation to invite the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to intervene.

[Mr Cash]

Would the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee consider whether there will be a fast-track agreement in Congress, as this has been an issue of some contention? In that context and within the framework of the constitutional arrangements of the United States, it is important to bear in mind that the commercial rights of the states themselves are important, too.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Provision exists within the US constitution for a fast-track process. To conform to the timetable we are looking at, that would certainly be necessary, and it is up to our negotiators to ensure that it happens.

The standardisation of the customs procedures is another issue. Manufacturers often complain that many hours are lost as a result of non-standard procedures, so this should be a potentially fruitful area for negotiation.

Finally, let me acknowledge that although the details are all terribly difficult, extremely technical and often obscure, their impact on trade and thereby on countries’ economies, jobs and growth is very significant. The Government therefore need to do everything they can to work with the organisations engaged in resolving these highly technical problems.

I mention the BIS publication, “Estimating the Economic Impact on the UK of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement between the European Union and the United States” final project report, which I am sure the Minister knows by heart. It spelt out the disproportionate level of benefit that would accrue to the motor industry and companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and their suppliers in my area of the black country from a successful reduction of both tariff barriers and the sort of non-tariff barriers to which I have alluded. On an optimistic view of a 75% reduction in non-tariff barriers, car exports could go up by as much as 26%—a 26% increase on the already vigorous and buoyant production from Jaguar Land Rover in my area. That would be of enormous benefit for economic growth and jobs.

I believe that by working with the EU to expand our market to 800 million people—half the world’s gross domestic product and a third of the world’s trade—the motor industry could be incredibly successful. I hope that the Government will map out the benefits of such a free trade agreement for areas such as mine.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and I agree with much of what he had to say. Let me take the opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who played such an important part in creating the new all-party group, whose establishment is both timely and necessary if we are to realise some of the prizes that should flow from a new transatlantic trade deal. Let me make it clear, bearing in mind some of the speeches we have heard, that I regard myself as an old-fashioned Tory. I believe in free trade, and I think it crucial for parliamentarians here in the UK and throughout Europe to be well aware and fully informed of all the arguments and implications at the very earliest opportunity.

[Mr Cash]

Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to give way?

[Jonathan Evans]

I thought that would be inevitable.

[Mr Cash]

It is inevitable. When my hon. Friend referred to himself as an old-fashioned Tory, I was bound to reflect on the fact that nobody was much more protectionist than Disraeli and that nobody was more in favour of free trade than John Bright and Richard Cobden, who were of course Liberals.

[Jonathan Evans]

I cannot help thinking that we are missing my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I had thought that we were likely to get on to the corn laws at some stage of this debate, but let us move that issue to one side.

The negotiations will be led by the European Commission, which is inevitable as we currently stand, and the White House. Legislators in Europe, however, will in many instances have the final say on whatever emerges from these negotiations, so I view early engagement with parliamentarians as of real importance. I also want to welcome the willingness of Ministers—we have already seen it from my noble Friend Lord Green and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio—fully to engage with us. I welcome, too, the commitment of President Obama to place the delivery of this new trade partnership as a key objective of his final term, but it is important to understand that the aim of creating a truly free transatlantic market is not a recent phenomenon.

As colleagues may know, after an all too short period of service in this House during John Major’s premiership, I served as a Member of the European Parliament, leading the Conservative delegation, and I was later elected by the European Parliament as the president of its relations with the US Congress. I took up that post eight years ago, and from then on it was clear to me that many legislators on both sides of the Atlantic had already devoted decades of effort to bringing about much closer economic co-operation between the United States and Europe. I pay particular tribute to two British MEPs who will leave the European Parliament next year for the unswerving commitment that they have shown to the promotion of that trade partnership, and to the achievement of a truly free transatlantic market.

My Conservative colleague James Elles, who served six terms in the European Parliament, was the founder of the Transatlantic Policy Network, a forum for debate between Atlanticist legislators which I believe has played an important role in bringing us to where we are today. One former US chairman of the TPN is Chuck Hagel, who now serves at the heart of the US Administration as Defence Secretary. There is no doubt that many other members of the Obama Administration share the objectives that have been promoted by the TPN.

Another former TPN chairman who will leave the European Parliament next year is the Labour MEP for the South East, Peter Skinner. It may be strange to hear it said from these Benches, but I am pleased to say that Peter is one of the best-regarded parliamentarians in Brussels. We worked very closely together in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the Parliament, and also later when I served as chair of the advisory board of the Transatlantic Economic Council, set up by Chancellor Merkel and President Bush in 2007. I well recall encouraging Peter to join me in establishing better links with our US friends, words that he took quite literally—I mention this particularly in the context of an earlier intervention—when he met his future wife Kimberley, a Penn State republican, during one of our parliamentary visits.

Much of the background research on the massive opportunities for economic growth to be gained from an EU-US an agreement has been done by the Centre for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins university in Washington. Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan from the university produce an annual report on the transatlantic economy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has seen that document, which surveys jobs and trade and investment between the US and Europe, and whose details make a powerful case for closer transatlantic co-operation. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) receives a copy, because I think it crucially important for him to see it.

The Prime Minister has said that a successful transatlantic agreement could be the biggest trade deal in history. I have heard some cynical observations about the figures, but much of the analysis shows that not only will the agreement constitute a gain for Europe and for the United States, but there will be gains elsewhere as a result of the growth in the world economy that will follow.

No one doubts the challenge that we face in achieving agreement. As may have become evident during today’s debate, we sometimes hear protectionist voices, which can be at their most seductive during times of austerity. I know that comments have been made about the “Buy America” legislation which exists in no fewer than 21 states. The latest state to pass such legislation is Maryland, whose legislators seem to be unaware that some 70,000 people in the state work directly for European companies, that $13 billion from Europe is invested in Maryland annually, and that every year $3 billion worth of goods are exported from Maryland to Europe. Immediately after signing the new “Buy America” law, the Maryland state governor flew to the Paris air show to urge Europeans to buy defence products made—believe it or not—in Maryland. You couldn’t make it up.

Narrow protectionism does not protect jobs in Maryland or anywhere else in the United States, and it does not do so in this country either. Reference has been made to the effectiveness of laws of that kind. I think it worth observing that Government procurement agreements made by the United States at the World Trade Organisation grant EU countries full reciprocity with Maryland providers and manufacturers. I believe that, in this instance, “Buy America” laws are not just wrong-headed but a blatant deception of US and Maryland voters. Let me add that my warning against protectionism is just as appropriate in the case of the French voices that successfully compelled the European Commission to remove audio-visual services from the scope of the negotiation.

Finally, let me say a little about the financial ties between Europe and the United States. At this point I should draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although my own interests will not be affected in any way by this particular deal. Those financial ties represent a market share of between 66% and 86% of global financial sectors, which render this deal crucially important to the United States, and to us here in the United Kingdom. Delivering the deal by 2014 requires a tight timetable, but I urge Ministers to continue to engage with us as we proceed with our work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. It is one of the key concerns in relation to the fact that we are still waiting for a Canada-EU agreement, because the more the issue is highlighted, the more it seems that the opponents come forward with further concerns about why the agreement should not go ahead. As I have said, I do believe we should support this ambitious target, but I highlight the fact that the experience in relation to Canada has not as yet been particularly positive.

I also think we should express concern at the ability of some countries in Europe to highlight their protectionist views in relation to this proposed agreement. It is a concern that the audio-visual sector has been excluded from negotiations. That is also a positive issue in many ways, however, because the decision to move ahead with talks has been made despite the fact that the European side has excluded that sector. We are aware of why that specific area has been excluded, but it is encouraging to see that one problem has not necessarily resulted in a decision that the whole negotiations should be stopped.

That shows a pragmatic attitude, which we saw when I was in Washington last year. People on the Hill felt that this was an opportunity to create a genuine agreement between the EU and the US. That is noticeable, because there was a feeling when we were there that the time to strike on such an important issue is when people can see the advantages. When the economies of the western world are doing well, the need for such an agreement is perhaps less.

Last summer in Washington, it was very apparent that people felt that the States still required fundamental changes to their economy. They saw the opportunity for freer trade with the EU as important and thought that it would lead to a much better agreement on much better global trading. An important point about free trade between the EU and US that has not been made this afternoon is that we would end up with an agreement on regulations, for example, that would be acceptable in many parts of the global economy. If the EU and the US were to agree on certain consumer protection standards that were acceptable to those two large trading blocs, they could be the basis for agreements on a raft of other issues that would allow other parts of the global economy to aspire to enjoy the benefit of global free trade and of an EU-US trade agreement by working to the same standards rather than undercutting them.

[Mr Cash]

I want to make a simple point. Some of the commentators—I would include myself—are slightly concerned that the objectives from the European point of view are driven less by the question of free trade and more by the idea of becoming a linchpin of the moves towards political union so that they can stitch up deals all over the world under the Lisbon treaty, which would then result in a greater opportunity for political union. Does he agree that that is a possibility?

[Guto Bebb]

I would be reluctant to agree with that rather negative view of the reasons behind the trade agreement. Again, one of the reasons I was keen to be involved in the all-party group was to ensure that we discuss such issues openly. If there are significant concerns of that nature, it is important that they are aired and that we instigate a public discussion.

Let me finish on the issue of whether such a trade agreement will have an effect on our relationship with the European Union. I am often made despondent by the behaviour of the EU and I believe that we need to renegotiate the relationship between it and the UK. We need to show the people of this country once more that the EU could benefit us, rather than being problematic, a drag on economic growth and a cause of deep frustration. As someone who represents a constituency that is dependent on small businesses, I see that small businesses clearly feel frustrated by much of what comes out of Europe.

The agreement is a hugely important opportunity for the EU to show the people of the UK that the EU can provide us with much more trade, which is what we want from our relationship with our European partners, and much less of the other stuff, which is so problematic. This is a challenge to not just the United Kingdom but our European partners to show that we can create something in the EU that will benefit the economies of Europe and the rest of the world. That is the challenge that the EU needs to stand up to. If it fails, it will make a huge problem for the future of our relationship with the EU.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the debate and on setting up the extremely important all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment.

Let me start by putting the subject in context. Even though the Chamber was rebuilt after the second world war, the ghosts of the 19th century and the debate on free trade seem still to be haunting it in today’s debate. I was slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) did not pay tribute to the work of Robert Peel, who, after all, represented a neighbouring Staffordshire seat in Tamworth.

I want to look more at the period after the second world war, when the architects of the new world order fully understood that an open economy and world trade were important not only for prosperity but for peace. They had seen the significant problems in the inter-war period—the time of Montagu Norman, austerity, competitive devaluation and, in particular, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States and competitive trade wars around the world—that resulted in a diminution of world trade from $5.3 billion in 1929 to $1.8 billion in 1933. That world financial crisis led inexorably to the rise of fascism and Nazism and into the second world war.

The post-war negotiators realised their responsibilities, particularly Keynes, whose searing intelligence and insight is lacking in some of the international discussions now. First, the negotiators recreated an international financial architecture through a World Bank and an International Monetary Fund, which were the preconditions for the other changes of freer trade, barrier reductions, the post-Korean boom, the consumer society—at which many elitists sneered at the time—and the huge surge in technical development. They also depended on significant transatlantic initiatives. We had the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which then merged into the European Community, but before that we had the Marshall plan and the creation of NATO, and both were key parts of the changes brought about by that towering genius of foreign affairs and the British Labour movement, Ernest Bevin, who could see the opportunities —perhaps even more than some of those whose names are associated with them, such as George Marshall—for creating a new world situation. He saw them not as separate developments, but as interwoven and inseparable.

Now we face new challenges following the global financial crisis and the new architecture of the world economy. Although many underestimate them, the Atlantic ties are still enormously important. Many of the world’s democracies and the most productive economies are on either side of the Atlantic, as well as the most technologically advanced countries. Half of the world’s GDP would be encompassed by such an agreement.

Yesterday, the Commons debated Trident, and we also recently debated NATO and its future post-ISAF and Afghanistan. As we negotiate an evolving international architecture, trade and security go hand in hand. It is not just about the formal relations but about the cultural links, which are especially important and significant for the United Kingdom—as many Members have mentioned, we are uniquely placed to benefit from such arrangements —finance, business, security and defence. For the UK more than any other EU country, this is important.

As hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), have remarked, President Obama and his officials have made it very clear that they are not interested in doing a number of minor deals with different countries. They see the negotiations between the EU and the US as crucial and they see the advantages. That does not mean that we should enter into the negotiations naively. They will be tough; the Americans are tough negotiators. We should drive a very hard bargain. There is also a danger that some on both sides of the Atlantic will seek to smuggle in a neo-liberal policy to try to undermine many protections for consumers and workers.

[Mr Cash]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of an article by Fred Smith in Forbes Magazine from about 10 days ago? It illustrates the fact that the United States is concerned about the importation into the agreements of regulatory and environmental standards. That might be a sticking point.

[Mr Spellar]

There is the possibility of many sticking points. That is why it is so important to keep an eye on the bigger picture of the huge benefits. Talks of this kind can always be undermined by a number of niggling details, and therefore by local campaigning. That is not unimportant, and we need to recognise that there will be losers as well as winners, but we should also recognise the huge benefits, not just for the US and the EU, but for the world economy. That is possibly what happened in the talks between the EU and Canada, and we need to be concerned about that. A number of difficulties have started to bog down those negotiations for those reasons.

An American official associated with the negotiations said that the talks needed to be

“done on one tank of gas.”

They need to move forward. Regard has to be paid to the checks and balances, but no one should deny the overall impact and huge benefits.

We also need to look at how we make sure that the benefits are shared with others in the world. No one should underestimate the huge impact that the expansion in world trade has had, not only on the economies of developed countries, but on the hundreds of millions who have been taken out of poverty all around the world, not least in China, where about 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty. We have also seen the largest migration of humanity in history from the countryside to the cities. The benefits have to be shared, and we need to ensure that the architecture of the agreement does not close off that avenue.

Having sounded that cautionary note, I think that we should wish the talks well, and I hope that they are conducted with speed and a degree of urgency. I hope that they go into the fast track with that one tank of gas. I say: “It’s time—let’s get rolling.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I accept that because of the problems we had when we came to office, we had to get extra capacity. My constituents in Ilford benefited from the independent treatment centre that was established on the site of King George hospital. They had operations on their knees and noses that would not have been available previously because of the lack of capacity in the NHS. I make no apology for the fact that my constituents benefited from the investment and policies of the Labour Government, but that is not what this debate is about.

I want to make three points. First, in an earlier intervention I referred to the European Union-South Korea free trade agreement which, as the Foreign Secretary recognised in the House a few months ago, has not just been of great benefit to the European Union as a whole, but the removal of 97% of the tariffs that existed between Korea and the European Union led to a significant increase in British exports to Korea.

[Mr Cash]

I alluded to that in my speech. After inquiry, the European Scrutiny Committee was informed that it was difficult, if not impossible, to make a true comparison between the apparent benefits to the EU in general and the advantages to the UK individually, apart from in the car industry, where there appeared to be a distinct benefit.

[Mike Gapes]

On 23 April, the Foreign Secretary said:

“The free trade agreement with South Korea eliminated nearly 97% of tariffs, and some British businesses are now enjoying a huge increase in exports to South Korea as a result. We want to see the same thing happen on an even greater scale in relation to the United States.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 743.]

I suggest the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)has some comradely discussions about these matters with the Foreign Secretary in the next meeting of the 1922 committee or somewhere else.

I want to emphasise a point made by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) about the significance of reducing the regulatory obstacles. Many of my constituents work in financial or banking institutions in London. TheCityUK has published a paper saying that it

“strongly supports the efforts being made in the US and the EU towards a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership.”

It believes that that needs to be comprehensive and should cover all aspects of the economy, and it highlights the absurdities of different regulatory regimes, the additional costs this imposes on both sides of the Atlantic and the serious delays involved.

In another publication, British Influence highlights how the pharmaceutical industry has completely different requirements on the acceptability and availability of drugs in the US and Europe, meaning that drugs that have already gone through one rigorous testing procedure must then go through another one. That is not necessarily anything other than an obstructive measure to preserve markets for certain companies by squeezing out competitors. If it can compete on quality—and our pharmaceutical industry is certainly high quality—industry in Europe and Britain will be well capable of competing on a level playing field in an American market.

There will be people in the US, as in Europe, who will try to resist and obstruct these measures. We have heard some of those voices today, unfortunately. The reason for that is partly ideological, but it is also linked to pork-barrel politics, the two-year congressional election cycle and all the other difficulties people have in winning public office in the US, so this will not be an easy process, and these negotiations will take time; it is a bit optimistic to think they could be over in two years, and they will not be helped if the EU adopts a minimalist position or says it wishes certain items to be taken out of the negotiations at the start. That will play into the hands of those in the US who also want to play that game.

It is a bit like the Conservative party’s position on renegotiating our membership of, and repatriating powers from, the EU. We cannot take things à la carte, and in the negotiations between the EU and the US, we will not get all we want; it will be a difficult process, and it could well be undermined significantly by diversions, such as those relating to Scotland, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) referred. It could also be undermined, however, if British negotiators, obsessing about other issues, divert their efforts and energies away from getting the best deal for British business and investment and trade in the United States, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out earlier.

According to The Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister said that

“if Britain weren’t in the EU you would not directly benefit from an EU/US trade deal”.

That is the fundamental point. If we embark on a process of renegotiating terms with, or withdrawing from, the EU, we will damage our position within an internal EU process and our long-term relationship with the US. As the US President, the ambassador and others have made absolutely clear, the US believes it to be in the interests of its co-operation with Europe that the UK play a full part within the EU. If we want to get an EU-US trade and investment treaty, we need to support it wholeheartedly.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on using their strong persuasive abilities to convince the Backbench Business Committee to agree to this important debate. This issue has not had the prominence it deserves, and I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for redressing that situation. Given the potential of this agreement, this is an important discussion.

This has been an important and, on the whole, positive debate. The sheer size of the American and European economies means that the potential prize of a significant free trade agreement is huge. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said, together the EU and the US account for just under half of global GDP and about a third of world trade. About $2.7 billion of goods and services cross the two continents every single day—a trillion dollars every year. The proposed free trade agreement could be the biggest bilateral trade deal in world history, both in terms of its value and in the range of subjects, sectors and markets covered. Given the size of the sums involved, even modest reductions in barriers would lead to huge amounts of money—$325 billion—that could be ploughed into extra jobs, more investment and higher economic growth.

As has been said, a potential trade and investment agreement would yield an estimated increase in UK national income of between £4 billion and £10 billion a year over the next decade. That is huge and worth fighting for.

[Mr Cash]

Lord Mandelson said that when he was trade commissioner the over-regulation of business cost 4% of Europe’s GDP and about £6 billion a year to the British economy. Is that not something we should be tackling, and does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of his figures are based on estimates?

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was about to say that, as mentioned several times, the nature and structure of trade between the EU and the US is such that we do not have substantial or excessive trade barriers between the two blocs. Most of the gains would come from a reduction in non-tariff barriers. In response to his point, I would add that I am keen to see regulatory convergence.

Reductions in non-tariff barriers would result in reduced costs for producers and traders and so increase productivity, leading to greater investment and higher gains per worker. Forecasts predict that increased trade would lead to higher wage rates of between 0.2% and 0.5% for workers in this country. Again, that is a prize worth fighting for. If the free trade agreement were to focus more on tariffs than non-tariff barriers, the gains for the UK would be substantially less, as the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said.

What has been clear from today’s debate is that there is a huge amount of ambition in this House for this agreement, so will the Minister confirm that the scope and ambition of the agreement that will be negotiated will be as wide-ranging and comprehensive as possible, in order to ensure the maximum gains for British companies? Will he ensure that Britain is pushing for negotiations to be focused on where that maximum gain will be, which, as I have said, is on the elimination of non-tariff barriers? Will he give us an idea of the scope and scale of agreement he hopes to achieve?

Right hon. and hon. Members have rightly been talking about how the House can be involved in this process. Will the Minister tell us how he hopes to keep the House informed of progress on the agreement? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne talked about this, but will the Minister tell us a bit about what he has planned for the scrutiny of the negotiations by this House? How can we debate this matter on a periodic and, we hope, positive basis?

Will the Minister also give the House a sense, wherever possible, on when he expects the talks to be concluded? I know that that is difficult, but it has been mentioned several times in the debate, and the US vice-president has said that he hopes talks can be agreed on “one tank of gas”, which means the completion of negotiations within 18 to 24 months. This is obviously a big priority for the Obama Administration, as I think it is for the British Government, but will the Minister give us a sense of when he thinks the process will be concluded? My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) asked about this directly, but how will this House ratify the deal? Will that be done by a full, substantial debate in Government time on the Floor of the House so that we can question and scrutinise the deal carefully?

I wish to focus on a few specific industries that could benefit enormously from a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement. The motor vehicles sector, which has been mentioned, is forecast to see considerable growth as a result of an ambitious transatlantic trade and investment partnership—TTIP. Estimates predict a rise in exports of between 15% and 26%. That will obviously help the German manufacturers, but we certainly should not discount the impact it will have on our important and growing automotives sector, where we are producing great-quality, high-premium cars that the rest of the world are keen to buy. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey).

In that regard, I hope the Minister will reassure us that regulatory convergence to ensure great export growth will be at the top of the agenda in the negotiations. I hope he will agree that a vehicle considered safe to drive in Europe should also be considered safe to drive in the US. Will he ensure that duplication of safety and environmental standards is dealt with and that negotiations prioritise mutual recognition agreements and equivalence standards? Will he also address the point, not entirely confined to the automotive sector, that differing regulatory arrangements apply at a state, federal level? Will negotiations ensure that state differences are dealt with, too? That point will apply to many industries, such as those producing electrical goods, chemicals and cosmetics. My area has the highest concentration of chemical engineering in western Europe, and if Europe and the US had mutually accepted standards, the potential for the chemicals industry in the north-east would be enormous.

The global aerospace industry is dominated by Europe and the United States, and particularly by Airbus and Boeing, as was seen in the recent sales at the successful Paris air show. Britain is the largest player in this industry in Europe and is second only to the US in the world. The European aerospace industry generates a third of the EU’s manufacturing exports, and we in this country are at the heart of it. We have to maintain our competitive advantage. The industry is subject to fierce competition from other nations. China is particularly ambitious about launching an aerospace company—COMAC—to rival Boeing and Airbus. Does the Minister accept—this is an important point—that an ambitious free trade agreement between the US and the EU would actually help to maintain our competitive advantage in this field, as consistency of international regulatory standards should give existing firms and their supply chains an important lever to use? That was certainly the conclusion of an important Chatham House report on manufacturing published this week.

Services are a key part of the British economy; we are the best in Europe on services. Will the Minister comment on the nature of the agreement in that area? For example, a UK lawyers’ qualification is not fully recognised in the US, which is an impediment to UK lawyers’ practising. If the EU and US recognised each other’s professional qualifications, a great boost would be given to trade, which would particularly benefit the British economy. Will he discuss that a little?

The scale of the prize indicates how important it is that Britain has a leading role to play in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said. Does the Minister agree with Sir Mike Rake of the CBI, who said that there is an overwhelming case for Britain being at the heart of Europe for the sake of our businesses? Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, who indicated that he agreed with the Minister without Portfolio that it would be curtains for our ability to play any leadership role if we exited the EU? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in a recent article:

“Irony of ironies, it is of course the EU that is making deals with the United States and Canada possible. It should come as no surprise that Obama’s officials have commented that they would have ‘very little confidence’ for a deal with the British alone.”

Does this Minister agree?

Will the Minister also address the warnings from the Obama Administration that if the UK leaves Europe, we will exclude ourselves from a EU-US trade deal worth billions and that it would be unlikely that Washington would try to negotiate a separate trade agreement with Britain? A senior White House official is quoted as stating:

“Having Britain in the EU...is going to strengthen the possibility that we succeed in a very difficult negotiation, as it involves so many different interests and having Britain as a key player and pushing for this will be important...We have expressed our views of Britain’s role in the EU and they haven’t changed…TTIP negotiations underscore why we think it’s important that it continues.”

Is it not clear from White House officials that the United States believes that one of the key reasons for the special relationship is that we are in the EU, and that it would be naive and impractical to suggest that we could negotiate a separate trade deal that could have the same potential positive effect on jobs and growth?

[Mr Cash]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would just like to be of help, because the shadow Minister has taken 10 minutes so far and he said he would only take that long. He will have reached 11 minutes in a moment, so we should be careful.

[Mr Cash]

I will leave it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will leave it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

The incentive in the EU is for liberalisation, because overall the analysis of the European Commission and the analysis that we commissioned on the impact on the UK indicated a positive impact on every member state. Of course there are winners and losers, but the overall impact on each part of the EU will be positive. That is what the Commission’s analysis showed.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister be good enough to supply the European Scrutiny Committee with that analysis?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course. I was just about to move on to scrutiny, which came up in many Members’ contributions and is important. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) about the uncertainty of forecasts and numbers, but I will give the Committee the analysis. The Committee will play an important part in scrutinising the negotiations. Of course, as many Members have said, the negotiations will be led by the Commission, so we must ensure that we do not get in the way of positive developments of substance by publishing things that the Commission would not want us to publish, but within those constraints we will ensure that we engage with the Committee, and indeed with Members on both sides. I think that it would be positive to have debates such as this one as the process goes forward.

Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The first question for consideration in this reasoned opinion debate is, in a nutshell, whether the Commission will have to reconsider its proposal, and that issue turns on whether there will be sufficient opinions representing one third of all the votes in national Parliaments—on the basis that each Parliament has two votes. The real question is whether we will really get that. Of course, if we do not, the question that follows is: what will happen? Some believe that the principle of subsidiarity ought to be applied, but there is also the question of whether we should refuse to accept it—but that is for another day.

Secondly, there is a question about whether the directive will achieve its target of 40% representation of female non-executive directors and—this has not been mentioned yet—30% of all directors on the boards of publicly listed companies by 2020, or 2018 in the case of listed public undertakings. Furthermore, there is the question of the exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises—I have not heard that mentioned either—and for companies whose work forces have fewer than 10% female employees.

Thirdly, where national measures have already been introduced in some countries with a view to increasing the representation of women on corporate boards, companies need not apply the new recruitment and selection requirements, but will be required to do so from 2018-20 if they have not reached the 40% target. I put that on the record because, as far as I am aware, none of those three points has been made in the debate so far.

In the interest of brevity, I will simply say that the questions concerning breaches of the principle of subsidiarity are set out in the draft reasoned opinion and I do not need to repeat them. I would like to put several questions to the Minister, but, in order to ensure that we get through what we have to get through in the time allotted, I shall write to him with the questions that the European Scrutiny Committee would like answered, and he can reply to us. I do not therefore have to go through them all now—I would not have time anyway.

I shall make only one more point. Will the Minister tell us whether—and, if so, to what extent—the Government plan to make use of the reasoned opinion in the Council negotiations on the proposal? With that I shall conclude, but I shall be writing to the Minister and look forward to his considered response.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

Parliament is certainly important enough. I hope not to disappoint the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) in my speaking on Third Reading. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke on Second Reading and has been very involved in this Bill, so I am sure that I will be able to deal with the issues raised.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In view of the fact that the sunset provisions have not been discussed because of the programme motion—[Interruption.] They may have been discussed in the past, but amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) were not reached. That is the position. In that context, will the Minister be good enough to explain how it will be possible to bypass European legislation under these arrangements?

[Jo Swinson]

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by correcting him, but these issues were discussed—

[Mr Cash]

Not this afternoon.

[Jo Swinson]

Yes, they were. In fact, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) intervened on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Skills when that discussion was taking place—[Interruption.] I suggest to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that had he wanted to raise those points, he could have been present for the debate on Report.

I thank the Opposition for ensuring that the measures that we have added to the Bill have received thorough scrutiny. That detailed consideration follows earlier scrutiny in the Public Bill Committee and I extend particular thanks to its members, led for the Opposition by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).