Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Debate between William Cash and Mark Reckless

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a privilege and an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). He spent six years as a Foreign Office lawyer and has a family back story that is perhaps more exotic than that of many on the Government Benches. Over the past half hour, he has, with his searing intellect, differentiated the small print, which he understands as well if not better than anyone in the House, from the key principles, which he enunciated. In particular, he concluded that we can achieve outside EU structures, albeit slightly more slowly in a few instances, what we can achieve within them, but without the downsides to liberty and democracy that are implied if we remain within those structures. He has done us a great service.

My hon. Friend spoke of the European arrest warrant. I felt that he spoke from the current centre of gravity within the Conservative party. He mentioned that the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, concluded that the EAW was “fundamentally flawed”, but did not mention that the Liberal Democrat member of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), voted to remove the word “fundamentally” from our report. I am delighted that Conservative members voted that proposal down unanimously.

It was instructive to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). I intervened on him to ask how many people he would be prepared to see kept in custody wrongfully in order, supposedly, to bring 100 guilty people to justice, but he did not answer. He has great hopes that there will be some new EU directive that will stop all those bad things happening and properly protect everyone’s rights: as long as we legislate, people will be protected in practice and we need worry ourselves no more. However, we also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), whose constituent, Andrew Symeou, came to the Home Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend said that the proposals will not work and cannot be trusted, and that they will be judiciable by the European Court of Justice and subject to the proposals of the European Commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, the problems that have been seen in the old member states may be not just replicated but worse in the new member states. How many people would the Liberal Democrats be prepared to see wrongfully imprisoned to get 100 crooks bang to rights? Alas, there are no Liberal Democrats here to answer my question. They tell us that they believe in the civil liberties of the British citizen, but when it comes down to it they always put the European Union and their belief in Europe, right or wrong, before the liberties of the British citizen.

Today, we debate a motion on an opt-out. We have heard an awful lot of discussion on what we might opt into, but the motion actually reads:

“That this House has considered the UK’s 2014 justice and home affairs opt-out decision.”

It is important to understand that the opt-out has been agreed. Parliament has voted to exercise the opt-out. All this talk about opt-ins is speculative. We may or may not opt back into some, any, or none of these measures—that remains to be seen. The status quo ante is that we have opted out, we have exercised it and that we have that great repatriation of powers. We will have to see whether it will be undone, or whether it will be maintained.

The great worry of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who is not in his place, is that we may sleepwalk, or accidently fall, out of the measures he would like to be in. I think he underestimates the degree of planning that went into delinking the two matters. A number of motions and draft motions were put on the Order Paper, and others were discussed between the coalition parties. Ultimately, the motion we voted on was to exercise the mass opt-out. There has been no decision by the House to approve any measures to opt back in. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, because the amour propre of Select Committees was also involved. The result of the decisions to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge signed up was that the mass opt-out and any opt-ins were delinked. Crucially, one came before the other.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge seemed to be concerned that there might not be agreement in this House on what we might opt back into. One fear was that, as he sees it, the Labour party might play political games and that it would like us to opt back into more than the Government might wish. If, as with the Syria vote, Labour Members vote for their own motion or amendment, rather than voting for the Government motion, and it fails, there might be no agreement on any set of measures to opt back in to. The Home Secretary told us about her negotiations with her European partners and the Commission. Have there been negotiations with those on the Opposition Front Bench on whether they will support the package the Government put before the House, or does she believe that she has enough votes from Government Members to drive through measures to integrate this country into the European Union in a way that we have not seen before?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge worries that this may come unstuck if the Government cannot reach agreement on what the measures should be. There has been discussion and there may be understanding but, as the Home Secretary rightly says, we do not know what we will be able to negotiate until we go through the process. We read in The Daily Telegraph today the concerns of a number of our partners about even a very modest proportionality test for the European arrest warrant. There will have to be further discussions between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on whether an agreement can be reached in the coalition on what the Government want to opt back into and what is put before this House as a motion.

Those discussions and any decisions are likely to come after 22 May, when we consult the electorate in the European and local elections. That is when our constituents will have their chance to pass judgment on politicians, and, in particular, on the self-proclaimed “party of in”, which has made great play of these supposedly co-operative measures. The president of ACPO is quoted, and reference is made to whatever the police want. I remember the previous Prime Minister Tony Blair saying that if the police ask for something, there is nothing that any responsible Prime Minister can do except to give it to them. That, surely, is the definition of a police state.

We hear about the ACPO evidence, but I understand that people in ACPO have been fighting to avoid this portfolio. When Sir Hugh Orde talks about the ACPO position on EU matters—he may continue doing so for at least the next few months—it is not because the police consider them to be so terribly important that Sir Hugh must talk about them, but, I fear, it is because other chief constables have learnt the lessons from the noble Lord Blair. If they intrude into politics and tell the public and politicians that they have to vote a certain way so that they can lock people up for 90 days without charge—to say nothing of police vans festooned with “Vote Labour” stickers—there will be a backlash, because the police should not get involved in politics to that degree.

Unfortunately, with the European investigation order and the new statute for Europol, we have the prospect of our police being ordered what to do by politico-judicial structures in other EU countries where the separation of politics and operational policing is not what it is in this country. Do we, as a country, want to make a trade-off that allows British citizens to be arrested on the say-so of magistrates in Greece or Bulgaria and locked up for many months, if not years, in prisons that do not meet the standards that we in this country consider to be acceptable? Fundamentally, that is a matter for us as politicians, not the police.

[Mr Cash]

Many examples have been given of perceived injustices as a result of the European arrest warrant being applied in other countries. For example, is my hon. Friend aware that, under the European arrest warrant, a man from a neighbouring Staffordshire constituency was convicted in Italy, in absentia, for a murder that he could not have committed, because he was serving in a restaurant at the time, and sentenced to 15 years? It is definitely not just a one-way street.

[Mark Reckless]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that example to the attention of the House. It goes to show that in principle we cannot sign up to the European arrest warrant, because we do not have a sufficient degree of trust in the similarity and protections of all EU 27 judicial and policing systems to allow us to do that. People in our country deserve and have had, over centuries, protections that are greater than those now offered within the European arrest warrant. It is for that reason that I hope and believe it is still possible that we will choose not to opt back into it.

The Home Secretary has given her view, but there are many views in the Conservative party. Those views are held not just on the Back Benches, but, I know, deep in the most senior levels of Government. I ask that we listen to the electorate. Once the electorate, on 22 May, passes its judgment on the “party of in”, and on how weak their arguments are, with the Deputy Prime Minister just recycling arguments he has picked up without giving any liberal thought as to what they are or what the principles should be, we will see that this is not what the people in this country want. Ultimately, we still have the right to make a different decision. What we have seen with the opt-out we have already made is that the opt-ins are still to come. One analogy that Members, at least in my party, may find instructive is with regard to what happened over the AV referendum and the boundary changes. We agreed, in good faith, to give the Liberal Democrats their referendum on AV. In return, they agreed to later give us boundaries that would give fair representation across constituencies. They banked their AV referendum, and then did not give us the boundaries that there was, at the very least, an understanding that they would give.

I would argue that the mass opt-out equates to the AV referendum in that analogy. I do not think that we would have any more reason to agree later to opt in to matters in which we do not believe because of that opt-out than the Liberal Democrats had to give us our boundaries because they secured their AV referendum; and I think that after 22 May, we will be in a different political situation.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend has made a very sensible point. I think that, as we get nearer to the election, we need to differentiate between what we believe in as Conservatives and what we have been forced to agree to by the need to be in harness with the Liberal Democrats. Given that they have not fulfilled their promises to us, and as we discover in the course of our negotiations with our European partners that we may not be able to secure protections in every area in which we would like to secure them, we shall have to consider, in those new circumstances, the balance of the opt-ins that are proposed, and decide whether we, as Conservatives, wish to agree to them.

[Mr Cash]

There is yet another example. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party agreed to allow the European Union (Referendum) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to complete its passage in the House of Commons, but when it reached the House of Lords, those same two parties made certain that it would not be passed, and we now understand that the Liberal Democrats are refusing to allow a money resolution to be tabled in respect of any future Bill that may be subject to the Parliament Acts.

[Mark Reckless]

I think the Liberal Democrats will ultimately find that as we act to others, so they will act to us.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between William Cash and Mark Reckless

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This has been a classic example of scrutiny going wrong, not from the point of view of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee or the Justice Committee, but from the point of view of the way in which the Government have handled it. We have been through these matters over the past week, and they are being given a great deal of consideration. I am glad to say that we have had the opportunity to meet the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) described. She has listened, and made changes to the original motion, which would have severely prejudiced the scrutiny by this House that takes place in line with the principles that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) set out. Those principles are fundamental to the running of our affairs in this House that relate to the European Union. There was a danger that the scrutiny process set up under the requirements of our Standing Orders was going to be completely bypassed, but the Home Secretary has listened and we have made some progress.

There is another amendment, to which the right hon. Member for Leicester East referred, and I urge the Government to accept it. If they do not do so, I strongly urge Members on both sides of the House to vote for it. It would be unfortunate if the Government were obdurate and said that they were not prepared to accept it, in opposition to the views not only of three Select Committee Chairmen but of many others who form part of the Liaison Committee, who I have reason to believe would want to support the amendment.

The Government’s motion states that they would

“seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so”.

As it happens, at this juncture nobody is in a position to form a judgment about what is or is not in the national interest because the scrutiny process has not taken place. If we are to have a scrutiny process that means anything, combining the three views of the respective Select Committees, it is simply not possible or practical for a decision to be taken until those matters have been properly considered.

[Mark Reckless]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has noticed some consternation among Liberal Democrat Members who think it is always and everywhere in the national interest to opt into anything that the European Union is doing.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

No, I would not accept that for a minute. I was prepared for a repetitious intervention later, but my hon. Friend got in early. I must make some progress, and I will deal with his point.

The situation is the complete opposite of what my hon. Friend says. Under Maastricht—that great success hailed from the rooftops by an ex-Prime Minister who called it game, set and match to Britain—we had intergovernmental procedures and pillared structures, meaning that the Commission and the European Court of Justice would not be involved in foreign and justice and home affairs matters; they would be dealt with solely on an intergovernmental basis. Unfortunately, those pillars have been chipped away at, and with the Lisbon treaty, they were knocked over, hence today’s motion. The previous Labour Government could not say that the constitution was exactly the same as the Lisbon treaty—I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that making out the two were different was one of the few face-saving fig leaves they picked on—and now these areas are being folded into the treaty structure originally envisaged under the Maastricht treaty. Rather than an opt-out from 130-odd measures, as the idea is styled, the proposal was—until the acceptance earlier of amendment (b), which was very significant—to opt into Commission enforcement of ECJ jurisdiction in 35 measures, including almost all of the most important.

[Mr Cash]

I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I can well remember how some years ago at Oxford, at the time of the Maastricht treaty, he was able to participate in debates and discussions on these very issues. We were in complete agreement then, and have remained so ever since.

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, but that was partly because I and others benefited greatly from the instruction of my hon. Friend, and I now very much enjoy working with him on these issues.

There has been a sea change in how these issues are seen in this country. We talk about a zone of

“freedom, security and justice without internal borders”,

but many of the problems that the European arrest warrant and other provisions are meant to tackle are problems only because of the free movement within the EU that has led to many people from particular EU countries coming to these shores. I welcome enormously our apparent bilateral co-operation with the Romanian police. Apparently, there is an encampment of Romanians around Hyde Park corner and Marble Arch, and we are getting assistance from the Romanian police to deal with that, but were it not for the treaty rights and freedom of movement, we could deport these people.

The Immigration Minister said earlier that he did not want to criminalise being an illegal immigrant, because the objective was to get them back to their home countries. Similarly here, rather than give up our system of justice and have it administered at a supranational level, we ought to be able to deal with these extradition requests—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) informs us that 95% of them are for nationals of other countries—simply by deporting them to their countries. We do not need an extradition arrangement. If a national of a third country is creating problems in this country or if we have evidence from another state that they would like them back to deal with one of these issues, we should be able to deport them. We do not need something administered and overseen by the ECJ with enforcement powers, via the Commission, to deal with these issues.

We have heard about the protections under the EAW. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) is no longer here, so I guess I will not be taking an intervention from him on this issue. We have read, however, about what these protections are. On pre-trial detention, the Home Secretary told us:

“Other hon. Members have expressed concerns about lengthy and avoidable pre-trial detention. I will amend our Extradition Act 2003 to ensure that people in the UK can be extradited under the European arrest warrant only when the requesting state has already made a decision to charge and a decision to try”.

That sounds good, but she then continued:

“unless that person’s presence is required in that jurisdiction for those decisions to be made.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 178.]

Even that protection, therefore, is inoperable in some member states—and, I fear, some of the member states that might give rise to some of the greatest problems in this regard. Even if we have that protection, however, the whole thing is susceptible to the ECJ. The ECJ will decide what it means, not us.

Ever since, under the Single European Act, we have had majority voting on health and safety matters, and we saw employment law suddenly become a matter of health and safety, meaning that European institutions, rather than Parliament, can determine what happens in this country, I have been sceptical about the ECJ. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who is probably more knowledgeable about these issues than any other Member, rightly drew our attention to the Metock judgment and what that meant for Ireland and, by implication, other member states in terms of our powers—or now our absence of powers—over matters of immigration. Were we to opt back in and were we not to vote to leave the EU, we would be putting these 35 areas irrevocably under the control of the Commission and the ECJ. I simply cannot believe that that is right.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:

“we will negotiate for a return of powers in criminal justice. We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges.”

The point, though, is that we cannot do that when something is susceptible to the final judgment of the ECJ. The Prime Minister also said:

“our legal system is here to protect our citizens, and that protection should be given up only if we can really trust the legal systems of other states.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 196.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said that the arrest warrants built such trust, but I think the opposite is often the case. There are several member states in whose criminal justice systems I and many colleagues do not have that trust, and without it we should not be putting the rights and liberties of British citizens in their hands.

In his first full year in the House, the Prime Minister, talking about the EAW, said that

“the Home Secretary would have to say, ‘I am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail. Weeks may pass before you are even charged with an offence that is not a crime in this country. But there is nothing I can do about it.’”—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 109.]

Thankfully, there is now something he can do about it. I was reading a comment by the noble Lord Hannay, who serves on the House of Lords EU Select Committee, which people quote with great authority. He said that the planned opt-outs were

“defunct, dross or things that have no impact”,

whereas staying in the arrest warrant was a “huge prize”. That was why I was initially so concerned about the motion: it referenced both Command Paper 8671 and those 35 measures, including the EAW, and would have given the imprimatur of this House to opting back into the EAW. I am delighted that that is no longer the case. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, who is in his place, and the Government as a whole for accepting the amendment tabled by the three aforementioned Select Committee Chairs. In particular, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), because he has placed principle before party.

The sequencing is important. Tonight, we have a clean motion to exercise the block opt-out. Anything further will be for the future; there might be a second blip and consideration of what we want to opt back into. The Government have set out, in a document, a preliminary view, but it is no more than that. The House has not taken note of it, let alone approved it.

A week ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) came into the Home Affairs Select Committee beaming after the Home Secretary’s statement to the House, but earlier he referred merely to his “hope” that we might opt back into the EAW.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the driving force that lay behind the necessity for the Chairmen of the three Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee, to ensure that this took place, was driven by the very thing he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) were talking about earlier? Those of us who believe in the parliamentary sovereignty of this place know that this is more about the United Kingdom than it is about Europe. We have to stick to the fourth Bloomberg principle, which is that national Parliaments are the root of our democracy.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The constitutional principles to which he draws attention are far more important than any temporary coalition deal that may or may not have been stitched up. If it was stitched up, it has become unstitched. Instead of a motion to have a block opt-out tied to a motion on what we would opt back into, including the European arrest warrant, we now have one decision followed by another. I trust that the decision we have now on the block opt-out will be the same as the decision on an alternative vote referendum. I hope we will have learnt our lessons and that any decision on what, if anything, is in the national interest to opt back into is delayed, rather as our Liberal Democrat colleagues reconsidered what had been stated with respect to boundary changes.

I look forward to the debates in this House, the reports of the Select Committees, the legal issues, or the potential for judicial review that we discussed, and, I hope, consideration by the Prime Minister of where we have come to. Today we have an opinion poll that shows my party level with the Labour party. We have a party that is strongly united behind the Prime Minister’s agenda, as set out in his Bloomberg speech. With this block opt-out, we can keep that as long as we do not opt in to what I consider to be the most damaging to and undermining of the traditional liberties of the people of this country. I took great heart from what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said: he said that he was going to consider carefully the merits of an opt-in to the European arrest warrant, and that he has strict and high hurdles for what assurances would be required even to consider that that could be in the national interest. I know that his views will be persuasive to many colleagues. Instead of making the decision today, we should decide just to opt out on a block basis and leave for some time after tomorrow—perhaps many months from now—the decision on what, if anything, to opt back into. I congratulate the Government on their revised approach.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between William Cash and Mark Reckless

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is an extremely important debate, but I am sorry to have to say that the Government did their best to prevent it from being held on the Floor of the House. Speaking as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I feel that that must be put on the record. It was very unfortunate, to say the least, and no doubt the Committee will consider it when we meet next Wednesday.

Having said that, I must add that this is an opportunity to put in context the tributes that should be, and indeed have been, paid not just to Margaret Thatcher but to Alan Walters and all who took part in the Maastricht rebellion, and also to those who have fought so tenaciously throughout the accretion of these treaties, from the early days until the present time. I use that collective term because many new Members who are in the Chamber now—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for St Albans (Mrs Main), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—are apprised of the seriousness of the situation, as indeed we were at that time.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 was passed 20 years ago as a result of a very tense debate about these questions. In the last 20 months, there have been at least 20 economic summits in an attempt to unravel the dysfunctional nature of the economic requirements with which we are having to comply, in the context of the convergence criteria and as set out in papers that have been placed before the House. I imagine that many Members have not had an opportunity to read those papers, but they have been placed in the Vote Office for the benefit of those who wish to do so.

While we are dealing with the consequences of the Maastricht treaty, I want to take the opportunity to put on record a correction to a book by the former Chief Whip in the House of Commons, Lord Renton. After making some fairly disobliging remarks about certain Members—I need not ignore the fact that I was one of those of whom he did not particularly approve—he wrote that

“the vehicle for their resistance was the parliamentary approval for the Treaty of Maastricht.”

He went on to observe, astonishingly,

“Although this had been signed by their heroine, Margaret Thatcher, they revelled in defying three-line whips in order to vote against its enactment into British law”.

That is complete and total arrant nonsense. Margaret Thatcher did not sign the Maastricht treaty, although she certainly became a patron of the Maastricht referendum campaign, which I organised along with Bryan Gould and a Liberal Democrat Member who represents one of the Devon seats. However, the present Prime Minister himself has now said that there should have been a referendum on that treaty, and I believe that, had there been one, we would have won. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was one of the leading campaigners in the House of Lords for the referral of the treaty to a referendum, but his campaign was defeated by a monstrous whipping operation, with the result that we are where we are.

There was a complete refusal to listen to what was said at the time, and there has been a complete refusal to listen to what has been said ever since. I fear that the coalition is still not listening, although it is now clear as crystal that our predictions were right and that riots, massive unemployment, the rise of the far right and the failure of the system are destroying not only the European economy but Britain’s prospects for growth. I shall say more about growth in a moment, because it is fundamental to the issue that we are discussing.

[Mark Reckless]

As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister now says that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Does he recall that the Prime Minister was at the time a special adviser to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Margaret Thatcher and who refused to sign the treaty? A junior Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), had to go and do it instead.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between William Cash and Mark Reckless

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think this is just a cynical move, even though there is an element of that. As I find when I go to meetings with those in the presidency, there is a recognition: they know they cannot go on spending money that is not there. That is the truth. That is all this argument is really about. It is about the big landscape of whether, like Mr Micawber, we can just hope something will turn up. It will not; it has to be built through real growth policies.

Unfortunately, the report the European Commission produced only a few months ago shows it has not got a clue how to generate that growth. I was also deeply disturbed to see that the amazing report by the European Parliament calling for all these increases was welcomed by the vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefcovic. He said the MFF was “an investment budget” for delivering growth in “the entire EU.” He condemns himself outright simply by endorsing the 150 pages of unadulterated rubbish that came out of the European Parliament in its interim report.

[Mark Reckless]

Even for those in the House who are genuine Keynesians, if our goal is to stimulate the economy is it possible to think of a worse way to spend money than the way the MFF sets out for the EU?

[Mr Cash]

I absolutely agree. The real problem is that their answer is to give more money to the public sector and to ventures and projects that, as the Court of Auditors report shows, increasingly fail. The trouble is that the European project is a failing project.

They will not recognise that, so what are they doing? They are saying, “We are going to go off and have a federal Europe.” Well, let them have it. They can have their federal Europe if they want, but we, in this country, cannot possibly be part of it—that is unthinkable. The Prime Minister knows it is unthinkable, and my genuine belief is that he will come to discover that it would be better to veto this and to ensure it does not go through, because he has already been presented with the crossroads. The crossroads was presented by Mr Barroso, and the crossroads is being presented by the other member states. There is no turning back. We therefore have to say no. We say no to this, we say no to the illegal banking regulations that we have just been looking at and we will be saying no to the proposals for any new treaty. If we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is and actually say that we will not accept this, we will be serving the national interest.

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

Debate between William Cash and Mark Reckless

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Remuneration of EU Staff

Debate between William Cash and Mark Reckless

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is nodding vigorously, because it was simply staggering. There we were, faced with a huge European financial crisis, and all people were doing was getting up, one after another, and demanding more and more money.

There is so much common ground in the House that I am happy to be brief and allow my hon. Friends to explain their points of view and concerns. I am conscious of the fact that I have had quite a few opportunities to do so. However, I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently signed a joint letter with Mr Rajoy, the Prime Minister of Spain, and other EU leaders. It is also signed by the Prime Ministers of a number of Nordic and Baltic countries, together with the Polish Prime Minister. It is about building up a sense of alliance, and it is reported in today’s Financial Times under the headline, “Cameron steps up moves to rebuild links with Europe”. I trust that that is being done on an entirely realistic basis.

For example, to return to the point that I made to the Economic Secretary, I hope that the group getting a blocking minority and voting consistently against the measures in question will include a sufficient number of member states to ensure that the Commission cannot get away with what is no more or less than the manipulation of the rather arcane formulae contained in the regulations. The European Scrutiny Committee is deeply concerned about the situation, as other Members will be.

I entirely agree that the European Commission’s analysis is faulty, and it is also completely out of date, to say the very least. I am being rather generous in saying that, because it has fitted the facts to what it wants to hear. That is why the Committee describes what it has done as “self-serving”. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, there is also the problem that the Commission is the judge and jury in its own case.

We must also consider what we might expect to get from the European Court of Justice. Serious questions often arise about whether many of its decisions are taken on too much of a political basis rather than a strictly juridical one.

[Mark Reckless]

On a recent visit to Brussels, I had the pleasure of meeting the civil servant who negotiated the package in question. He was absolutely up front in saying to me that his role was to do the best for his colleagues. Having done that so successfully, he was promoted. What more do we need to know to see that the EU is run for the benefit not of its members but of its staff?

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, and that is far too much of an endemic problem throughout the EU. We know about the case of Marta Andreasen, who was one of the chief accounting officers in the EU some time ago and had the temerity to challenge the basis on which its administration in the Court of Auditors was being run. She was sacked. Before that, there was Bernard Connolly. I am given to understand today that in Greece the chief representative for EUROSTAT, who has to operate within its regulations, is under siege and under incredible personal pressure, and may even be taken to court because he has taken unpopular decisions.

The problem lies in the idea of acting as judge and jury and being self-serving when the whole of Europe is in a state of complete crisis. People are, frankly, lining their own pockets at public expense at a time when we know, because we have just had our letters from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that we are not going to be given an increase, any more than are the civil servants and so forth. The disparity between what is going on in the European Union and what is going on in the domestic administration of this country is so glaringly obvious that we have every reason as a Parliament not only to debate the issue but really to put our foot down.

How are the Government approaching the negotiations on annex 11 of the staff regulations, which deals with annual salary adjustments? It strikes our Committee that the procedure by which the exception clause is invoked is tantamount to a breach of natural justice, as the Commission, in effect, decides whether it should freeze the salaries of its own staff. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how she would like this procedure to be amended.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate between William Cash and Mark Reckless

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend is quite correct. There is talk of establishing a permanent bail-out arrangement, and we, the United Kingdom, have a veto over that. We should use that veto to relieve ourselves of all liability under a mechanism that should never have been agreed. That is what my motion proposes, and the amendment fails to do so.

When the European financial stability mechanism was set up, we were told that there would be €60 billion in it, whereas €440 billion would be paid by the eurozone members. Yet in the case of every bail-out we find that the mechanism is used to the same level as, or even more than, the eurozone facility. We in the House and this country are being forced to pay for the mistakes of others, and only this House has the power to stand up, vote and say no.

The whole mechanism is illegal. Let us remember Maastricht and the “no bail-out” clause that the Germans insisted on. What has happened to that? Let us remember article 122 of Lisbon, which states that the mechanism is for natural disasters or other exceptional circumstances beyond member states’ control. Did not Ireland, Portugal and Greece decide to sign up to the euro? Portugal has barely grown at all as a country since it joined the euro, and it has done next to nothing to control its spending. I am afraid there is nothing exceptional about that, and nothing beyond its control. It is just using the mechanism, to which we should have said no, to make our constituents pay for its own mistakes.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that Madame Lagarde herself, the prospective head of the International Monetary Fund, said on 17 December last year on that very point:

“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the eurozone”?

She was being very clear and telling the truth.