European Council

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he, on this occasion only, will make a statement on the European Council on 14 and 15 March, and its conclusions of 15 March.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the European Council meeting held in Brussels—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

Given that there are 11 pages of European conclusions, who decided to report to the House on the European Council for the first time by way of written ministerial statement, and why? Why did the Prime Minister not make the statement on the EU Council, as announced by the Leader of the House last Thursday? Does the Minister agree that, as the Prime Minister negotiated at the European Council, he should also make the statement and answer all questions?

The conclusions astonishingly state that much has been accomplished in the EU in recent years. Given the dysfunctional nature of the EU, the eurozone crisis and low growth, and the state of affairs in Greece and Italy, and now in Cyprus and Spain, how can such a statement be justified?

What specific steps are being taken to help small and medium-sized businesses, given that, despite all the protestations and initiatives, and 20 summits in 20 months, there is zero growth in the EU? Why is that? How does the Minister believe the single market can be a key driver for the UK’s growth and jobs when our trade deficit with the 27 EU member states is £48 billion, whereas we have a surplus of £20 billion with the rest of the world? Given past hopeless performance, what reason is there to believe that the burden of European regulation on small and medium-sized businesses, and other businesses, will ever be reduced?

Finally, what are the specific legislative proposals for the single resolution mechanism, and how will the level playing field be achieved for the City of London given the current state of play?

[Mr Swire]

I sometimes hope that my hon. Friend will see something good in the EU, but that might take a lifetime. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he takes his responsibilities extremely seriously. Since he took office, he has given 15 oral statements and two written statements following European Councils. He issued a written ministerial statement this morning, and I understand that my hon. Friend had a discussion with him on this subject yesterday.

Had my hon. Friend been with us at the debate earlier today on UK Trade & Investment, he would have recognised the feeling across the House—in fact, not right across the House, because there was nobody there from the Opposition. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition spokesman was there, the Democratic Unionist party was there, but the Labour party was not there because it does not seem to be interested in small and medium-sized businesses. If my hon. Friend had been there this morning, he would have recognised the feeling that while SMEs are the way forward, they are over-regulated. Small and medium-sized enterprises provided 85% of new jobs in the EU in the past decade. As a result of the Council, we now have concrete measures to reduce regulations, including the top 10 most burdensome EU regulations, by June. The measures include rules on chemicals, product safety and customs. We believe the single market is the way forward and that EU trade agreements are vital. That is our vision of Europe, and one that I hope my hon. Friend shares.

Europe

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely agree about our central position in all those areas, and we want them all to succeed. Sometimes, we have to make the case for reform in each of those forums, and it is very important for Europe’s future that we make the case in the EU.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Right at the heart of the five principles, as my right hon. Friend knows, was the insistence that the national Parliaments lie at the heart of our democratic accountability. In that context, does he accept that the movement towards ever-closer union had to be rejected and, furthermore, that it is vital that we recognise that there cannot be two Governments and two Parliaments dealing with the questions that arise in the context of the future of Europe?

[Mr Hague]

I will come in a few moments, I hope, to the importance of national Parliaments playing an increased role in the decision making of the European Union. My hon. Friend knows from his close reading of the Prime Minister’s speech that he set out a vision of the EU as an explicit contrast to the vision of ever-closer union, so that is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

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

[Mr Cash]

Does the shadow Foreign Secretary agree with the Barroso blueprint that the European Parliament, and only that, is the Parliament of the European Union?

[Mr Alexander]

We were clear during the passage of the Lisbon treaty that there should be an enhanced role for national Parliaments—indeed, in my speech last week, I contemplated whether we could strengthen the yellow card procedure with a red card procedure. I see a greater role for national Parliaments being contemplated in the future, therefore; it is certainly one of the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary might be minded to articulate, if he felt able to be explicit, but alas he has taken a Trappist vow of silence.

The debate about Britain’s place in Europe, for all the importance of talking about the economy, stability and jobs and growth, is about more than economics and labour markets. Fundamentally, it is about the kind of country we are and the kind we aspire to be. In a century that many have taken to calling the Asian century, the Labour party is clear that the case for EU membership remains strong. Indeed, if the mechanisms for co-ordinating approaches at EU level did not exist, there would be significant calls for them to be created in today’s world.

Over the past 50 years, the case for Britain’s place in Europe has been based on its ability to deliver peace and prosperity. Today, the EU is also an indispensible vehicle and instrument for amplifying our power. That is certainly true economically, but it is also true in trade. We have discussed today the EU free trade agreement. Is it not ironic that the Prime Minister’s No. 1 ambition for his presidency of the G8 this year is an EU-US free trade area? What could more eloquently speak to the fact that, in any of these international organisations, we stand taller and speak with a louder voice as part of the EU than we would outside it?

Whether in economics, trade, defence, foreign policy or the global challenges around development and climate change, Britain’s interests are strengthened by being part of the EU. It gives us a weight collectively that on our own we would lack. It is not a matter of outdated sentiment or even of party ideology; it is a matter of simple arithmetic. In an age when countries are the size of continents, our membership gives us access to, and influence over, the world’s biggest trading bloc, prising open new frontiers that would otherwise be unreachable by the UK. In an age of common threats that permeate national borders, membership gives us the power of collective action and pooled resources.

For the past 50 years, Britain’s foreign policy has rested on two key pillars—a leading role in Europe and a powerful partnership with the US. Let us be honest: both those foundations are at risk, with a US Administration increasingly pivoting towards Asia, and an EU in which the UK could potentially marginalise its future role. It is a time when Britain must navigate a careful course, and the priority must be to make Britain a leading force within Europe as part of an increasingly multi-polar world. Rather than seeing power and decision making contracting to the G2, in a world where all the decisions are taken in Washington or Beijing, Europe, with Britain leading within it, can work to build a G3 world. Instead of focusing on a future agenda for Europe, the Prime Minister has sadly chosen to push a familiar but vague agenda: to bring back powers and roll back protections. At a time when the rest of Europe is preoccupied with future reforms on the big questions—about currency, continued pacification of the European neighbourhood and the projection of European power globally—the British Government have chosen to focus their efforts on looking back rather than looking ahead.

Even after the much delayed speech last week, the truth remains that—as we have seen again today—on the issue of Britain’s membership of the European Union, the gap between the minimum that Conservative Back Benchers will accept and the maximum that the EU can deliver remains unbridgeable. With a divided Government—and, indeed, a divided Conservative party —it therefore falls to Labour to make the hard-headed, patriotic case, founded on the national interest, both for Britain in Europe and for change in Europe, and that is what we will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The ultimate question that lies at the heart of the five principles that the Prime Minister set out in his speech is about our democracy, because everything ultimately depends on the fact that we agreed, in the European Communities Act 1972, on a voluntary basis, to accept the legislation that came out of the Council of Ministers when it made decisions. Those decisions are increasingly made by qualified majority vote now.

The 1971 White Paper—the basis on which the legislation went through, albeit by only six votes—categorically stated that there would be no erosion of British sovereignty in this House, and that it was vital that we retained the veto, not only in our national interest but in the interests of the European Community as a whole. That remains fundamental because, in a democratic nation faced with the pressures for federalism that people are seeking to impose from outside, it has to be right that the Prime Minister has taken the decision to challenge the nature of the structure of the European Union. He went to the heart of the issue when he rejected the notion of ever-closer union, and I commend him for that. I also believe profoundly that we must bring this programme forward rather than waiting until 2017. For reasons of uncertainty, of practicality and of principle, we should have a decision during this Parliament, not during the next one.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I will make one further point before I give way.

I have just come back from Dublin, where, in my capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I met the other 27 national chairmen. There was no doubt whatever in the statement made by the chairman of the Bundestag’s European affairs committee that, as far as he and Germany were concerned, delay was unacceptable. We also know, from listening to him and to the German ambassador, that there will be no cherry-picking and no negotiations of the kind that are being contemplated. The French take a similar view; I have had meetings with them, too. The reality is, therefore, that there is a serious requirement to make the decisions earlier rather than later.

[Mr Redwood]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend’s central point. Does he agree that the reason that we have this tragedy in Britain over our relationship with Europe is that more than 100 vetoes in important policy areas were given away at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, against the wishes of the loyal Opposition in this House and probably against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people, who were never consulted about the way in which their democracy was taken away and trashed?

[Mr Cash]

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

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

[Michael Connarty]

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

[Mr Cash]

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

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

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

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

[Wayne David]

Just so we can be absolutely clear, when would the hon. Gentleman like to see the referendum in this country being held?

[Mr Cash]

I would like to see it before the European elections. I believe that that is where the focus on the European question will be at its best. Then we can expose the position of the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Labour Opposition at the same time. The reality is that the British people deserve to have that vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

I was hoping to speak yesterday, to quote from the Reform Act of 1831 and refer to the sweeping away of the rotten boroughs—[Hon. Members: “1832.”] My apologies; I will refrain from using dates. Nevertheless, our history is based on free trade, as is our future.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a serious problem if the free trade arrangements that he and I, along with many others, want are in any way obstructed by the exclusive competence of the European Union overlaying the question of whether we could trade freely with, for example, all the members of the Commonwealth and emerging markets?

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is an EU competence to negotiate free trade agreements. If we had that competence back, as a sovereign Parliament and a sovereign nation, we would once again be free to forge those free trade agreements. I am struck by the fact that there is a multilingual central European country that is free of the European Union, but which has free trade agreements with the European Union—and, indeed, the rest of the world—and that is the nation of Switzerland. It is perfectly possible for us to maintain co-operation and free trading with Europe and to extend that to the rest of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Cash]

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

[Michael Connarty]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walter]

It is a warning from history, but if the hon. Gentleman listens to what else I have to say, I hope that he will accept that I will be campaigning to make sure that that does not happen. I had rather hoped that the question of Britain’s membership had been settled decisively back then—my view has not changed—but I believe that the prospect of a national vote would give our country an opportunity to have a serious national conversation about Britain’s relations with the European Union. I welcome that, because I think that for too long the debate has been dominated and, to an extent, distorted by mistrust and by a suspicion that more EU integration means less sovereignty for the United Kingdom.

We need to set the record straight. For those of us who support the European project, this will serve as an opportunity to explain what Parliament and politicians have done in the people’s name over the last 40 years. It will also give us a chance to expose the myths purveyed by those who would have us turn our backs on both our European history and our European future.

It is true that the Europe we joined in 1973 was created on the basis of a vision of a post-war Franco-German elite. It is also true that Schuman, Monnet and de Gaulle himself saw ever-closer union as meaning an eventual federal Europe. But that was another time, and another Europe. The EU of today is markedly different, and the EU of tomorrow will, I believe, be even more so. In the Commission and, to some extent, in the European Parliament, there are those who still see the EU as a centralising project, but in national Parliaments—including this one—and among the peoples of Europe there is no craving for that original centralised model.

Brussels is not Europe, and the people who work there have no monopoly on the European vision. Schuman’s plan was fundamentally about eliminating trouble, anxiety and distrust from a continent ravaged by centuries of conflict. Today, our focus is not on keeping the peace, but on consolidating prosperity. The treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 by just six countries with a combined population of 173 million. By the time the Lisbon treaty came into force, more than half a century later, the Union comprised 27 member states with a combined population of more than half a billion. With Croatia, we are soon to number 28. Enlargement, one of the EU’s greatest success stories, is set to continue, bringing more change to the character and direction of the European project.

As its membership has changed, the EU has embarked on a different path. If we reflect on the way in which European institutions have evolved since that original blueprint, if we look at the aspirations and stated aims of EU member states—all of which want to protect their identities and interests—and if we consider the actions that member states have taken independently, across a wide spectrum of policies, it is clear to us that there is no great craving for the centralising project envisaged by the founding fathers. The proof is all around us.

After 40 years of British membership, there is really no overarching bureaucracy or executive. The Commission and the Council are small in comparison with many national Government administrations. The Commission’s budget is barely 1% of Europe’s GDP. Countries retain sovereignty over many areas that might have been expected to be transferred in a federal system. Member states have their own foreign policies and their own armies, which they can deploy at will, and they do. Member states can choose to opt out of a raft of agreements that they oppose, and they have: that has been proved.

We should not forget, of course, that treaties require the consent of every member state, even if they are supported by the vast majority of the population of the EU. That is an important point. When consent is not given, Europe must go back to the drawing board, and that has been done. In 2005, France and the Netherlands rejected, by referendum, what was then the constitution. In 2008, Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty in the same way. Did those countries threaten to leave the European Union? No. Did the EU respond by trying to coerce those countries into accepting a treaty that was judged unacceptable by the people? No. What happened was that the countries returned to the negotiating table, and their Governments renegotiated the aspects of the treaties that conflicted with their national interest. They made the case for their concerns to be addressed, and they were.

I think that there is a lesson here. We in the UK have our concerns and suspicions, and the EU has many shortcomings. We are therefore right to push for reform, but these examples show us that the EU is not heading inevitably and inexorably towards some sort of federal superstate, even if some people within the Commission and the European Parliament still harbour that goal. Every country has its own corner to fight, and it has the power to do so. We are far too reluctant to admit this, but the UK has time and again proven itself to be an influential leader in the EU.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Walter]

Sadly, I only have a couple of minutes left.

[Mr Cash]

I can give you an extra minute.

[Mr Walter]

No, you cannot.

Thanks to our positive engagement across a swathe of policy areas, from economic reform and deregulation to environment and trade, we have consistently set the agenda. In the debates ahead, we need to strip away the rhetoric and clarify what Europe represents. Europe is the solution, not the problem. Our history is in Europe, and I believe that our future is, too.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have heard some excellent contributions to this debate.

Former French President Charles de Gaulle famously asked how it was possible to govern a country with 246 types of cheese. The same could be said of the Conservative party on the EU. As my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) stressed, the timing and the content of the Prime Minister’s speech last week were clearly motivated by an attempt to manage his party, rather than to serve the national interest. His speech was both a delaying tactic and a diversionary tactic designed to kick the can of a Tory split over Europe down the road and to divert attention from the Government’s ongoing economic failure.

When the Prime Minister set the original date for his much delayed EU speech, there was a failure to notice the clash with the anniversary of the Élysée treaty, but it was clear that the speech was deliberately timed to divert attention from last Friday’s GDP figures, which were, as expected, disappointing. [Interruption.] Government Members may laugh, but the situation is serious in my constituency and throughout the country. We were told last week that our economy contracted in the last quarter of 2012, but today, instead of discussing the possibility of the economy slipping into a triple-dip recession, we are talking about Europe.

The Prime Minister’s policy last week was to buy himself some time, keep his party quiet and stem the tide of rumours of leadership challenges. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it would appear that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and several other Back Benchers did not get the memo. This week’s leadership rumours show that behind the paper-thin veneer of unity afforded by last week’s speech, the Conservatives remain a deeply divided party. Today’s debate has shown that, too.

There are many factions in the Conservative party over the EU. There are those who want us to leave no matter what, although I am slightly confused by the position of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—I would have put him in that group, but now I do not know whether he is a Camembert or a Roquefort. Another faction is led by the Fresh Starters.

[Mr Cash]

Would the hon. Lady recognise that some of us seek to address this question in the context of the national interest? When she speaks about GDP, does she recognise that the challenges to GDP in this country are largely driven by the lack of growth in the eurozone? We run a deficit with the EU member states of £47 billion a year.

[Emma Reynolds]

Germany’s EU membership has not prevented its economy from growing more than 4% in the past two years, nor has France’s membership prevented its economy from growing by more than 1.5%.

I return to the divisions in the Conservative party. There are different factions with different shopping lists. There is an interesting faction that actually quite likes the status quo, but will not admit it, and various Members—not least the Minister for Europe—who are pro-Europeans, but would never call themselves that. I will not name any others, because I might get them in trouble with their local Conservative associations, but it is clear that the gap between what the Prime Minister’s party is demanding and what he can renegotiate with our European partners is unbridgeable.

The Prime Minister’s announcement of an in/out referendum in four years—on an arbitrary time scale, an unknown set of demands and an unknown outcome—will create economic uncertainty. Many of my hon. Friends have made that point. Many business leaders are concerned about the UK drifting towards an exit. A leading group of business leaders warned that to call for a wholesale renegotiation would

“put our membership of the EU at risk”

and cause

“damaging uncertainty for British business”.

Interestingly, back in November 2011, the Chancellor, when talking about a slightly different referendum, said:

“The instability and the uncertainty that hangs over the Scottish economy”

is the result of the First Minister

“raising the prospects of independence without actually providing any detail of when he wants to have his referendum or what the question will be.”

It seems curious that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor cannot see that there is a direct parallel with their commitment to a referendum on Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply, only briefly, to the 37 right hon. and hon. Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House who have spoken, in addition to the two Front Benchers. Beneath all the knockabout and the genuinely strong views that we have heard on the different sides of the debate, there has been a common recognition that the European Union is changing already and is likely to have to change further, as a consequence of three inexorable trends that are affecting how it operates.

My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) emphasised how the dynamic inherent in the single currency union is pushing its members towards closer fiscal and economic integration and that, over time, that will require further political integration to make those fiscal and economic decisions democratically accountable. They suggested that that, in turn, would mean that at some stage in the next few years, all members of the European Union would have to sit down and have what my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) called a grown-up conversation about how we can get right the political and institutional architecture to make the European Union work with different levels of integration, with some countries having committed themselves to much closer, deeper integration on some aspects of policy than others, but with those others still remaining full participants in the EU.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Macclesfield (David Rutley) pointed out, Europe is having to contend with the dramatic rise of the emerging economies. Therefore, Europe as a whole—as well as the individual countries—needs to raise its game quickly. Otherwise, the blunt truth is that none of us will be able to afford either the material standards of living or the social protection that current generations in Europe have come to take for granted. That does not mean sweeping away all social protection, however.

If the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and other hon. Members who raised that scare story look at European debates on the working time directive, the pregnant workers directive or the posted workers directive, they will find that the United Kingdom is far from being the only member state that questions whether we need a one-size-fits-all policy, or whether the Commission or the Parliament need to be quite so prescriptive in trying to harmonise different systems that are based on national traditions, laws and practices in relation to employment protection and social benefits.

Given the need to respond to the global economic challenge, Europe as a whole needs to focus on the further deepening of the single market. We have already accomplished a great deal in terms of goods, but the single market in services is woefully underdeveloped. It is profoundly in the interest of the United Kingdom and of Europe as a whole that we should be successful in promoting those reforms further.

It is also essential that the United Kingdom should work energetically within the European Union, as the Government are doing, to promote greater free trade between Europe and other countries around the world. During the lifetime of this Government, we have achieved free trade agreements with Singapore and South Korea, and there is now an ambition to obtain an historic free trade agreement with the United States that would in effect set global regulatory standards, as well as sweeping away tariffs and non-tariff barriers. That objective is among the top priorities of our Prime Minister and of the German Chancellor, as well as of other leaders around the European Union.

We need a practice and a culture of legislation and regulation at European level, as at national level, that seek always to reduce the burden that such law and regulation impose on the flexibility of our businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. In answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), I would say that the plan to extend the deregulatory exemption for the smallest business is not some plot dreamt up in the nether recesses of Conservative central office. It is a policy objective that has been endorsed by the European Council on more than one occasion and that is supported by the Heads of State and Heads of Government of all 27 member states—conservative, liberal and socialist alike. I hope that, on reflection, she will welcome what is happening in that regard.

The third driver for change is the need to strengthen democratic accountability. As I would have expected, much has been said in the debate today about the United Kingdom’s desire for a greater role for national Parliaments in how decisions are taken at European level. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out that discontent with the current state of Europe manifested itself in the voting in the French presidential election. If we look at countries such as Hungary and Greece, we can see manifestations of an ugly strand of European politics that we hoped had been defeated for good at the end of the second world war. Those undemocratic populist movements are exploiting genuine grievances against, among other things, the way in which decisions appear to be taken over the heads of ordinary people. It would be to the disadvantage of the European Union as a whole and of democratic traditions and values in Europe if they were not dealt with.

[Mr Cash]

Would my right hon. Friend care to take this opportunity to repudiate the statement in the Barroso blueprint that the EU Parliament and only the European Parliament is the Parliament for the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

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

Commission Work Programme 2013

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I have always taken the view that if the United Kingdom were to walk away from the table, the most ardent and most influential champion for free trade and open markets would be removing itself. I am quite clear in my mind, particularly with the pressures that we can observe globally for protection rather than free trade, that it is important that we continue to bring our influence to bear within the European Union and within other multilateral organisations to promote greater freedom of trade across the world.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend, in line with many other members of our party, is deeply committed to the idea of free trade, but given that the European Union has exclusive competence in relation to trade, and with the qualified majority vote and with our having only 8% now, and only 12% even when the Lisbon treaty proposals are introduced in a few months, how will we be able to exercise the degree of influence that he claims, and how will we maintain bilateral trading relations, which will be the answer to all these problems?

[Mr Lidington]

I have more confidence than does my hon. Friend in our ability to form alliances with other countries to achieve the objectives that he and I share. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already discussed at length with Chancellor Merkel their shared objective of an ambitious free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States. The leaders of our country and of Germany recognise that the prize at stake is not only the phasing out of tariff barriers but the elimination of non-tariff barriers, thereby establishing, in effect, global regulatory standards agreed on a Euro-Atlantic basis, which would have to become the model for the rest of the world and which other parts of the world would find it difficult to challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

My right hon. Friend will know that the European Scrutiny Committee is currently holding an inquiry into European Scrutiny Committee matters. Does he accept that timing is very important? What my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has just said is, of course, extremely welcome, but does the Minister not accept that unless the Government are prepared to release the information they have early enough, it could turn out to be far less valuable? Therefore, could not the Government ensure that we all get the information as early as they do?

[Mr Lidington]

I am always willing to explore how the Government can help to make information available to Parliament, particularly its Committees, in a way that enables a better informed debate and allows Parliament an input at the earliest stage in proceedings. As my hon. Friend will be the first to understand, there is always a balance to be struck between our wish on the one hand to do that and our concern on the other hand not to divulge ahead of negotiations all the details of our negotiating position, including on those areas that are the highest priority objectives and those on which we might be prepared to make concessions. However, I am always happy to look at concrete ideas for improving how we do business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I suggest that the Minister uses the word “ambitious” because annexe 2 of the programme refers to “simplification” and “administration burden reduction initiatives”. There are three of those, two of which are legislative and one non-legislative. If one turns to the rest of the work programme and goes through the entire list, one finds that 48 of the 58 are new legislation. I am afraid to have to say to my right hon. Friend that ambition is one thing and vanity is another.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend displays his usual prescience in these matters, because I was about to refer to the list that he recited. The Government welcome the inclusion in the work programme of a list of simplification measures, but we need to be vigilant to ensure that they deliver genuine savings for business. The list of 14 withdrawn proposals that the Commission has published is disappointing, because those measures are obsolete already or are due to be replaced by further proposals. The Commission needs to do much better than that to remove unnecessary or excessive legislation from the statute book, and not only the Government of the United Kingdom but the Governments of a significant number of other like-minded member states are committed to achieving that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the European Commission’s work programme for 2013. In opening, I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the House for missing the first couple of minutes of the Europe Minister’s speech, but I promise him that I listened attentively to the rest of it.

As set out in the European Scrutiny Committee report, the work programme follows on from the Commission President’s annual speech last September and serves as a blueprint for the Commission’s activities over the next 12 months. I agree with the Committee’s assessment that the work programme is a useful tool for the departmental Select Committees. The Liaison Committee has underlined that examining Commission proposals is one of the core tasks of the departmental Select Committees, and as such the proposals in the work programme will, I hope, be a useful starting point for further scrutiny.

I echo the Europe Minister’s welcome for the 2013 work programme’s improved coherence and greater strategic focus compared with previous years. Last year there were 129 policy initiatives; this year there are 58. It is right that the Commission focuses on the areas in which it can be most effective. The initiatives are largely grouped into seven strategic areas and I will start by considering the first and most important of those areas, namely the establishment of a genuine economic and monetary union.

The eurozone crisis will rightly continue to dominate the EU’s thinking and activities in 2013. Last year ended with some positive steps towards banking union being taken at the December summit, and the measures set out in the work programme will build on those positive steps. Putting the single currency on a stable long-term footing is in the interests not only of eurozone countries, but of non-eurozone countries such as the UK. It is therefore right that that is a priority.

The eurozone crisis was triggered by a crisis in the global financial sector. Concerns remain about the solvency of some of the larger medium-sized European banks, so it is necessary to establish the means to separate the link between weak and undercapitalised banking systems and sovereign debt. Such an agreement will help to build confidence in the eurozone and bring about greater long-term stability. We therefore support the progress towards building a genuine economic and monetary union in the proposals contained in the work programme for 2013. Within that process, it is crucial that the interests and rights of non-eurozone member states such as the UK are respected, and that the integrity of the single market is protected. We welcome the Commission’s commitment in the same section to

“take action to fight tax fraud and evasion, including an initiative on tax havens”.

I turn to the Commission’s proposals on deepening the single market. The European Union’s single market is a great success story. In a world dominated by economic giants such as the US, China and India, countries around the world are co-operating more closely with their neighbours. Increased regionalisation has become a defining force. For example, south America has Mercosur and south-east Asia has the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The European single market is often a model from which others take inspiration.

The European Commission is right that to remain competitive in the global economy, the single market must continue to adapt and develop. Without reform, the potential of the single market will not be realised. That is why we continue to support the completion of the single market, particularly with regard to the digital economy and the services sector. It is our view that the progress in those areas is often too slow.

[Mr Cash]

I imagine that the hon. Lady does not recall the White Paper published by the European Commission in June 1985—a huge great thing about an inch deep—on completing the internal market by 1992. Here we are in 2012, some 30 years later. Does she believe that there has been progress?

[Emma Reynolds]

I was alive during that year, but I know that the hon. Gentleman was already reading documents and making speeches on these issues then. We must consider the complexities of the markets in question and the number of member states—as a country, we pushed for a European Union of 27 member states. No other regional co-operation in the world has produced a more successful single market. As I have said, many bodies around the world that want to co-operate more closely and to form similar internal markets are looking to the EU as a source of inspiration. I hope we can now get back to 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year.

I can be brief, for the simple reason that we have before us a list of initiatives, and although there may be fewer than 129, there are still 58, while the number of proposals to reduce regulation of a legislative nature amount to no more than two. The second thing to say is that the Commission work programme is crucial, in that it gives us the route map for where the European Commission is going.

The European Union is dysfunctional: it is not working as it was claimed it would work. Indeed, as I pointed out, referring to the White Paper that the European Commission produced in 1985, here we are, 20 years on from 1992 and nearly 30 years on from 1986, with a provision that simply does not match up to either the aspirations or the promises made. If the single market had worked as I hoped it would when I voted for it in 1986, we would perhaps be better placed than we are now. Unfortunately, it simply has not worked in that way.

The suggestion is that the strategic focus of the work programme is to

“Help business thrive and become more competitive in the global market, by reducing the costs of EU law,”

but I am afraid that is simply not substantiated by the facts. Furthermore, there is also a proposal—the Government welcome all of them—to

“Prioritise action to boost growth through improving the single market in services and digital, and ambitious free trade agreements.”

It gives me great pleasure to recall that it was Monsieur Jacques Delors, no less, who only last week proposed in Handelsblatt that it was about time that the United Kingdom got its act together and decided what it was going to do. I hope the Prime Minister will do that when he makes his much anticipated big speech on Europe, by following Monsieur Delors’ advice and going for either the equivalent of an enhanced economic area or alternatively—as he himself put it in stark terms—a free trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I say that because we have another provision:

“Help develop the single market in financial services, as the basis for a strong and sustainable financial sector.”

Tell it to the marines: ask the City of London whether it believes that is the direction in which things are going. The House should look at the problems of qualified majority voting. Despite the attempts to change the voting arrangements, the problems remain. The manner in which jurisdiction over the City’s regulatory system was transferred to Europe by the previous Government—endorsed and acquiesced in by those in the present Government—has been a catastrophe and will remain so.

The document also mentions—the Government welcome this, too—measures to

“Support an environment that encourages innovation, including helping drive the transition to a green economy.”

There are many aspects of the green economy that may or may not turn out to be sustainable, but I shall mention just one, in deference to my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). [Interruption.] Whichever constituency she represents, I know she does a great job for it. The question of wind farms is part and parcel of this, and they are growing exponentially.

The Government also applaud the work programme for helping member states

“to work together more effectively to strengthen the external border and protect citizens from terrorism and serious or organised border crime.”

Again, these are important aspirations; the question is whether that is actually happening. Indeed, I would say the same about increasing

“the EU’s influence on external policy issues”.

Over and over again, we get the aspirations and we are given the promises, but the question asked repeatedly in this dysfunctional European Union is: where is it going and to what extent is it delivering the kind of things that the people in this country vote for in general elections? They put their votes into the ballot box, then find that things are implemented through the Commission’s work programme, which goes to the Council of Ministers, and in almost every area, and driven by qualified majority vote or consensus, we end up with legislation that was not sought, called for, or promised in manifestos in our general elections.

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

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

[Mr Cash]

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

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

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

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a new relationship and mentions a free trade arrangement. Does he accept that, if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union and simply have a free trade relationship with what would be the remaining 27 states after Croatia had joined, we would be in a similar position to Norway, in that we would have integration without representation? We would have to pay in and comply with the EU rules without having any say on how they were being formulated.

[Mr Cash]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has been vociferous on European matters for a long time, albeit on the other side of the agenda from me. He might be interested to know that the Norwegians are now getting restless and using their arrangements within the European economic area to challenge directives. I heard only a few hours ago that that was happening.

[Mike Gapes]

That is just one instance.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, but that one instance demonstrates a principle. For 15 years, I have been advocating that we use the “notwithstanding” formula, and when my party was in opposition, we agreed that we would do so. If we were to use it just once now we are in government, it would send out an appropriate signal. Unfortunately, however, that is not happening. We hear about aspirations and reservations, and that it would be a good idea to change the relationship and to repatriate powers, but I have very little confidence that we will achieve anything when it comes down to it. Even more dangerous is the raising of expectations only to have them dashed by reality. As Churchill said, offering something to the British people but not fulfilling that promise is the best way to ensure that they will no longer trust us.

There are many aspects to this work programme—including a proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office, which I was glad to hear the Minister say we will not accept—but I shall not go into other matters this afternoon because they are so numerous and because others wish to speak. Let me simply make the point that we are now at a threshold and that there is no turning back. Messrs Barroso and van Rompuy, unelected as they are, have thrown down the gauntlet to the British people. They have said, “We are going to have a federal system,” yet it is unthinkable that this country would get involved in federal arrangements, be they in the eurozone or indeed in the European Union as a whole. We must have a clear strategy; we must have a fundamental change in our relationship. What goes with that has to be a return to the British people of the right to determine the legislation that they voted for in general elections. That is the principle on which this House was founded, and that is the principle on which we have to stand.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

All 27 EU Heads of State and Government said in the conclusions to the October European Council that, in the arrangements for a banking union, there needed to be a “level playing field” between the ins and the outs, as well as safeguards

“in full respect of the integrity of the single market in financial services.”

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the blueprint published over the weekend by Mr Barroso, which contains 50 pages of detailed proposals for a full banking, fiscal and, ultimately, political union? Does he think that any of the proposals that this country has made have the remotest chance of being listened to in the context of that document, and of what Mr Noyer said the other day? Lastly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee receives an early explanatory memorandum from the Government on those proposals?

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the legendary intellectual agility of the Minister of State will enable him to provide one pithy reply to the three questions that have just been posed.

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am fascinated by the line that has just been taken with respect to the situation of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union. There are many of us who believe that the time has come not only to have a referendum, but to leave the existing treaties. The reality is that 56% of the British people have recently indicated that that is what they would like, and that raises very interesting and very important questions. It is also highly relevant to what is going on here in this debate today with respect to Scotland. Of course, there is also the question of Northern Ireland and of Wales, neither of which has even been touched on so far in the debate. One thing that we have to remember is that the—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, having listened to the very eloquent disquisition on the place of Scotland at the top table, and given this week’s announcement about the G8 coming to Northern Ireland, we can look forward, in the halcyon days in the future of Scotland’s independence, to a G9 coming to Northern Ireland, with Scotland at the top table?

[Mr Cash]

That is an extremely apposite remark, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for it.

One thing that needs to be considered is the implications that would arise for the European Communities Act 1972, which has not yet been mentioned, because of course if we have a referendum and if the vote is yes—at the moment, that seems extremely unlikely, but I will not presume to say that it will not happen—the reality is that that in itself will not create the legal and constitutional consequences that would flow from that political decision. The reality is that we then have to look at the 1972 Act. All the obligations under section 2, through our own enactment here, of which Scotland is currently a part, would have to be dealt with. It will be an extremely complex business to deal with the issues between the United Kingdom and Scotland, let alone between Scotland and the European Union or the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I would like to refer on the record to the extremely good—extremely well written—note from the House of Commons Library. I mention that on the record because I think that many people who will want to consider this question will do well to look at that note if they can get access to it. It draws together a lot of the complications that arise in international law and constitutional law. It includes a lot of discussion about the allegations made against the First Minister; I will not enter that debate, but simply say that there are complex questions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, there is no provision in the European treaties for the secession of states. He mentioned article 4.2 and the unanimity of all 27 member states. The European Commission made some comments on that in response to an MEP, but that was on the basis of the thinking then. If I may say, having read all the papers, I do not think that there is a settled view about what would happen.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) is right to say that there would be massive uncertainty. For example, in respect of financial regulation, the jurisdiction has been already transferred, extremely unwisely, to the European institutions, but the consequences are that it is already being done in relation to the City of London with serious consequences, of an unlawful nature, for voting rights between ourselves and member states in the eurozone. There are so many uncertainties that the issue will have to be given much more consideration. There is also the question of the repeal of the Act of Union. None of the legal consequences of the referendum, even if there was a yes vote, are capable of being unravelled until we have got to grips with the constitutional implications of the matters I mention.

Despite the fact that we have one and a half hours, going into all the questions today would be far too complicated, so that is all I want to say. I put down a marker that a yes vote will be monumentally bad for the UK, monumentally bad for Scotland and monumentally bad for the people governed under the Act of Union. I and many others take that view, and I think it will prevail.

There are implications for the European Scrutiny Committee, in that it must look at all the legislation as it applies to the UK, in respect of those matters that apply to it under the Standing Orders. I will leave my contribution at that. The complications regarding Scotland have not been thought through. It is not only an emotional question or even a purely political question, but a question of grave uncertainty. The more the vote tends towards no—the direction that public opinion seems to be going—the better.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

To accommodate all Members who wish to speak, it would be appreciated if Members kept their remarks to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The four nations of the United Kingdom are a member of the European Union, by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom. I will quote another European Commission President, Romano Prodi, who was a very respected President. He confirmed that

“a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the European Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more in its territory.”

Beyond the pronouncements of European Commission Presidents current and past, there is the brutal truth that the SNP must face up to—that this decision about a separate Scotland’s membership of the European Union would be a political decision and one taken by all of the other 27 member states, who are soon to be 28.

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—he should listen to this carefully—that, as has already been stressed in this debate, the pronouncements by the Spanish Foreign Minister are not encouraging. That is hardly surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has already pointed out that the context in which we find ourselves in the European Union is one in which we are going through the most challenging and volatile period in European history. In September, 1.5 million Catalans took to the streets in Barcelona in an independence rally.

[Mr Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

I will give way, in a minute.

It is therefore unsurprising that the Spanish Government are concerned about any precedent being set and it is equally unsurprising that the Spanish Foreign Minister recently told the Spanish Senate that an independent Scotland would need to “join the queue” and negotiate its accession as a new member state. In addition, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) set out in his very eloquent speech, there are other EU member states that would also have great concerns about any precedent being set by Scotland; Belgium is one of them. Furthermore, the EU member states that do not wish to recognise the independence of Kosovo—namely Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain—would be concerned about a precedent being set by Scotland. It is within that context that the framework of any hypothetical case in which an independent Scotland—if there were one—applied to join the European Union must be seen.

Unfortunately—I say this with regret—there is enlargement fatigue in the European Union. For example, France has said that for any future accession beyond that of Croatia there will be a referendum in France. Two weeks ago, we discussed the case of Croatia and we know that for a period of 10 years there has been negotiation about Croatia’s accession, and the last member state to join the EU in less than five years was Finland, which joined in 1995.

Consequently, it is absolutely clear that the SNP and the Scottish Government have no basis on which to make the claim that Scotland’s membership of the European Union would be automatic. They also have no basis on which to make the claim—made by the First Minister in the interview with Andrew Neil earlier this year—that a separate Scotland would also inherit the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the single currency and Schengen. The facts fly in the face of that assertion. There has been no member state since 1973 that has negotiated an opt-out, since the agreement in Maastricht, from the single currency. With regard to Schengen, an opt-out from that agreement would have to be negotiated.

It is also clear that Scotland would have to negotiate its own contribution to the European Union budget, and according to the House of Commons Library—[Interruption.] Maybe the SNP Members want to listen to the objective facts, as set out by the Library. According to the House of Commons Library, without a rebate Scotland’s contribution to the European Union is likely to rise from £16 a head to £92 a head.

Leaving the United Kingdom would leave a separate Scotland in limbo in Europe. There would be no automatic accession and no automatic opt-outs. Instead, there would be a sensitive and difficult negotiation with the 27—soon to be 28—other member states of the European Union.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

This Parliament can of course pass any legislation it wishes to. In that sense, what my hon. Friend says is constitutionally correct, although I in no way want to mislead him into thinking that the Government intend to introduce such an amendment to the 1972 Act.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I know that I will have disappointed my hon. Friend grievously.

[Mr Cash]

My right hon. Friend, far from disappointing me, has enlivened me to rise, and I do so for this very good reason: this is the first time, as far as I am aware, that any Minister has conceded from the Dispatch Box that the constitutional principle of the “notwithstanding” formula is valid. I was delighted to hear what he had to say.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is tempting me dangerously far from the scope of the debate, but I simply refer him to the happy day we spent in Parliament debating the sovereignty clause of what became the European Union Act 2011. If he looks at Hansard, I think he will find that I stated very clearly that if Parliament wanted to amend the 1972 Act at any stage, it is open for it to do so but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very reluctant to see controls on the free movement of people within the UK. We ought to have secure borders, and the extension of the EU has weakened our border controls and allowed member states to give their citizenship away. One recent case is Hungary, which sells citizenship. If Hungarian citizenship is sold, UK citizenship is also effectively sold, because people will have the free right to move and settle here. In due course of time, when the provisional practices that apply to countries such as Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania end, their citizens will also be able to work here.

That ought to concern us. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has said that we need to look at the whole question of the free movement of people, because of certain extraordinary anomalies within it, which were highlighted on “The World Tonight” on Radio 4 last night. The programme explained the difficulties that UK citizens have in bringing in a dependant who is not an EU national. However, a member of another EU nation state who is resident in the UK can bring in a dependant who is not an EU national.

One could argue that the structures of the free movement of people in the EU are in fact racist, because they deny the right of people from Commonwealth countries, who are often non-white, and who have very close associations with the UK, to come here, when people within the EU, with whom we sometimes have very little connection, can come here. We must therefore look at the free movement of people of the EU. It used to be a rich man’s club, but it is a European man’s, and indeed woman’s, club that excludes members of the Commonwealth who are not also EU members, who are often not white. This is a serious question for us to think about. Is the basis of the free movement of people within the EU fundamentally a racist principle? We need to consider whether seven years will be enough for Croatia, and whether we should amend British law to restore controls over immigration that are fair to people across the world, and that do not discriminate favourably towards Europeans but unfavourably towards others.

Croatia might not be ready to join and might fail to meet the requirements of the EU. On tackling corruption, the Commission is concerned that only three people have been found guilty of abuse of office. The Commission states:

“The implementation of the Law on the Police should be ensured, in particular to depoliticise the police and increase professionalism”.

The fact that that problem has not been tackled is a difficulty. What if we cannot have confidence in the police in a country that is about to join? Even if it is not part of Schengen, it will be part of the European arrest warrant arrangements, but it does not have a de-politicised police force or one that has been made sufficiently professional. Are we really, after the middle of next year, going to allow British subjects to be arrested on the say-so of a Croatian court, when Croatia has a police force in which even the European Commission does not have confidence?

The European Scrutiny Committee report shows that what is sought from Bulgaria and Romania is not happening. The same applies to some extent to Croatia. Is there an autonomously functioning and stable judiciary? That, too, relates to justice and home affairs agreements. We allow the judiciary of foreign countries to have an effect on subjects of Her Majesty going about their business in the UK, but countries that are joining the EU do not meet basic standards. The report states that we have not seen

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

We are therefore concerned that the state is corrupt at the highest level, yet we are allowing it to join before the problems are sorted out. That is once again the triumph of hope over experience—can letting them in and hoping to sort it out possibly be the right way forward when we have so many commitments through joint recognition of standards in fellow member states? We are also concerned that Croatia does not have

“a legal system capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way.”

We must be more careful and prudent. Widening is a good thing—it is splendid to have a wider rather than a deeper EU—and it is good thing that newly emerged democracies have been able to come into the EU fold. However, when we have so many commitments to the EU that can be enforced upon us by foreign countries, is it right that we should let them in before the requirements have been met or without installing protections for ourselves by amending the treaties? I therefore have concerns that the opportunity to negotiate repatriations of power to the UK that could protect us from some of the inadequacies of the Croatian state before it joins the EU has not been taken—whether by the previous Government or this one is beside the point.

In that context, it is worth looking at what Ireland has done. As we know, Ireland was bullied by the EU into voting twice. That was a classic example of the EU believing in democracy for others but not for itself. It is a question of it saying, “Vote as often as you like until you give the right answer, and then you don’t need to vote again.”

[Mr Cash]

The problem is not only with the application of the principles of democracy, but with the rule of law, as we will debate later. The EU makes the law, claims it has a legal framework for the rule of law, and then breaks European rules itself.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a problem with how the rule of law applies across the EU. How can the EU have a rule of law when it allows in countries that do not meet the basic tests of being free of corruption and of having a properly functioning judiciary? They can then apply their law to our citizens. Surely that cannot be just or in line with the rule of law.

On the concessions Ireland received, I give my wholehearted support for what the Prime Minister said in 2009, when he thought it was a good idea to do what the Irish did and to get concessions for the UK. In his brilliant speech, he said he wanted

“the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services, for example the aspects of the Working Time Directive which are causing real problems in the NHS and the Fire Service”.

I agree with him, but we should have brought those powers back in the negotiation on the treaty we are debating. He also said he wanted a “complete opt-out” from the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, and was once again absolutely right. The Minister for Europe ought to go back to our European friends and say, “This is what the Prime Minister wanted in the treaty, so perhaps we could have it.” The Prime Minister also said he wanted to limit

“the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and”

ensure

“that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain”.

The Prime Minister showed brilliant prescience. He knew what this country needed and what it ought to get back. The Bill could have brought it back, because we could have said to our European partners that we will not agree to Croatia’s entry or Ireland’s protocols if we are not given—[Interruption.] You are looking as if you were doubtful that my remarks would be relevant to the subject matter at hand, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

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

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

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

[Mr Cash]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I very much endorse the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), and I agree, too, with many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

The real question is whether Croatia should become part of the European Union. I think it is a matter for Croatia. If it wants to apply, as far as I am concerned, it is that country’s affair. It also affects us, and the comments in our European Scrutiny Committee report stand on the record, so nothing further needs to be said that has not been said already. I believe, however, that if Europe enlarges and includes Croatia, it will simply be yet another example of the manner in which—as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset have said—the whole of the European Union is enlarged without regard to the impact it will have.

I take a simple view about this issue. I believe that the European Union is, as I have said in many previous debates, at a crossroads. I think that a fundamental change is taking place within the EU, and I believe, as the vote on the EU budget indicated, that this is increasingly recognised on both sides of the House. I have also picked this up from other member states, when I go to meetings of COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union—as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Croatia will have become a member of the European Union as it now is and, no doubt, even if there were to be a fundamental shift in the relationship between ourselves and other member states, it would continue to remain a member in some shape or form of the new European Union, which I am absolutely certain is being created in people’s minds, although it has not yet got into the formalities of the arrangements.

I do not really need to say any more at this time. I wish the people of Croatia well; actually, I wish the European Union well, too, but the truth is that the current arrangements are in need of very substantial change. I think that change is going to come and I do not think that anything can stop it. As I said to the Prime Minister the other day, the tectonic plates have moved—they are not merely moving—so the question is: what is the tsunami that will follow? The Croatian accession is something I can live with, but I believe that it will be caught up in the fundamental changes that I am certain are in the process of being achieved even as we speak.

Antarctic Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I have already noted that the Antarctic is demilitarised as a result of British action. It is recognised as a demilitarised zone by us and every other country and, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, it will clearly remain so. That should not stop us from addressing the broader issues and mentioning the Falklands, however.

The second anniversary is, of course, that of Robert Scott’s expedition. I wish to emphasise the reputation he has garnered for scientific work—for discovery and real interest in the Antarctic—and why it matters. I remind the House that the discovery of the first hole in the ozone layer was made in 1985 from the Antarctic. That scientific linkage involving issues that are connected with the environment but that are also central to our work on the Antarctic draws substantially from Robert Scott’s expeditions and his emphasis on scientific work.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the first expedition, in 1901 to 1904, was based very much on science as well as exploration? Its scientists, including Mr Ferrar, Mr Hodgson, Louis Bernacchi and Edward Wilson, set a course that has now resulted in this extremely important Bill, because the science was so relevant to their expeditionary endeavours?

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he is absolutely right about the science. We should salute and celebrate it, because the linkage between that earlier expedition and everything that has happened thereafter, including what is still happening today through the good work of the British Antarctic Survey, is a fundamental reminder of why it is so important. The history to which he refers is an important narrative in respect of my point, and I am immensely grateful to him for his support.

Let me now deal with the Bill itself. First, I must emphasise that it builds on existing treaties, which have already been amended. We have to go back to 1951 to find the first effective treaty, which was ratified in 1961, the year of my birth. That was a significant piece of legislation at the time I was arriving on the scene—although obviously not in the Antarctic itself! Twelve nations signed that treaty, and 50 nations are now involved in the Antarctic. That underlines the point I was making about China and other countries in response to my helpful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

I should also pay tribute to the previous Government for the work they did in preparing the way for this Bill, which is similar but not the same as their Bill. They did some good work on that legislation, which emphasises the cross-party nature of the support on this matter, and I am grateful for that. A lot of consultation has taken place, both back in 2005 by those interested in the earlier Bill and more recently. I have also had meetings with a large number of organisations, and I want to list them all: the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust, whose tie I am wearing in a salute to it; the Antarctic Ocean Alliance; the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in Slimbridge; the Scott Polar Research Institute; the British Mountaineering Council; the International Polar Foundation UK; Poles Apart Ltd; and above all, of course, the British Antarctic Survey.

I am conscious that members, scientists, supporters, managers and leaders of the BAS will be listening to this speech and watching this debate, because it is of immediate and direct interest to them. I want to thank everybody in the BAS for doing everything they have done over the years, because their efforts, the sacrifices they have sometimes made, and their extraordinary commitment, courage and tenacity in pursuing scientific endeavour are incredibly impressive, and this House should be grateful to them. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for being so helpful on this whole issue of the BAS, which is based in his constituency. I hope to visit Cambridge from time to time to see how well the BAS is getting on, because it certainly deserves support from this House and I shall be happy to give it.

The shadow Minister referred to the work of the Science and Technology Committee. I agreed with its conclusions, as did the Environmental Audit Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for the work he did in driving through that report to underpin the overall strong support for the BAS. It was great that in the debate in the House of Lords the Senior Minister of State, Baroness Warsi, underlined the Government’s support for the British Antarctic Survey. It is interesting that there is a Senior Minister of State in the Foreign Office, and of course the Foreign Secretary is the First Secretary of State, so that Department contains a lot of powerful Ministers. The Minister here today is equally powerful, and I am pleased to see him in his place supporting the Bill. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is also involved in this because it relates to the future of the BAS. The Natural Environment Research Council made the right decision not to proceed with the merger, which was mentioned earlier, and instead to make sure that the BAS is properly independent and appropriately resourced. From this moment on, I pledge to support every one of its endeavours and make sure that it can undertake the work that it so necessarily does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on securing Second Reading for his Bill and commend all hon. Members who have spoken with such passion about this important subject. My hon. Friend has engaged in excellent work to champion the vital cause of protecting the Antarctic. As chairman of the all-party group on the polar regions, which was established last year and focuses on both the Arctic and the Antarctic, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to support what I consider to be a significant Bill that will strengthen, enhance and protect the environment of the Antarctic region.

Antarctica is a truly unique region of the world and Britain has always maintained a very close attachment to it since it first rose to prominence over a century ago. One can only imagine what the explorations were like at the turn of the 20th century, when the courage of those heroic British men spread far and wide until most of the western world had heard the names of Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton. It is, indeed, fitting that we are debating this subject in the centenary year of the fateful Terra Nova expedition, in which Captain Scott and his colleagues tragically lost their lives.

Fortunately, polar expertise has come a long way since those first dangerous pioneering expeditions and now, thankfully, it is much safer for modern explorers. Antarctica, like no other continent, is a region of our planet that remains almost untouched by mankind.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend has paid an undoubtedly deserved tribute to those who went on the Terra Nova expedition, which ended in tragic circumstances. Captain Scott also went to the Antarctic beforehand, from 1901 to 1904, and the people who went on that particular expedition were going there for the first time—certainly in that era—which was an astonishing feat in itself. Does my hon. Friend agree that attention should be given to that first expedition, as well as to the second one?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree. We should pay tribute to all those who pioneered those early expeditions. We now benefit from the progress made by those brave men, so we should acknowledge all involved.

It is our responsibility to protect Antarctica from those who might cause it damage. Indeed, we have a moral duty to ensure that it is adequately protected, which is why the Bill is so important. It is surely right that Her Majesty’s Government should take preventative measures to shield the environment and enhance the conservation of the Antarctic. The Bill will, I believe, enshrine that protection in law so that those who fail to respect the environment when travelling to Antarctica as part of a British operation can be properly held to account in the British courts for any irresponsible behaviour or damage that they may cause. There will be stronger regulations, fines and penalties for operators who break that code. With an increasing number of expeditions to Antarctica from around the globe, now is the time to introduce provisions that would enhance the protection of this amazing region of planet Earth.

There is another reason why we in the United Kingdom should take the lead in the protection of Antarctica. I urge hon. Members to take a look at Parliament square today. They will see displayed opposite the Houses of Parliament the flag of the British Antarctic Territory flying proudly alongside those of the other 15 British overseas territories and the five Crown dependencies. This is the first time that those flags have been displayed in Parliament square, and that, I believe, is a clear indication that Her Majesty’s Government value the contribution that our territories and dependencies make to the overall success of the Great British family. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place, but I would like to pay tribute to the previous Minister with responsibility for the British overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who championed the territories’ cause to ensure that they were recognised, as they are today in Parliament square, with your support, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The British Antarctic territory is our responsibility, so we must not only protect the environment, but uphold the territory’s security at all times. We are all too aware of the claims by Argentina to all three British overseas territories in that region, namely the British Antarctic Territory—which is also claimed by Chile—and South Georgia and, of course, the Falkland Islands. Defence of our national interests in the Antarctic and south Atlantic region is vital. I strongly urge Her Majesty’s Government to remember the importance of maintaining our presence in the seas around the region and to be vigilant to any potential threat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on introducing this excellent Bill. He has done a huge amount of work on this matter. I congratulate him also on wearing Antarctic tartan—it looks very good on him, and I hope that other Members will wear it in future.

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), with his track record of legislation in this area, and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who chairs the all-party polar regions group. I have the pleasure to serve as the vice-chair, and it is a great pleasure to be his vice.

The Bill, which I am delighted to co-sponsor, has the potential to provide lasting safeguards for an entire continent whose outstanding natural beauty is matched only by its scientific importance. The original Antarctic treaty, signed in 1959, has long upheld peaceful and demilitarised international ownership of the continent. Its original 12 signatories have expanded to 50, and together we remain committed to co-operation and joint scientific endeavour. Although every country is committed through those treaties to the protection of the Antarctic, few have been as committed to scientific work in the area as Britain, particularly through the British Antarctic Survey, of which so much has been said, which is based in my constituency of Cambridge.

I have, I believe, the pleasure of representing more Antarctic workers than any other Member of the House, and I have a number of friends and colleagues who have worked and overwintered in the Antarctic. Indeed, the house next to where I used to live was used frequently by returning BAS members for getting used to a climate in which they could stroll outside or ride a bike, without having to deal with snow and ice. From talking to them, and to non-governmental organisations based around Cambridge—particularly those involved in conservation—and to a huge range of companies involved in this field and elsewhere, I have heard the huge concerns about the proposed merger with the Natural Environment Research Council. The topic has been raised many times in many places, and it is having a huge effect on the morale of people in BAS. They are extremely concerned about their future, and nervous that the merger will see an end to the wonderful independence of BAS and the research it does.

People are quite rightly concerned about the effect on the international reputation of BAS and British science in the area, and concerns about the merger have been expressed from as far afield as former Vice-President Al Gore. I am therefore delighted that yesterday NERC took the correct decision to abandon the merger. That was definitely the right decision, and ultimately it is right for research councils to decide how research funding should be allocated. I pay tribute to the Science and Technology Committee and to its report, in relation to which I submitted evidence, for helping to advise NERC on the correct decision, to the Minister who gave evidence to that Committee, and to others such as Phil Willis, who was formerly a Member of this place but is now in another place. He serves on NERC and has been robust in his opinions about how we can achieve a good future for polar research.

We must look at the future and at what will now happen to BAS, rather than at the past. BAS is clearly a vital national asset, and it has a dual mission that involves both the Foreign Office and pure research. It is fundamentally wrong that for eight months, BAS has been left with an interim director who has another responsibility and no polar experience. Real questions must be asked about how NERC allowed so much of BAS’s leadership to leave in somewhat questionable circumstances—I do not want to air those points in this place, but questions should be asked about how it happened. It is essential to appoint a new full-time director of BAS as soon as possible, with responsibility for delivering that dual mission, including UK commitments under the treaty. It is also important that terms of reference for the director’s post are agreed in advance by the Government—not just the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—and ideally by Parliament, to show how seriously we take the role of the BAS director.

There will also be discussions about funding for BAS. BAS works in a uniquely difficult place; it will always be expensive to work in the Antarctic. Capital funding is essential, and the Minister for Universities and Science has managed to secure capital funding for seven of the research council’s eight key requests. The eighth request concerns the funding needed for BAS, and I hope that the Minister will persuade the Treasury to support it.

We need support for capital investment on the Cambridge site, and hon. Members who have managed to visit the site will know that further work is required to bring it up to the standard we would expect. Concerns have been raised about BAS’s revenue budget. Even as I speak, redundancies are taking place in BAS. That is causing great concern to many staff, even though they are relived that the merger will not take place.

BAS has done a fantastic job. For more than 60 years it has been responsible for the majority of Britain’s research on the continent, collaborating with international scientists on a diverse and important array of topics. That independent work must remain high-quality, separate, and guided by scientific principles. If we are to continue leading the world on high-impact issues addressed in the polar regions, that autonomy is essential. The survey maintains two ships, five aircraft, eight research stations in and around Antarctica, which are all monitored from BAS headquarters in Cambridge. The work done by BAS’s 400 staff is crucial to our understanding of planetary environmental science.

[Mr Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will briefly although there is a statement at 11 am and I am keen to make progress.

[Mr Cash]

Despite my reservations about some aspects of the hon. Gentleman’s party and its policies on other matters, may I strongly commend the speech he is making and the interest that he takes in this issue as the Member of Parliament for Cambridge? I understand that he has also been nominated as the only scientist in the House of Commons. I do not know whether that is true, but I am glad to commend him on his speech.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention; it is nice to know that we agree on some things. Although it has been said that I am the only scientist in the House, that is sadly not true. I am one of two Members with a science PhD and I went on to do research, but there are other scientists in the House and it always a great pleasure to have them here. However, that is not relevant to the Bill.

BAS does a fantastic amount of work, and the Bill will help with that. It will give scientists in a hostile and at times dangerous environment the additional support they need, and secure the protected status of the unique place in which they work and often live.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the knowledge that the Government are about to make a statement on the ghastly tragedy in Northern Ireland, I begin by saying that I very much welcome the Bill, which is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He and I differ in our views on another continent, but we are clearly strongly united in our views on Antarctica, which is a very good step in the right direction. The environmental protection of the Antarctic and other aspects—my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) referred to the relationship with the Falklands and other matters—are immensely important.

I should like to pay tribute to—

Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).

Antarctic Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

For a few moments before that tragic statement, I was commending my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for bringing in the Bill, for the manner in which he did so, and for the importance of the legislation. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). As a scientist—if not the only one in the House—and as the Member for Cambridge he has put up a strong case, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, for the continuation of the organisation that has carried forward the remarkable historical, geological and scientific achievements in Antarctica. It provides a framework for present and future scientific exploration and reflects the past.

I was fascinated to read an article—I think it was in yesterday’s Evening Standard—by the famous art critic, Brian Sewell, whom I find extremely engaging. He is one of our foremost art critics, and he described the photographs that were taken on the Antarctic expeditions as being of such immense quality that he ranked them alongside some of the greatest works of art. That is an astonishing statement when we consider that he was talking about photographs, rather than sketches, water colours or other paintings.

Those photographs are mainly held in the archives in Cambridge. I have had reason to look into those archives, and anything that can be done to maintain that institution is vital. I was also delighted to hear from other speakers that steps had been taken, notwithstanding the urgings of the hon. Member for Cambridge, to ensure that the collection remains intact and that the organisation should actively continue to perform the work that I am about to describe, which originated in the expedition of 1901-04.

The Bill has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud in sufficient detail, but I would like to elaborate on one or two points. What is being proposed strongly reflects the heritage of the United Kingdom, as well as its endeavours, adventures and sense of commitment and exploration, and this Second Reading debate is an appropriate occasion on which to call attention to the heroism not only of Captain Scott, who so tragically died in the second expedition, but of the accumulated courage and endeavours of those who went on the first and second expeditions. It must have been astonishing, in 1901, for those pathfinders to go into those extremely hazardous conditions. They had a sense of adventure that the likes of Ranulph Fiennes perpetuate today. We owe those people an enormous debt.

Many people will have seen the film “Scott of the Antarctic”. Others might also have been to the exhibition about the Antarctic that was held in the annexe of Buckingham Palace. I am not sure whether it is still on, but if it is, I strongly recommend that people go and see it, because the photographs that I was just describing are displayed in it. The book that accompanied the exhibition is also fascinating; I think that His Royal Highness Prince Philip wrote the foreword to it. It is important to remember that those who went on the expeditions were not just a few people who wandered off to have an interesting time. We should always recall their sheer courage and the intrepid nature of their characters, as well as the hardship that they endured.

I want to refer to certain aspects of the Bill, before I go on to talk about the history of the expeditions. Clause 15 deals with historic sites and monuments. Under section 10 of the Antarctic Act 1994, it is an offence to

“damage, destroy or remove any part of a site or monument”.

However, it was thought that that prohibition could occasionally impede the effective conservation management of the sites. It has therefore been decided—rightly, I think—to enable the Secretary of State to grant a new form of permit in respect of the conservation of, or repairs to, designated historic sites and monuments.

Clause 16 is an important measure that deals with the conservation of animals and plants. I shall mention that again in a moment when I make reference to what went on between 1901 and 1904. I have with me the two volumes written by Captain Scott entitled “The Voyage of the Discovery”, and it would be appropriate to put on record one or two of the matters to which he refers. These books are quite difficult to get hold of, and this is a good opportunity for me to give the House an indication of what was going on at the time.

The 1994 Act contains a provision that makes it an offence to

“remove or damage such quantities of any native plant that its local distribution or abundance will be significantly affected…except in accordance with a permit…or under the written authorisation of another Contracting Party”

to the protocol. The provision also extends to native invertebrates, which is an important and necessary measure. Because of the vast wilderness of the Antarctic landscape, the plants and native invertebrates are essential to the preservation of the integrity of the environment, and it is important that nothing is done to damage them. It is also vital to maintain their presence there.

The 1994 Act also makes it an offence to introduce a non-indigenous species. That is to preserve the integrity of the existing continent, but there are provisions allowing for plants and animals to be kept on board vessels visiting Antarctica, provided that they remain on board. Of course, if we go back to the original expeditions, it would have created a few problems if it had not been possible for the explorers to take their dogs with them to pull the sledges. Amundsen’s expedition eventually won the battle by virtue of having his team of dogs with him. The difficulties that arose for Scott’s expedition meant that they were left having to pull the sledges by hand—quite a remarkable feat. The intensity of the cold and the distances were such that it was an amazing achievement that they managed to do what they did.

Other provisions on microscopic organisms are designed to ensure that we can develop certain native plants, while other provisions prohibit the introduction of non-sterile soil into any part of Antarctica. These provisions may seem unusual, but we have heard in the last few months about the destruction of the ash tree in this country, resulting from spores coming here from other parts of the continent— from Denmark in particular. In dealing with an area such as the Antarctic, it is essential to maintain the integrity of local species and not to have them contaminated. In practice I believe these provisions will turn out to be immensely important as the Bill is brought into effect and then into full operation.

I thought today might be an appropriate moment for this debate, given that some of us feel that the people participating in these expeditions were so intrepid and fearless. This is perhaps also reflected when we think of other great explorers, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles). As I understand it, he and his mother have been to the Arctic, and I believe from a speech he recently made in my constituency that he is going to the Antarctic, too, following in the footsteps of Robert Scott. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not here—never mind, he probably has an important constituency engagement—but his journeys are fascinating. He used to be in the Army; he has rowed across the Atlantic with his mother; and he is now proposing to go to the Antarctic as well. He will be following in the footsteps of the other explorers that I am about to mention.

It is important to put on the record those whom Robert Scott acknowledged in his own book, “The Voyage of the Discovery”. He pays tribute to Sir Clements Markham, whom he describes as the father of the expedition and its most constant friend. One has to remember that, with Scott having died in 1912, no successor book was written about the second expedition. To feel the character and sheer quality of these expeditions, we can read the “The Voyage of the Discovery”, published in two volumes, to find out how Scott and his team of fellow explorers felt during the first expedition. I strongly recommend that anyone interested should take the opportunity to read it.

I have taken a particular interest in another aspect of this topic, not least because my wife’s family included a certain Thomas Kennar, who went with Scott to Antarctica as the quartermaster of the first expedition. Another young man, a petty officer, was pretty much seconded as the geologist to the national Antarctic expedition. I pay tribute to him as well. He was called Mr Ferrar, and in the book’s appendix 1, he set out a summary of the geological observations made during the cruise of the SS Discovery between 1901 and 1904. There is the now-famous Ferrar glacier, and I am glad to say that Mr Thomas Kennar was given the opportunity to use his name, too, so there is a valley in the Antarctic known as the Kennar valley. It could be said that we are pretty proud of that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

In view of this habit of naming places after great men who have led fierce expeditions, I wonder whether Brussels should be renamed Cashland.

[Mr Cash]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to suggest that, but if any such thing were ever done, I should prefer it to be done after we had defeated those in Brussels. Let us get that done first, and then we can think about some method of commemorating the event, if and when it occurs.

I thought that it would be helpful to give some idea of the sort of activities in which those on the expedition were engaged. There was, in fact, an important expedition within the expedition, which took place in October 1903. Scott writes: “Because the region in which much of our work lay was very beautiful and interesting, I propose to take the reader”—and, on this occasion, the House—“into the details of one more sledging excursion. The party with which I left the ship on October 12th 1903 numbered 12 members in all”, and he says who they were.

Scott led the advance party himself; the second party was led by the geologist Mr Ferrar, with whom went two men, Kennar and Weller. He says: “The original scheme was that the whole party should journey together to the summit of Victorialand, and it was said that there should be an absence of nine weeks calculated for the advance party.” To cut a long story short—[Laughter.] It is quite a long story, but I make no apology for that.

I do want to make one thing clear. Astonishingly, although they were completely lame and exhausted, those who had led the second party were determined to follow the first group. Scott writes: “Once or twice they halted to brew tea to keep themselves going, but not one of them had suggested the halt should be extended.” That was in absolutely incredible conditions. He goes on: “In the hard struggle of the last few hours, some of the men had kept things going by occasionally indulging in some dry remark which caused everyone to laugh. Kennar’s attitude had been one of grieved astonishment. Presumably referring to me, he kept repeating ‘If he can do it, I don’t see why I can’t…My legs are as long as his.’”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps he could, but the hon. Gentleman cannot. I know that he is desperate to return to the Second Reading debate, although he has given us a great history lesson and we welcome that. I just hope that we do not spend too much time on global warming, given the amount of his speech that he has already used up.

[Mr Cash]

I simply say that it is important to put on record that all the work that is being done in Cambridge and is being talked of now refers back to those amazing people, who were, as Ernest Shackleton wrote subsequently, “the life and soul” of the party. The archives include the “South Polar Times”, and I think that people should take a look at that. In his letter to Mrs Kennar, Shackleton wrote that

“the Prince of Wales read the South Polar Times with great pleasure.”

The importance of the archiving, and the historical context of all this, need to be reaffirmed by all of us who are fascinated by the Antarctic expedition. We should recognise the work that is being done now, the work that will be done under the Bill, and the tremendous courage and determination of those who started all this. That deserves to be recalled. At the same time, we should to do all that we can to ensure that the existing organisation that was referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for Romford is maintained, and that the finances are in the right shape to enable it to continue in the manner that was intended by those on the original expedition. It is quite right that the Government are supporting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I think we are all grateful for that clarification. My hon. Friend may be disappointed that the EU is not involved in some way, however, as I know his views on Europe are somewhat different from mine. It is a great pleasure to me and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that the EU has not got its grubby little hands all over this Bill.

Before discussing the details of the Bill, it is important to look at where we are now and how we got there. The Antarctic treaty was ratified on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC and came into force on 23 June 1961. It established international co-operation to protect and preserve Antarctica. The UK enacted its obligations through the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967. There were 12 original signatories of the 1959 treaty, including the Governments of the UK, Australia, Belgium, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union—as it was then—and the USA. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made clear, the other signatories were Argentina and Chile.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just reminded me that last week in the European Scrutiny Committee we had a document before us that confers observer status on the European Union—no doubt to complement the Soviet Union, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just referred to as being a party to these international bodies. It is extraordinary, and I hope we can find out exactly why it is, that the EU should be given that status. We are primarily dealing here with the British Antarctic, but perhaps as the Bill goes through Committee we will find out.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that; he is as vigilant as ever on these matters. I understand why the mention of the Soviet Union drew his immediate thoughts to the European Union, as there is very little to choose between the two.

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am delighted that he will be getting involved with the Fresh Start project himself. He is absolutely right. Is it not interesting that it is since this Government came into office that exports to China, Brazil and India have radically increased in percentage terms from the incredibly low level under the Labour Government, who preferred to create non-jobs in the public sector rather than real jobs in the private sector?

I want to run through a few ideas that have come out of the Fresh Start project and suggest them to the Government for serious consideration. There is no doubt that we have not only the opportunity, but the absolute need to get in there and make British interests very clear, long before the next European parliamentary elections in 2014.

Let me quickly run through some of the green options, which are things that we could be doing ourselves but are not doing at the moment. The UK is a significant member of the EU—one of the big three—and has worked with a number of allies to develop its vision of a free-trading, economically liberal EU. The UK has been enormously successful in achieving its strategic aims of enlargement and deepening of the single market. At the time of crisis in the eurozone, it is key that the UK sets out the vision of the EU that it wants and develops alliances in that direction. It is essential to set out a vision for a free-trade area that is globally competitive and determined to advance in the markets outside the EU and not just within it.

We could improve the scrutiny of EU legislation, including pre-legislative scrutiny. I welcome the European Scrutiny Committee’s inquiry into that and the work of the Hansard Society in looking at much more parliamentary scrutiny, including having specific EU questions, not just FCO questions, and having a Europe Department rather than just a Europe Minister in the FCO.

We should certainly look at pre-legislative scrutiny where, as in Denmark, Parliament gives authority to Ministers before they go to negotiate on our behalf, instead of them coming back to us with something that is almost done that we just need to rubber-stamp at the eleventh hour. There are good examples of where good pre-legislative scrutiny has made a big difference, such as the proposed ban on the short selling of equities. Owing to the excellent work of Members of the European Parliament, that was reduced to a ban on the short selling of sovereign debt only. That was a massive saving grace to liquidity and free financial markets.

Better Brits in Brussels is an important issue. We have 12% of the EU’s population, but now only 4% of Commission staff. That has been allowed to slide abysmally. We have not done enough to allow our brightest and best young people to obtain the language skills they need to pass the European Commission test. I am delighted that the Government have restarted the European fast stream. That is an important move on which we should absolutely spend our time. When we visit MEPs and Commissioners in Brussels, we find that they have all gone native; they even speak with a sort of weird part French, part German, part English accent—if there is such a thing. They lose track of whom they represent. What we need is British people in the Commission representing British interests.

We want to remove gold-plating in social and employment laws as soon as possible. We have interpreted some EU directives in a hard and fast way, not least on the opt-out for doctors. As I understand it, in all too many cases, we offer doctors a contract for up to 48 hours a week, and then invite them to opt out of working only 48 hours a week. That is not exactly a terribly tempting offer. We need to look seriously at gold-plating.

We support deregulation at the EU level. The EU has agreed in principle to subsidiarisation for micro-businesses. It is not an EU competence to delve into micro-businesses if they are British-only businesses. They should not be subject to EU regulation, and we should be pressing as hard as we can to exempt British micro-businesses from any EU intervention whatsoever.

Finally, Britain could be using the European Court of Justice to our own ends far more than we are to challenge EU proposals. An example of a good decision by this Government to challenge the European Union is our challenge of the European Central Bank’s proposal that clearing houses with more than 5% of turnover in euros should be based in the eurozone. That is blatantly stealing Britain’s business in a lucrative area, and we are absolutely right to be challenging that decision at the ECJ. We ought to take those opportunities more often.

Those are just some of the green options for reform that Britain could be doing much more on. Other areas require us to get far more sleeves rolled up and people wading in, and I want to cover two. I recognise that a lot of hon. Members want to speak, so I will hurry up. The greatest of those areas is to achieve a rolling opt-in and opt-out of EU policies. There is no doubt that there will be a fiscal union—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh. They are not even prepared to listen, which I find astonishing. They should care that the British public have had enough of their ever closer part in the European Union. It is absolutely astonishing.

We should look at whether, for those who are not part of the fiscal union, we could have some sort of rolling opt-in and opt-out of EU policies. The logistics could be incredibly complicated, but when Governments change, policies are often completely changed. It is ridiculous to have an EU where something decided 35 years ago has never changed and a member cannot opt out of it. It would be far better for the countries that do not intend to be part of a federal Europe if they could opt out. When Governments change, they could have a window of opportunity to decide on which policies they want to remain a part of, and which areas of EU jurisdiction they want to remove themselves from. That is entirely possible. That would give the European Commission something else to do, so it can pay itself even more and employ even more staff, so it should be delighted at the prospect.

Perhaps the most logical major reform of all is to repatriate structural funds. We are in the middle of negotiations for the next multi-annual financial framework, which will determine the EU’s budget strategy from 2014 to 2021. The negotiations are subject to national veto, and so offer a huge opportunity to the UK to seek restraint and sensible reform that will better serve the British taxpayer. Perhaps the best example of that is to repatriate the local bit of EU structural funds.

From 2007 to 2013, provision for EU spending on the structural funds amounts to some €280 billion, which is about 30% of the total EU budget. During that period, the UK will make a net contribution to the structural funds of some £21 billion; that is the UK’s contribution after taking into account the money it receives from the structural funds. We pay £30 billion, and we get £9 billion back after the money is converted into euros, administered and 140,000 full-time equivalent European staff have decided which UK regions should benefit. In fact, under the European definition of UK regions, only two, west Wales and Cornwall, are net recipients of structural funds. All the other regions are paying significantly more for every £1 they get back in structural funds, which is a completely ridiculous state of affairs. Additionally, the European Union determines the allocation, not the British Government.

Spending plans are based on EU regions that simply do not fit economic and political realities. There is a top-down structure in which all spending plans require the approval of the European Commission and must comply with EU guidelines. So structural spending completely frustrates local innovation,

No rigorous performance criteria link disbursement of funds to clear results. The think-tank Open Europe finds no conclusive evidence that structural funds have had a positive overall impact on growth, jobs and regional convergence in the EU. The rules on the administration of the funds are excessively bureaucratic. For wealthier member states, including Britain, the funds completely irrationally recycle large amounts of money, via Brussels, not only within the same country, but within the same regions. The UK could negotiate the repatriation of regional spending to richer member states, focusing the structural funds solely on poorer EU countries, which would reduce the total EU budget for the next multi-annual financial framework by some 15%.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. So far, she has not mentioned Mr Barroso’s speech of a couple of days ago. I wonder whether she appreciates that, however sensible her ideas may be on lists of functions and attitudes, the European Union does not have the slightest intention of entering any negotiations in that direction. That is the problem. I agree with most of what she says as a matter of aspiration, but the problem is we are not dealing with a European Union that is remotely on the same page.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he contradicts what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, which is that the EU will not allow us just to walk away, because the EU needs us more than we need it.

There is an opportunity for reform. There is no doubt that, as a non-eurozone member, we will not be subject to the calls for ever greater union. The absolute burden is for us to define what we want that renegotiation to look like. If we do nothing because we are afraid the EU will not listen to us, we will get nothing. We would then end up in a position in which we are either in or out. Having a good go at reform is the way forward, whether we succeed or fail; doing nothing would not be in Britain’s best interest.

Richer member states are perfectly capable of funding their own regional policy and determining which regions should benefit from structural funds. If we were to repatriate those local structural funds to richer member states, we would end up with a 15% headline cut in the multi-annual financial framework for the next period and every one of those richer member states, bar five, would receive a significant reduction in contributions, which is a win-win and something we ought to look to other member states to support.

There are so many areas of reform that would be in Britain’s better interest. I could go on and on, because the opportunities are widespread and the need for reform is urgent. The Prime Minister has prioritised seeking safeguards for financial services, which is Britain’s most important industry, employing more than 1 million people and generating more than 10% of our tax take every year.

Another key area is the social and working time directive. Do we want our 1 million young people currently not in employment, education or training to get jobs, or de we want to prioritise rights for existing workers? Those are the choices that we have to make, and the social and working time directive is undoubtedly hampering the opportunities for young people to get work.

Do we want more and more EU regulation that affects small and micro-businesses? Do we want to see the training of young doctors in the NHS hampered by EU regulation of on-call hours? The Fresh Start project has raised, researched and sought to answer those questions. By Christmas, we will have produced a short and punchy manifesto for change that will be a shopping list of reforms across all EU policy areas, including business, immigration, justice, agriculture, energy and many others. I know Front Benchers are keen to see reform, and I sincerely hope they will accept and adopt as Government policy the work of such a large group of Conservative colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My appeal is for all the Eurosceptic movements—the Euro-realists—to join together. The situation has now become critical. The Barroso speech sets out an agenda of more integration and a federal Europe, and we are now confronted by the reality that they are not listening to us. They did not listen to us on Maastricht—it was our own Government who did not listen to us then. Fortunately, the Prime Minister himself has now said that he thought there should have been a referendum on that treaty, and that that would have sorted the matter out there and then. However, we are where we are. I am not seeking confrontation; I am seeking solutions. The situation is far too grave for us to be in a state of difficulty due to personalities or whatever else: we have to unite around certain central principles.

I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She knows that I believe—I said so in an intervention—that time has run out. In the Liaison Committee the other day, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he agreed with me that the situation in Europe was now unacceptable. I used the word “untenable”, but we came to an agreement. I suggested that we should have a convention so that we could get ahead of the curve and provide our basis, based on the principle of consent—on the fact that the people of this country, and for that matter the people of other countries, should decide, not the Euro elite and not the Governments who created this failed project, this undemocratic situation that has been allowed to develop. We need to get together. He said that that was a perfectly reasonable suggestion and that conversations were taking place in Europe. Unfortunately, the reality is that they have now been overtaken by the Barroso agenda. I fear that my right hon. Friend is, if I may say bluntly, in a contradiction: on the one hand, he says that it is unacceptable, but on the other hand he says we will not leave the European Union.

This kind of negotiation, or renegotiation, involves asking such fundamental questions about our relationship that other member states will not accept them. When they do not, our option will be clear: however much we might not want to, we will have to leave the European Union if that is the position that we have arrived at. The Barroso speech indicates that we are on a different page, so I call for urgency. We should have a referendum before the next general election. We should create the circumstances in which we are able to ask the British people, “What kind of Europe do you want?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman seems to understand me better than the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). Our position is that a referendum at this time would be a distraction from the Government’s priority of getting the economy back on track. The question about what our relationship with the EU will become is open now, given the nature of Mr Barroso’s speech last week, mentioned by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We will see how that relationship develops in terms of what kind of political and fiscal union the eurozone states want to form.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the timetable has been accelerated by that speech and those who thought that it might be better to keep the matter open, including the Prime Minister, are now effectively finding that time has overtaken them—or soon will.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is not yet clear at what point the European Commission, the German Government or other Governments will want to put treaty change on the table.

[Mr Cash]

It is. He said so.

[Emma Reynolds]

In his speech, Mr Barroso mentions putting that treaty change on the table before the 2014 European parliamentary elections—I have read his speech closely—but it is still unclear whether that will happen in time for those elections. There will be a report by Herman Van Rompuy to the Council in December, which will be an important time for our Government to start to have a policy on the European Union. I shall come on to that.

Many of the hon. Members present who argue for withdrawal offer a false choice between trade with emerging markets and EU membership. They say, “Remain in the EU, or trade with the likes of China, India, Brazil and Russia.” We must of course improve our export performance to the rest of the world, but we will not build real export success if we start by cutting ourselves off from our largest existing market and our largest collective negotiating tool. The EU provides the collective political weight that we need to maximise our influence in negotiations. Hon. Members need not take that from me, they can take it from the Europe Minister, as set out in written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee as recently as May of this year, when he said:

“On trade, one voice representing half a billion consumers is heard more loudly in Beijing, Delhi and Moscow, than 27 separate ones.”

British businesses, workers and consumers will see the benefit of EU free trade agreements, such as the recent FTA with South Korea, which is worth £500 million to UK exporters, or the potential future agreements with the US, Canada, Singapore and India.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am delighted to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Hollobone. I am sorry that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), could not be present this morning. He very much wanted to participate in this important debate, but I was enthused to understand that I would be responding within my first 10 days in my new ministerial role.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate and on the articulate, intelligent and comprehensive way in which she introduced it. I thank all colleagues who have participated, many of whom fall into the category of what I call distinguished and principled colleagues. In the time available, I am afraid that I will not be able to answer all the specific questions.

I also want to put on the record the Government’s thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire, for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who deserve enormous credit for the valuable, significant and serious work of the Fresh Start group. I hope that my hon. Friends and others will continue to engage with such a vital issue, in particular as we analyse the balance of competences in a process that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced just before the summer recess and about which I intend to say more later.

[Mr Cash]

One fundamental competence that I hope my hon. Friend agrees needs to be reviewed is whether the British people are able to govern themselves by their own consent in general elections. Does he not agree that that is the most fundamental democratic question that needs to be addressed on the European issue?

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will not answer that question directly this morning. I urge him and others, however, to engage positively and constructively with the forensic analysis of the balance of competences, which will feed into a national debate about the relationship that we should have with the European Union.

I want to be up front in ensuring that all hon. Members understand that the Government have been absolutely clear that there should be no further transfer of competence or powers from the UK to the EU over the course of the Parliament. That is in stark contrast with the Labour Government’s record. They were clearly wrong to sign the Lisbon treaty without consulting British voters in any way. They were quite wrong to give away £7 billion of our rebate and to get nothing in return, and they were quite wrong to drop out of our opt-out from the social chapter, which means that employment laws are decided in Brussels, not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I confirm that the Prime Minister met my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on 9 July to discuss the contents of the letter, and I understand that a formal reply will be sent to him shortly.

We have pressed for an open trading agenda that presents real opportunities and allows us to benefit from investment in the UK. Our commitment to free trade is why the UK is still the leading destination for foreign investment into Europe.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me. I am coming to a conclusion, but I will be happy to discuss with him afterwards the point he wants to make. I am running out of time, and I want to make a couple of key points.

The UK has been leading the way in trying to facilitate free trade negotiations and agreements, and it has done so successfully with South Korea. It is leading the drive for such agreements with Japan, Singapore, the USA and Canada.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to the Barroso speech. I confirm that we are looking closely at its contents. We agree with some of the President’s analysis of the EU’s financial problems, such as the unsustainable levels of debt, the lack of competitiveness and some irresponsible behaviour in financial institutions, but the direction of travel is not always one that the UK wishes to take.

In conclusion, the immediate priority must be to restore market confidence, to drive growth, to negotiate more trade agreements, to open up new markets, and to create wealth and jobs through competitiveness, innovation and liberalisation.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

As the House will know, the reason for the treaty change that the Bill approves is the crisis in the eurozone. That crisis was predictable and, in fact, predicted by some present in the House. The existence of monetary union without fiscal or economic union has led to severe economic strains in a number of eurozone countries and permitted the build-up of excessive debts by some members to an unsustainable level.

I have always opposed Britain’s membership of the euro, as Opposition Members will no doubt recall, not only because of the single currency’s flawed design, but because of the limitations that it would impose on our national democracy. I think that there is now near-national consensus that we are better off with our own currency; I say “near” because the Leader of the Opposition has said that Britain could join the euro if he were Prime Minister for long enough—a pretty good reason for not allowing him to become Prime Minister at all.

None the less, there are solid majorities in every national Parliament in the eurozone that wish to retain their membership of the single currency and see it restored to stability. They have their reasons for that, and we should respect them. Obviously, it is also crucially in our interests for the eurozone crisis to be resolved. As the—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

It is a little early, even for my hon. Friend. In a few paragraphs, I will of course give way to him—probably more than once, I should imagine.

The Governor of the Bank of England has said that the crisis is casting a black cloud of uncertainty over our economy. Eurozone countries could take a number of measures to bring about a resolution, and the decision about which are the right ones is for them. One measure that has been decided is the European stability mechanism, a permanent financial assistance mechanism established by the eurozone for the eurozone, to help eurozone countries that get into difficulties. The amendment to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union confirms the ability of the eurozone countries to do that. The simple purpose of the Bill is to approve that decision.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I shall now give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Cash]

I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary. Why in his own judgment and opinion is he prepared to invoke the exemption arrangements, the effect of which is to say that the matter does not really affect United Kingdom businesses, as was set out in the explanatory notes to the European Union Act 2011? Plainly, the implosion in Europe does affect us, and this failed attempt to put a sticking plaster on an increasingly impossible situation is simply making the position worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

As the Foreign Secretary has set out, the context for this debate is the continuing crisis in the eurozone: the troika has yet to decide whether Greece has met its bail-out commitments; Spain appears to be on the brink of making a formal request for assistance; forecasters predict that the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Belgium will all miss the European Union deficit target next year; and there are serious doubts about whether Ireland and Portugal will be able to comply fully, with certainty, with the existing terms of their EU bail-out programmes. The need for decisive action by the eurozone is beyond doubt, and we believe that it is overwhelmingly in the British national interest that such action is taken.

Today’s debate, as we have already heard, relates specifically to the content of the European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, member states agreed, following a meeting of the European Council in March 2011, to the amendment of article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, specifically to enable the creation of a permanent eurozone-only bail-out fund, the European stability mechanism.

We should recognise this as a major institutional development for the EU. It sets up an International Monetary Fund-type body for the eurozone on a permanent basis, replacing the separate intergovernmental European financial stability facility, which was agreed when the Greek emergency first broke. As this is a treaty within the EU-27 framework, any amendments or changes must be approved by the established procedures for treaty ratification in each and every member state, even though the ESM will apply only to those member states that are members of the euro. It is, therefore, unlike the fiscal compact, which, despite the Prime Minister’s so-called veto last December, Britain was unable to block, and over which this Parliament has had no say.

Indeed, the fiscal compact negotiated outside the EU framework by 25 members of the EU, without Britain or the Czech Republic in the room, establishes a completely new principle in European treaty ratification. It will enter into force when it is ratified by 12 of the 17 eurozone member states—a principle that, in our view, could work to Britain’s disadvantage in other contexts, and which is a direct consequence of not being in the room when such decisions are reached. The Bill, however, will lead to enabling legislation giving parliamentary approval to the European Council decision to establish a permanent eurozone-only bail-out fund.

Let me make clear the Labour party’s position on the Bill. We are legislating today not on the substance of the ESM, but only on the enabling treaty change to allow it to be set up. Labour recognises the need for that enabling measure, so we will support the Bill. A more stable eurozone is important for the UK’s long-term growth and prosperity. Indeed, as the eurozone accounts for more than 40% of our external trade, prospects for business investment and export growth depend on it.

[Mr Cash]

On the claimed virtues of the single market, does the shadow Foreign Secretary accept that we have in fact run up the most monumental deficit with the other 26 member states of the EU, to an extent that it is now damaging our economy and thereby preventing this country from achieving growth?

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I were to draw up a list of what is damaging the economy of the United Kingdom at the moment, many items would stand above a recognition that the single market has provided British businesses with European markets constituting 500 million consumers. It would be perverse logic to suggest, at a time when we are struggling to secure growth in the British economy, that it would be to the advantage of British exporters or British businesses more generally to shrink the UK’s home single market from 500 million consumers to just 60 million.

A mechanism with sufficient firepower to restructure and recapitalise weak banks, and to bail out Governments who can temporarily no longer access the bond markets to finance their borrowing and debt, is a necessary part of bringing stability back to the eurozone, and a permanent bail-out fund is one key part of making that happen. However, the burden of responsibility for delivering that growth and prosperity must be taken by eurozone members themselves. In the establishment of the ESM, the European Council is making it clear that ultimate responsibility for ensuring the overall stability of the euro area rests with eurozone members. It will be a fund by the eurozone for the eurozone. That is clearly in the UK’s national interest, and we will not vote against a Bill that will allow the ESM to be established.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

It is hardly a revelation that I strongly supported the five economic tests back in the years immediately following 1997, whether in relation to the convergence criteria or more broadly. In that sense, the Opposition’s position has not changed. It was an intriguing interpretation of history by the Foreign Secretary to attribute to his own conduct out of office so much credit for what the Labour Government did in office in keeping Britain outside the euro. However, he is right to recognise that there is broad consensus, which extends even to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), that there is no immediate prospect of British entry to the euro, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friend describes.

Let me be clear about some of the Opposition’s specific concerns, in a spirit of genuine concern about and mutual interest in the eurozone. First, we believe that the eurozone firewall needs to be bigger in scale and more flexible in operation than the ESM alone currently allows. Although the ESM is a key part of that broader firewall, an effective European Central Bank should also be used to enhance, and contribute to the establishment of, an effective firewall. Since the House last debated the matter, the ECB has announced its intention to begin buying bonds if member states comply with the relevant conditions regarding the management of their fiscal budgets. That is a welcome development, and we look forward to the ECB president Mario Draghi’s announcement this Thursday of how that new programme will work. The ECB must now deliver on its promise if it is to function properly as a lender of last resort and provide the necessary firepower to support the eurozone economies effectively under bond market pressure.

[Mr Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little progress, but I will endeavour to give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Secondly, stability in the banking system is vital, and where that requires action it should take place swiftly and with urgency. That is why we welcome the recent announcements about the ESM, which represent steps towards recapitalising weak eurozone banks. If responsibility for recapitalising national banks rests with national Governments, the problems of countries such as Spain risk getting worse, because state support for the banks will further worsen those countries’ fiscal outlook. We therefore agree that within the eurozone it makes sense for the ESM to be able to play a leading role in bank restructuring and recapitalisation. Although there is agreement in principle about that, it is vital that the eurozone begins taking action on it more urgently than it has to date. We cannot afford to wait for full agreement on a banking union before the process of recapitalising Europe’s banks begins. It needs to take place over the coming months.

The failure of eurozone members to accept fully the logic of a single currency must be addressed, and alongside a banking union some form of debt mutualisation may have to be considered. Simply put, creditor countries must be willing to shore up debtor countries in the short term if they are to guarantee their own stability in the long run. That may be a bitter pill for countries such as Germany to swallow, but it is the only cure for the eurozone as a whole.

[Mr Cash]

On the role of the ECB, Mr Draghi and the proposals on bail-outs, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the president of the Bundesbank, Mr Weidmann, or with Angela Merkel?

[Mr Alexander]

I would not wish to intrude on the constitutional differences between the Chancellor of Germany and the governor of the Bundesbank. President Draghi bears a heavy burden of responsibility on Thursday to add detail to the terms of the guarantees that he was judged to have offered on the basis of his rhetoric at the previous press conference in the summer.

There is clearly a divide between those who, despite the economic facts, remain wedded throughout Europe to an austerity-only approach and those who recognise the need for a growth-led recovery alongside genuine efforts at medium-term deficit reduction. It is regrettable that our Government appear to be firmly on the wrong side of the divide. However, I welcome the fact that, at the last EU summit, a useful but modest growth package was agreed, although I regret that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom remained bound to the last to the old Merkozy-style approach.

As part of the new focus on growth across Europe, we support a significant increase in the capital of the European Investment Bank and the concept of infrastructure bonds to finance major capital investment projects. The European Union must also learn to use existing resources better without spending more. A genuine plan for growth must start with reform of the EU’s 2014-20 budget, which, at more than €1 trillion, has the potential to make a real impact on the European economy’s recovery by spending less on agriculture, more on infrastructure, small business growth and research and development, and better using the money currently spent through existing EU structural funds.

Alongside those targeted measures to stimulate growth, the Government should call for the completion of the single market and the digital and energy markets. Completely removing existing obstacles could translate into a 7% increase in incomes per head in the UK, according to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Further integration could therefore provide a genuine and much-needed boost to growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Bill is living proof of the Alice in Wonderland Euro-fantasy that permeates every nook and cranny of the failed European project.

Decisions, which were taken as long ago as 25 March 2011, when we last debated the issue—shortly afterwards, several of us voted against the proposals on a deferred Division—cannot and do not work. It is as simple as that. There is simply not the money to go round, as I said when I had the opportunity of cross-examining the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee well over a year ago.

It may be very fine to provide a quack remedy to make the Euro-integrationists feel that something is being done, but the proposal, which Mr Van Rompuy and the European Council described as

“ensuring the stability of the euro area”

is as effective as taking a dose of snake oil to hold off the consequences of an economic earthquake.

A Harris opinion poll this week on whether the measures will deal with the debt crisis in the eurozone showed that only 15% in the United Kingdom were confident that they would have any effect. That applied to only 25% in France, 33% in Italy, 20% in Spain and 24% in Germany. That is the most recent opinion poll on the effect of the proposals in the eyes of the voters, not the Governments, élite or establishment in each of those countries, let alone many others.

Of course, we all know that Germany holds the key to the eurozone. As I said in interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, Jens Weidmann, the increasingly realistic and sceptical president of the Bundesbank, stated only a few days ago that, as I have often said, intervening in the bond market is effectively breaking the no bail-out rule, which was set up under Maastricht—I foretold that it would not work—and prohibits the ECB from financing Governments and states. He said that if the Governments of the eurozone become dependent on the power of the ECB, they will never do anything for themselves, that it would be like pouring money into a black hole and that it

“can become addictive like a drug”.

The use of article 122, which the Foreign Secretary attempted to argue around—somewhat disingenuously, I say with respect—breaks the law. The European Scrutiny Committee said that, to all intents and purposes, its use was illegal—not that it was not needed, but that it was illegal. It is there for dealing with natural disasters and earthquakes, not economic problems.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making his usual case that the use of article 122 was illegal. That may be his view, but it was clearly being used for the European financial stabilisation mechanism and therefore posed a liability for this country. Surely he must welcome a Bill mechanism that allows a treaty that reduces our liability. The new ESM will not include Britain, and we will not have that same liability. As a good Europhobe, he should support the Bill.

[Mr Cash]

As a Euro-realist, I am glad we will no longer be liable under the European financial stabilisation mechanism, but that does not exonerate the arrangements that were made by the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the current Chancellor, not to mention the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary. In May 2010, as the former Chancellor makes clear in his book, they were all involved in endorsing the decision on the transitional arrangements between the outgoing Government and the current one. The illegality is shared by all members of the previous and current Governments.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend ascribes responsibility to a number of politicians, but what about the role of Sir Jon Cunliffe, our permanent representative in Brussels at that time? He had a key role in the matter, and since that time has been promoted.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend and others have pursued that relentlessly and still have no real answers. The truth of the matter is that a number of things were done at or around that time that many people now rather regret—let us put it that way. The fact that the EFSM is now described as “not needed” is disingenuous because people know perfectly well that it was illegal. That is not just my opinion—I make this comment to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood)—but the one reached by members of the European Scrutiny Committee as a whole in the light of what we heard.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

May I make a plea to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)? It is one thing to criticise Ministers or Government policy on the European Union, but will they please not direct criticism directly at named officials, who serve Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers loyally and to the best of their ability in the impartial tradition of the British civil service?

[Mr Cash]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend makes that point and I endorse it as a general principle, but instances occur periodically that require a certain amount of investigation and analysis. I did not entirely endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) in as many words, but I agree with him—and with others—that, at the time in question, decisions were taken that people now regret. I am glad that we have moved on from article 122 to the present European stability mechanism.

[Mr Douglas Alexander]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I would rather get on with my speech than continue to dwell on the outrageous decision taken, but I will certainly give way to the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Alexander]

First, may I identify myself with both the spirit and substance of the remarks offered by the Minister for Europe? Secondly, before the hon. Gentleman proceeds with his speech, does he accept that, notwithstanding his demand for continued investigations, one of his colleagues has perhaps fallen into error in suggesting that the named individual was the permanent representative in Brussels at that time? I think, in fact, that his predecessor was in post at the time when the decisions that are being discussed were reached.

[Mr Cash]

I cannot possibly comment, as they say, on that particular point because I am not aware of all the circumstances. Although mistakes were made, the point regarding the ESM is far more important. I accept that the EFSM is now in the past, but it was an unfortunate incident and all parties involved were culpable of allowing it to be endorsed as a proposal—it remained effective for far too long, with obligations on the United Kingdom and its taxpayers.

[Mark Reckless]

The individual concerned was a senior official in the Treasury at the time—I was referring to his current position. The Europe Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary have supported what their senior officials in a number of positions say, but if the House had had the chance to scrutinise the individual concerned, and if either the European Scrutiny Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee had been able to determine his appointment, we might be in a different position.

[Mr Cash]

We have probably gone through that in as much detail as is required or necessary on this occasion. My point is that it is not the case, as the Foreign Secretary and the papers to which he is religiously sticking state, that article 122 arrangements for the EFSM are no longer needed. That is not only disingenuous, but verging on something much worse. It is not just a question of them not being needed, but I will leave it at that for the time being.

The real question is on the problems that will emerge in practice from the continuous stream of payments and bailouts, putting heads in the sand and the complete abnegation of reality. It is clear—the most recent edition of The Economist indicates as much—that the euro will turn into a soft currency with high inflation. The general secretary of the CSU, the Bavarian party that makes up part of the coalition in Germany, accuses the European Central Bank—this is a far worse accusation than any regarding the EFSM—of becoming

“the currency forger of Europe”.

There are profound reasons for that accusation, which is made by one of the most senior members of the German coalition. I could spend a fair amount of time going through technical and legal points on the European Act 2011, the exemption conditions and the opinion of the Foreign Secretary, but the issue is much more serious than treading through the maze of legalities created by the Act. This is about the substance of the manner in which the European Union functions and fails.

I shall come to the attitudes of German voters later, but it is important that people throughout Europe recall, as Germans do, what happened in the 1930s and subsequently. The economy’s implosion and high inflation—evidence that the economy was completely out of kilter with reality—ultimately led to disaster and the emergence of Hitler from the Weimar republic. Those things are brought to mind by the CSU general secretary’s accusation that the ECB is becoming

“the currency forger of Europe”

to provide the scale of bailouts contemplated under the Bill and the treaty. Massively high inflation is caused by printing money when a country does not have it on the basis of how it runs its economy. No wonder only 24% of more than 1,000 German voters polled had confidence in the short-termism that such measures represent.

Angela Merkel is certainly bidding for a new European treaty—it has not been received with enthusiasm, but the treaty issue has not gone away. In December, there is a fair chance that she will come back for a new treaty that will effectively create yet another step towards political union. We know perfectly well—it is no longer taboo, although I have been saying it for the best part of 25 years and it is now reality—that Germany is now moving further and further towards political union, which it will largely dominate, although more and more Germans are against the bail-outs, even to the point at which, as The Economist suggested last week, Mr Weidmann is now seen increasingly as Angela Merkel’s Thomas à Becket, having been one of her most loyal supporters. This is a very serious matter, but the shadow Foreign Secretary simply does not see it. I asked him whether he agrees with Angela Merkel or with Mr Weidmann because that is what is at the heart of this Bill.

The worst of it is that in fact it is not going to work anyway. Mrs Angela Merkel knows that Mr Weidmann is right on economics, but she has her own agenda of political union as the centrepiece for the destiny of Germany, as she has repeatedly argued. It is not just Germany. Spain is rapidly following Greece over the euro cliff, with Italy not far behind, not to mention the continuing problems in Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus and a stack of other countries. It is even now becoming a problem in respect of the individual provinces in Spain—Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia and other regions are lining up while Spain dives into a double-dip recession. There simply is not the money to pay for the catastrophe that the European economic system has created.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it odd that we should lecture the eurozone about double-dip recessions when we are in one ourselves, created by the Government whom he purports to support?

[Mr Cash]

That is a very nice little intervention, because the reason we are in a double-dip recession—in so far as we are—is, first, the massive deficit that the hon. Gentleman’s Government left us with. Secondly, for reasons that I will explain, it is because of the massive deficit—as I said to both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary—that the European Union has with us. We are in such incredible deficit with the other 26 member states that it will be impossible for us to gain out of the 50% of our trade with them the growth that is needed to enable us to come out of recession and grow our economy.

I was disappointed, to say the least, that the problems with the eurozone were not even touched on in the exchanges between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Andrew Marr yesterday, when everybody knows that the failure of the UK economy is partly because of the deficit we inherited, but also because we cannot grow with a bankrupt European Union, with the exception of Germany. Indeed, half of our deficit with the other 26 member states is our deficit with Germany alone. So we have to be conscious that this is a real problem that needs to be resolved, and this Bill will do almost nothing except damage our economy.

Greece is currently in the throes of an EU-IMF economic investigation. One can almost hear the words of endorsement from the EU and the IMF before they have reported. I will be very surprised if they do not try to find some way to muddle through. As with the Bill and, I am afraid to say, the Government’s policy on Europe, real EU reform is off the agenda, as is a referendum.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is very free in his criticism of the IMF—

[Martin Horwood]

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to do better.

The hon. Gentleman is free with his criticism of the IMF and the EU and everyone else, but may I ask him a basic economic question? If not this, what? Does he advocate the chaotic disintegration of the eurozone? Does he ask the Germans not to seek guarantees for the finance they are providing for other European economies? Does he suggest that there should be no legal framework behind the necessary steps to tackle structural deficits in the eurozone countries? I can think of nothing that would more surely damn the whole European economy, including ours, than a chaotic disintegration of the eurozone.

[Mr Cash]

Again, I am grateful for the intervention because back in the 1990s during the passage of the Maastricht treaty—and I say this without any sense of self-satisfaction—I predicted that this is where we would end up. Massively high unemployment, riots in the streets, the rise of the far right and the implosion of the European economic system were all predicted in the Maastricht treaty debates. It is there in black and white. It is no good now saying that because those of us who took that position and made those predictions then were right that, somehow or other, we should say, “Well, that is just the past. Let us not worry about the present.” We are looking towards the future and we need to have an association of nation states based on the principle of consent by the voters, who have already expressed their views in repeated opinion polls and are denied referendums.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that almost exactly the same lines of argument and descriptions were applied back in 1990 to the same prophecies about the UK exit from the exchange rate mechanism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend is right. Those of us who argued that we should come out of the ERM were laughed at. But on that famous date, 15 September—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Golden Wednesday.

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, although it is known by others as Black Wednesday. However it is described, it saved our economy then.

To come back to the unemployment that has been inflicted by treaties that are not meant to be changed—the single currency is regarded as irrevocable—the youth unemployment level in Spain has moved beyond 52%, as it has in Greece. Other countries are moving in the same direction and the quack remedy contained in these bail-out provisions does not have enough snake oil in the bottle to make it even half realistic.

There are those, such as the coalition Government, who claim that under the arcane procedures of section 4(4) of the European Union Act 2011, we should vote for this arrangement because it will solve the euro crisis and—miracle of miracles—will not affect us. That is but a harrowing indication of the pain of hopelessness in the face of proven experience. There have been at least 20 economic summits in the past 24 months and not one has come up with a rational solution. All they ever do is promise more and more money that they do not have, with the implicit assumption that if they do not have it they will print it, and break the rule of law—the law laid down through the European Union that we implement under the European Communities Act 1972. Although we are not members of the eurozone, it certainly affects us, and it certainly affects the other European countries.

The explanatory memorandum to the 2011 Act, which I and many other colleagues here voted against, put down amendments to and did everything in our power to prevent from passing, because it simply was not going to work, stated that

“an Article 48(6) decision does not apply to the UK merely”—

I repeat “merely”—

“because it may have consequences for individuals or organisations within the UK, such as UK businesses.”

Believe it or not, that is given as a reason why a referendum is not required—because it would “merely” have an effect on UK businesses. That is on the astonishing grounds that although it has consequences for the daily lives of our voters and their small and medium-sized businesses, it is a mere detail that under the 2011 Act the Government can swat away with reference to “the opinion of the Foreign Secretary”. And that opinion cannot be properly challenged. Anyone who knows anything about administrative law knows that where an Act of Parliament states, “In the opinion of”, it effectively bars challenge in judicial review. I would be extremely surprised, therefore, if it was possible to set up a judicial review—I noted that the Foreign Secretary said that none had been forthcoming. People might well assume that because those words are in the Bill—it has not been enacted yet—there is no point in seeking to upset it because it will only have effect when it becomes an Act of Parliament.

The legislation goes further. Clause 1(3) explicitly states that the decision taken by the European Council on 25 March 2011 does not warrant a referendum, on the spurious grounds that it is the view of the Foreign Secretary, whose opinion once given cannot be effectively challenged, irrespective of the consequences for voters and UK businesses. I certainly concede that we are not part of the eurozone or directly contributing to the bail-out, but what is happening is having a devastating impact on our growth.

As I said in reply to an intervention a few moments ago and as I clearly demonstrated in an article I wrote for The Daily Telegraph on 14 August, I simply do not subscribe to the view that changes in planning law and ever-more Keynesian attempts to boost public spending will do anything if we do not sort out the problems with the single market. We are trading a monumental deficit with the EU, and it is doing immense damage to our economy. Trading with the EU is now like trading with a bankrupt company. The Bill will allow the drug of continual bail-outs, so heavily criticised by the President of the Bundesbank, with the involvement of the ECB, to drag Europe into an ever-deeper maelstrom. To then pretend that it does not affect us, when 50% of our trade is with the EU, is economic and political nonsense on stilts, which is why I voted against the proposals in 2011. Since then the situation has got worse and worse.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I nearly always agree, for giving way. However, if Europe is determined to follow an economic policy for the eurozone that is completely idiotic, there is no referendum in this country that could stop it. So I do not see what a referendum on this subject would do.

[Mr Cash]

I am merely arguing that, given the consequences of the mistakes being made and the damage they are causing to our economy, in the light of the 50% trading, we need to renegotiate the economic governance of Europe. The consequences of our not doing so would take us into the same kind of deep black hole that it is already in. I did not say, at this juncture of my speech, that I thought that a referendum on this issue would necessarily produce all the answers to that question. I am committed to the idea of a referendum on more general terms—with respect to the EU as a whole—but I take my hon. Friend’s point on that particular issue. I insist, however, that the European project needs to be renegotiated into an association of nation states, not unlike the European Free Trade Association in the EU, based on the principle of consent. That issue should be the subject of a referendum on the broader landscape of the direction in which the EU is taking us.

The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the exemption condition is met if the Bill, as enacted, states that the decision is not within section 4 of the 2011 Act. In other words, under the Bill, everything is fine, whatever the consequences, if Parliament is foolish enough to state in the Bill that what is patently absurd can possibly benefit the voters of the UK. I have pressed the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe for about 18 months on the proposals in the Bill. It is impossible for me to understand why a referendum on the broader landscape of the EU is not provided for, and I cannot understand why the Prime Minister continually reaffirms his commitment to this failing, unreformed EU project. I know that many other Members agree with me.

By the same token, as the UK appeases the EU and Germany, so Germany pushes up the ante of a radical vision of deep fiscal and political union for the EU as a whole, while the ESM evolves into a full European monetary fund. That is why I argued in my article that we must refocus our trading relationship. The shadow Foreign Secretary referred to the single market as the answer to our questions, although I admit that he qualified that by saying that other things needed to be done, but, among those things, as I said in a pamphlet I wrote last year called, “It’s the EU, Stupid”, we have to refocus our trading relationship with the rest of the world, given the massive deficit that exists between us and the member states, half of which is with Germany itself. We have real options for trading with the Commonwealth and the Americas. Indeed, last year alone we ran a surplus of £36 billion with the Americas, yet the Bill re-endorses the nonsensical view of Europe adopted by the Euro-elite, and our acquiescence in the Bill is part of our failure.

Only recently, 41% of German voters indicated to YouGov that they wanted to return to the deutschmark, and similar indications are growing in other countries, but with them are also growing dangerous moves towards the far right, which I constantly warned would be the consequence of breaking the rule of law in Europe and of creating the kind of situation we now face. Europe is in the throes of a massive schizophrenia, and at stake is not only the stability of democracy in Europe but of the stability of our democracy. In Germany and Ireland, the ESM is being taken to the courts—to the German constitutional court at Karlsruhe and to the European Court of Justice in respect of Ireland. I have to say, however, that past references of this kind give us little confidence that the legal route will solve the problem.

The rule of law, on which this whole edifice is based, is constantly being broken, not only on the article 122-EFSM basis but in respect of the stability and growth pact, which was broken by Germany and France in 2003. This is a challenge not only to the interests of the UK and other member states but to the rule of law in Europe as a whole. I most strongly urge the Government not to proceed with this Bill, and as it proceeds I will strongly urge all Members of Parliament to vote against it.

The treaty should have been vetoed, just as the Prime Minister rightly vetoed the fiscal compact. The figure of €500 billion or so that is being proposed has simply been plucked out of the air. Most serious commentators believe that the current crisis in Spain, Italy, Greece and elsewhere would need at least €2 trillion, and probably much more, yet it is simply not there. Given the evidence of the continually evolving euro crisis in those countries, €500 billion-plus—some suggest that the figure could be €700 billion—is peanuts compared with the billions that are wasted and is inadequate to deal with the problem that this failed European economic governance has created. It is about time that we put our foot down in this Parliament, because the issue affects those whom we represent in their daily lives and we increasingly gain so little from our deficit with the single market. In pursuit of their failed ideology, the euro integrationists call for more and more Europe, however much the problem lurches from one disaster to another. That is not remorseless logic; it is a remorseless path to disaster.

It is said that under the European Union Act 2011 a referendum is not required unless it involves a new power or competence affecting the UK. What does it take to hold a referendum when a Bill actively encourages the European Union to implode, with dreadful consequences not only for Europe, but for the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I would simply say to my hon. Friend that Britain is not bound by the ESM; it is very clear that only eurozone member states will be affected. Is it proportionate for us to stand in the way of those countries that are wrestling with and trying to decide what is going to happen with the euro? Is it proportionate for us to block that particular tweak to that treaty? I just do not feel that it is. I agree with him in that I want renegotiation and I want it, at some future point, to be put to a referendum. However, we need to pick our battles and pick our moments, and I think it is wrong to nit-pick over what I would regard as a small change.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend was kind enough to say that he agreed with my general analysis of the problems that have led, through the treaties, to the difficulties that the European Union as a whole now represents. That explains why giving more money to this particular fund and doing it in this manner is likely to exacerbate the deep black hole that has already been created. It affects us because we trade so much with the European Union.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I was going to deal with. I simply return to what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, as I do not think that by blocking this Bill we are going to stop the ESM. Other countries will continue, because they have decided that they need to do so to try to save the euro.

We also need to give the Government and the Prime Minister credit when they achieve things and make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and I would like to see faster progress made and a renegotiation sooner rather than later, but we should give the Government credit where they safeguard British interests and improve on the situation we inherited. We should not blame our own Government for the mistakes the previous Labour Government made. They engaged in sloppy negotiation, and, as a result, we ended up with the former arrangements in the EFSM. The situation has now been improved with the ESM and we should support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I might have agreed with my hon. Friend that the general sense of direction would lead to the conclusions he has drawn, but is he not conscious of the fact that Angela Merkel is now proposing a new union treaty—full political union and all the panoply that goes with that—which is likely to come forward in December?

[George Eustice]

It may come forward, but there will be better opportunities than this Bill to pick the moment to have that negotiation. This is not the Bill or the issue on which to say to other European countries, “Unless you give us a full-scale renegotiation, we are going to veto the proposal.” It is disproportionate to take that approach in this instance.

So much for the areas on which we disagree. I want to come on to some of the areas on which we are probably in agreement and to echo some of the points made. There is a big question about whether the ESM will be a solution to the crisis, or even part of one, and there is also doubt about whether there is any solution to the crisis gripping the eurozone. Although, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier, the polls in all the countries in the euro consistently show their wanting to stay in the currency, in reality they do not want to take the decisions or accept what the euro inevitably entails. That is where the real problem lies.

Let us consider Germany, for example. It is undoubtedly benefiting at the moment, almost freeloading on the other member states and enjoying a lower exchange rate than it would have if it had its own independent currency. The Germans have kidded themselves into believing that it is all down to German ingenuity and marvellous engineering, and granted they have made some improvements in their labour market and sorted out some of the structural problems in their economy in the past decade, but German industry is undoubtedly benefiting significantly from having a lower exchange rate than it would otherwise have. Meanwhile, countries such as Greece and Spain do not want to do what the euro entails in terms of fiscal discipline and so on. They have spent, borrowed a fortune and shown a complete lack of prudence over the past 10 years. Although such countries say that they want the euro, they do not want what the euro means, which is a real problem.

We should not stop member states trying to save the euro. If they want to save it and want to make that attempt, let us let them do it. I think the most likely scenario, however, is that the euro will be partially broken up and some member states will be allowed to leave it. Although I can understand that the Government would not want to entertain any such talk or to spook the markets by commenting on that idea—I do not expect the Minister will do so when he wraps up the debate—I hope that they are developing some serious contingency plans for handling a break-up of the euro, whether it is orderly or disorderly. Despite all the rhetoric when the euro was introduced about its ending volatility and being all about stability and stable growth, we might find that the conditions for stability and stable growth are best created by floating exchange rates, which can help countries adapt to shocks to their economies and changes in the world economy as well as to transition when things go wrong.

I was in the anti-euro no campaign and worked for it for four years, and I remember that a decade ago, when that debate was going on, many people who are now on the Opposition Benches—the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who is no longer in his seat, was one of them—accused us Eurosceptics of putting our heads in the sand and of saying, “Stop the world, I want to get off.” Who are the people who have their heads in the sand today? Who is in denial about the realities, particularly the financial realities, of the world in which we live? The fact is that the euro was an incredibly stupid idea. It was introduced only through a triumph of political belligerence on the part of people such as Chancellor Kohl and François Mitterrand over economic reasoning.

Economists at the time pointed out all of the problems that have come home to roost. They warned that there was a lack of convergence and that that was not just about the cyclical convergence of one’s economy and the levels of growth but, more fundamentally, about structural convergence, the make-up of one’s industries and the differences between economies. They were ignored. They warned that we would get asymmetric shocks to the world economy that would hit some countries worse than others, which would cause tensions in the euro, but they were ignored. They warned that to work properly the euro would require fiscal union and fiscal integration, that it would require very painful long-term adjustments in the absence of an exchange rate that could help people through those adjustments, that countries on the periphery would face prolonged periods of high unemployment and would be forced to cut wages, and that we would have to accept large migrations of people within the European Union from deprived areas to areas that were succeeding under the euro. Those warnings have all come true, but they were all dismissed at the time.

The final thing that everybody pointed out when the euro was debated was that we needed political union to make the euro a success, so that there was clarity in decision making. That has been proved right, too, because despite the warning from those on the pro-euro side that we would not have a seat at the table, all we have at the moment is 17 member states around a table squabbling and unable to reach a clear and coherent decision. That is one reason the euro continues to limp forward.

We need to learn the lessons. Why were all those economists ignored? Why was there so much mindless, blind faith in the idea that the euro was somehow historically inevitable? We still see that from some Members on the pro-euro side. The lesson we must learn is that nothing is inevitable. It is not inevitable that the euro will survive, but nor is it inevitable that it will collapse. The idea of ever closer union is certainly not inevitable any more and it is not inevitable that Britain will always be alone as the only country on the outside talking sense. I think it is quite likely that we will gain allies and that our ideas will start to gain traction.

There was a failure under the previous Labour Government and the truth about new Labour is that an unquestioning pro-Europeanism was almost an article of faith. Anti-Europeanism was blamed for the fact that they were not elected during the 1980s and that association was targeted at people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), with whom I have campaigned on this issue many times. That perspective on Europe was very unquestioning and unprincipled. It was simply a political line to take, with no intellectual rigour, and it led to Tony Blair and the previous Labour Government simply going with the flow on whatever emerged on the European agenda.

This Government have made a very good start. The European Union Act 2011 was much more significant than many people on the Government Benches give it credit for, but we need to develop it and to build on what has been achieved to forge a new doctrine for the future of the European Union. That doctrine must end the dogma of ever closer union and encourage the idea of a multi-tier Europe—a pick-and-choose Europe where countries are able to adopt the policies they want and withdraw from those that they do not like and do not work for them. Too often in the past, we faced the problem of people saying that we would not have enough allies to make a point because there were not enough countries to support us. We need to leave such attitudes behind, because unless we begin the debate now we will never end up in the right place. We should be articulating a proactive vision of an alternative European Union, which does not require deeper integration in one direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I start by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. To the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) I say that I will be happy to send her a copy of an article that I published in The Sun on Sunday earlier this year, which set out in good, plain English the case that I have consistently made for a constructive, critical and engaged approach by the United Kingdom in the European Union.

As several hon. Members have said—especially my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—it is important to note that we are debating this initiative to change the European Union treaties in the context of a debate on primary legislation. In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) questioned whether the European Union Act 2011 had made any difference. He was correct to state that in the case of treaty changes that were agreed before 2008, treaty amendments could be approved here only through primary legislation, but in 2008 the law was changed. At the same time as the Lisbon treaty was being taken through by the then Government, they provided in section 6(1)(a) of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 that all that would be needed henceforward to approve the use of the simplified revision procedure would be for each House of Parliament to approve a Government motion without amendment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset pointed out with characteristic acuity, there is a considerable difference between the kind of detailed examination and debate that takes place on the Floor of the House during the various stages of proceedings on primary legislation and the brief 90-minute or two-hour debate on a motion tabled under the provisions of the 2008 legislation. I would hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, whatever our differences on one or two other matters to do with the EU, would acknowledge that the 2011 Act has made an important and significant difference in restoring the central role of Parliament and, in particular, the Chamber of the House of Commons, as the place where things as important and significant as European treaty amendments can be considered in full. The disgrace is that the 2008 legislation sought to take those powers away from Parliament in the first place.

Before moving to the content of the Bill, I want briefly to respond to some of the points made by hon. Members during the debate. I turn first, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East said that she had returned from the summer break feeling invigorated and ready for the European fray once again. I have descended from the mountains of Snowdonia full of enthusiasm and relish to debate with my hon. Friend once again. I agreed with a fair measure of his analysis, and I think that most of those who contributed to this debate, from whatever party, agreed that the euro was created without sufficient thought being given to ensuring the stability of the single currency area, given that there was not the degree of fiscal, economic and political integration normally expected in a currency area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone warned in stark terms that the current eurozone crisis contained not only profound economic risks but significant—he would probably say dangerous—political challenges, and he has been consistent in arguing those points. I am one of those survivors on the Government Benches who has vivid memories of his contributions at 5 o’clock in the morning during proceedings on the Maastricht legislation in 1992-93. I agree that the crisis facing the euro presents the eurozone countries with important political as well as economic challenges. If it is agreed to centralise or co-ordinate decisions on some of the fundamentals of economic policy, it also has to be decided how those decisions, which are so important to the citizens of the countries concerned, are to be made democratically accountable. There is, then, a political, as well as an economic challenge, for our friends and neighbours in the eurozone.

It would be foolish, however, for British politicians to assume that the leaders and voters in other EU member states will necessarily respond to those political challenges in the same way as the UK electorate might be expected to do. Each European country has its own historical experience and economic and geographical particularities to take into account.

Let me take, for example, the conversations I had with members of the Governments of the three Baltic republics during my visits there. One of the things that they were keen to make clear to me was that although they certainly valued and cherished their hard won independence—the reclamation of their freedom—they also saw the integration of the European Union not as a threat, but as a way to entrench their European and democratic identity, so that never again could they be pulled back towards an eastern alignment or towards Russian influence, which they still feared, for understandable historical reasons.

Let us take Germany, which is a very different case. Where I parted company with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was when he spoke of Germany. I do not think it was his intention, but some of the phrases he used came across in such a way as to present Germany as somehow having sinister intentions towards the rest of Europe. However, whenever one speaks to German politicians, from whichever political party they come, what one finds striking is that they see support for European integration as a means of providing reassurance to their neighbours that Germany is not going to go off on some nationalist course again; that France, the Netherlands and other countries that were occupied by Germany in the mid-20th century would see Germany’s commitment to European institutions and European methods of governance as a reassurance to them, not a threat.

[Mr Cash]

If I may make just a short observation about my right hon. Friend’s remarks, it is, fundamentally, that in my judgment Germany is very concerned about government by rule, whereas we in the United Kingdom are much more concerned about government by consent. The fundamental problem is one of democracy, as illustrated by the fact that about 99% of the Bundestag agreed to all the arrangements, yet we know from opinion polls what percentage of the German people take a different view. It is that dichotomy which causes concern, and there are other factors in relation to Angela Merkel’s agenda.

[Mr Lidington]

I do not want to get drawn into a detailed debate about a comparative political analysis between the British and German approaches. Let me say briefly to my hon. Friend, first, that when Germany looks at her history, she has good reasons for looking to firm rules and strong institutions, such as the constitutional court. Secondly, it is not completely unknown for the House of Commons to vote by a large majority in favour of something that every opinion poll tells it the majority of the British public opposes, so I do not think we should get too hung up on there being some vast difference in democratic interpretation between the two nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Ultimately, it has to be for the electorate in each country to decide on the extent to which they want to take part in integration. My experience over the past two years of talking to Government leaders and other politicians in the other 26 countries, as well as following—as far as one can—the movement of opinion among the public in those countries, tells me that there is a greater level of support or toleration for Europe’s political and economic integration than there tends to be in the UK. I am generalising, of course, and there are significant differences among the 26 countries, but the historical experience of the United Kingdom in the 20th century differs from that of much of continental Europe, which helps to explain the difference in political attitudes towards European integration.

Various hon. Friends have raised a number of points during the debate, to which I wish to respond. My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Rochester and Strood both asked why the measure that we are debating today should be exempt from the requirement in the European Union Act 2011 for a referendum. The Act requires a referendum to be held when European Union treaties are changed in such a way as to create a transfer of competence or power from the United Kingdom to the European Union. The plain fact is that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for North East Somerset pointed out, this measure does not transfer any such power or competence from this country to the institutions of the European Union. It does not even apply to the United Kingdom.

The amendment that we are debating is an amendment to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which is the first article under chapter 4 of that treaty. That chapter is entitled “Provisions specific to Member States whose currency is the euro”. So, in that important legal treaty sense, this measure does not apply to the United Kingdom, although our ratification is needed to bring it into effect. Because it does not apply to us and does not transfer power or competence, there is no requirement for a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

My two hon. Friends have made other related comments, to which I would like to reply first. If they then wish to intervene on me, I will give way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) said that the referendum pledge in the 2011 Act was meaningless because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary could, in effect, decide on a whim whether a referendum was needed or not. They made reference to the requirement in the Act for the Secretary of State to make and publish a decision on whether a referendum was required. Those fears are wide of the mark, however. The Secretary of State is not permitted to act on a whim; he has to act in accordance with the law, and it is the 2011 Act that sets out in some detail precisely when a referendum is required. In making the statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State must say whether the referendum is or is not required under the terms of the Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, in asking why no referendum was required in this case, pointed to what he saw as a contradiction in the Government’s approach. I need to divide my response to him into two parts. Paragraph 3 of the recitals or preamble to the decision of 25 March 2011 formally recalls the previous decision by the European Council that article 122(2) would no longer be needed and “should not be used”. The text of the decision comes after paragraph 6 of the recitals and is introduced by the words “has adopted this decision:”. The text of the amendment to the treaties is what is being ratified by this Bill. So the 2011 Act bites on the amendment to the treaties, which is the narrow addition to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This measure would attract a referendum if it included one or more of the elements listed in sections 4(1) to 4(3) of the 2011 Act. Those subsections, which provide quite a long list, define what we mean by a transfer of competence or powers. This treaty amendment does not include any of those elements that require a referendum, so we do not require a referendum in this case.

[Mr Cash]

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is in a labyrinth and that it will take more than the minotaur to get him out of it. The problem is that, as the Bill’s explanatory notes clearly state, the exemption condition, which is what we are talking about,

“is met if the Act”—

the Bill, as enacted—

“providing for the approval of the decision states that the decision does not fall within section 4 of the Act.”

The bottom line is that the Government’s ultimate defence that they have got the process right is that under the Act the very decision that is taken is endorsed by Parliament when it passes the Bill; it is not about whether or not the provisions have been complied with. Clause 1(3) states that the

“decision does not fall within section 4 of the European Union Act 2011”.

In other words, we are being told, “Do not argue with me Back Benchers, because in this Act, when it goes through, that is final.” That is the bottom line of this provision.

[Mr Lidington]

That part of the Bill is included because it is a requirement of the 2011 Act that we bring this to Parliament to ask it to ratify formally the Government’s judgment as to whether or not a referendum is required. However, that judgment by the Government—that opinion embodied in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—followed a very careful analysis of the treaty amendment in the light of the provisions of the 2011 Act. Obviously I regret bitterly that I have clearly been unsuccessful in playing the role of Ariadne to guide my hon. Friend out of a labyrinth, but I somewhat suspect that he is not that keen to extract himself from it. The one thing he has not challenged me on is whether the treaty amendment contains any of the transfers of power or competence to the European Union from the United Kingdom specified in sections 4(1) to 4(3) of the 2011 Act. I am sure that we will have the delightful opportunity of pursuing those points further in Committee.