European Union Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

With all due respect to the hon. Lady, it was her party that reneged on the commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Government Members could have had a referendum had the Government kept their promise, but it was they who decided not to have one despite their commitment to do so.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but my recollection of the history is that the treaty was ratified and then it became impossible to have a referendum on it. Would new clause 9 not enable a Government to make a promise at election time to hold a referendum and then wriggle out of it under the cover of some committee, as the previous Labour Government did?

[Mr David]

This party does not make promises which it breaks. [Laughter.] I would point out to Government Members that, as I recall, there was a clear commitment on the Lisbon treaty. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) cannot get out of that by saying, “Well, it was already endorsed. It was ratified. We couldn’t do anything about it,” because they could have done. If the Conservatives had wanted a referendum on a treaty change, they could have had one. It is political will that this Government lacked.

Although I am not suggesting that a future Labour Government would want to change the Lisbon treaty, are this Government serious about introducing some of the changes that they claim they want to introduce? Are they seriously suggesting that we should have a referendum on the voting system for introducing a European patent, for example? Are they seriously suggesting that we would have a referendum on how judges are appointed to the European Court? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] It seems that some Members are quite happy to have referendums, even on the proverbial paper clips. But seriously, the place to make a decision on the merits of any potential changes that are not of constitutional significance is in Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I am aware of all Professor Hix’s comments, and I was careful to say earlier that I did not agree with all his remarks. The point remains, however, that he is fundamentally opposed to the idea of having a multiplicity of referendums, for the reasons that he outlined to the Committee.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Professor Hix also went on to say:

“I think there should have been a referendum on Maastricht, on Amsterdam, on Nice…on the Lisbon treaty”.

That is surely significant. The Bill is all about ensuring that, having been cheated of referendums on those treaties in the past, we can now have referendums on other matters, enabling the House to give greater consideration to them before passing away powers to Europe. The committee proposed in the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 9 would not achieve that.

[Mr David]

With all due respect, I must point out that the hon. Gentleman has made exactly the same point that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just made. I therefore give him the same answer: I was careful to say earlier that I did not agree with all of Professor Hix’s comments, but the central thesis that he presented to the European Scrutiny Committee was that there should be referendums on major constitutional issues, not on the minutiae of legislation as is proposed in the Bill, and this Bill is what we are now debating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

I was talking about judicial reviews. I cannot see how that fits into judicial reviews. With all due respect, I know the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he should follow the debate.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

Amendments 1 and 3 stand in my name. My comments boil down to what I said in my interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and were somewhat anticipated by the Minister earlier. In a nutshell, I see no reason why clause 2 should refer to an exemption condition or subsection (3) should state:

“The exemption condition is that the Act providing for the approval of the treaty states that the treaty does not fall within section 4.”

Without any further let or hindrance, clause 4(4) would exclude from those arrangements that would result in a proposal for a referendum

“the codification of practice under”

the treaties already established

“in relation to the previous exercise of an existing competence”,

and

“the making of any provision that applies only to member States other than the United Kingdom”.

That is, I think, an incredibly important point. Also, as we have debated already, it would remove

“in the case of a treaty, the accession of a new member State”,

which in this case would include Turkey. In the context of what the Government clearly want to exclude—in other words, their positive policy decision not to allow the British people a referendum on certain treaties of immense importance—they are disavowing the very intentions and principles that underpin the Bill.

I have made that point before over the question of sovereignty, where there is a massive contradiction between what is on the tin and what is in the Bill. I say again that those of us who spoke in favour of the sovereignty of Parliament won the argument, but that was not on the tin and it was not what the Whips—or, indeed, the Prime Minister—wanted, so it was voted down. That does not reflect particularly well—if I may say so—on our democratic system. We are faced with exactly the same point here. We are told on the tin that we will have a referendum on important matters—that is the general idea as explained in the Foreign Secretary’s article in The Sunday Telegraph only a week ago—but on examination in Committee, it becomes perfectly obvious that certain kinds of treaty will be excluded. I have mentioned the example of Turkey, but I want to give another specific example of the kind of treaty that would be excluded.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Cash]

I think that my hon. Friend can wait, if he does not mind.

I want to give an example that deals explicitly with a matter of immense importance that is coming up in the lift. In fact, it is not merely in the lift; the lift has come up and the doors are opening. Monsieur Fillon, the French Prime Minister, came over to see the Prime Minister specifically about this issue, and I have here the exclusive interview in The Times with Monsieur Fillon. I also had the opportunity to meet the French Minister for Europe and discuss the matter with him personally and privately.

There is no doubt about what they want or what they intend, which is effectively a twin-track treaty, which is a treaty entered into by us and the rest of the European Union—that is, with all 27 member states, in order to legitimise it within the framework of the treaty arrangements—so that they get their treaty and, within that treaty, an arrangement specifically designed to exclude the United Kingdom, even though we would be gravely affected by it. It would apply only to those other member states.

Clause 4(4) refers to

“the making of any provision that applies only to member States other than the United Kingdom”.

They look like innocuous words, but what do they actually mean? That exemption condition—in other words, no referendum, to put it bluntly and simply—means that there would be no opportunity for a referendum if the other member states agreed to go down that route. They may well do that, despite all the protestations to the contrary, some of which were rather subtly indicated by the Prime Minister in his press conference, albeit without excluding the idea of any such treaty; rather, it was merely on the supposition that that might not affect us as much as we believe, or as I believe the British people would believe if they saw it in black and white. What do those provisions include? In particular, they include arrangements of that kind relating to fiscal, political, social and employment measures, not to mention other matters that would affect the relationship between us and the rest of the European Union. A massive juggernaut would be created, through a form of extremely enhanced co-operation between those member states, that would have an enormous impact on the United Kingdom.

I have been looking at the balance of payments between us and the other member states. The figures, which I got from the Library, only bring us up to 2009, before the catastrophe that hit Europe occurred, and they are alarming. The imbalance in the balance of payments between us and the other member states has been moving critically in the wrong direction. I could give the precise figures—I may do so later—but we only have to consider the following example, which was on the “Today” programme this morning. If one had listened to the programme, one would have heard about Belgium, which is in massive crisis, with protests and people on the streets, and no Government for 22 months. Greece is in absolute chaos, with protests and implosion, while Ireland, with its political crisis, is totally imploding. Spain has 4 million unemployed, with 40% youth unemployment and people on the streets on a massive scale today. Similar problems are also occurring in Italy, and there have been riots and serious unrest in France, too.

The bottom line is that Europe is not working according to the economic governance that has been prescribed. Yet under what is proposed, the opportunity to address the very kind of treaty that would enhance the ability to confront us with a massive juggernaut of policies that have been going wrong—policies that would undermine the opportunity to grow from our 45% to 50% investment in Europe—would be severely depleted. That would be the most damaging kind of treaty that could be entered into. Indeed, as I said in The Times on the day that the French Prime Minister came over, it would be the kind of treaty that I would expect our Prime Minister to veto on behalf of the British people. However, we cannot have confidence that that would happen, because of the argument being presented. This Bill was introduced on 11 November, when we know that treaties of the kind that I have just described were already being anticipated, however damaging and disastrous they would be for the very people of this country who, if they knew the facts, would say, “I insist on a referendum on any treaty relating to arrangements of this kind.”

It would be an abomination for us to be confronted with the kind of arrangements that are being put into place—arrangements that would be so damaging to our growth and our relations with the European Union. That is why I say that this exemption provision has to be taken out of the Bill, for precisely the reasons that I have given. I do not need to enlarge on that point, but I absolutely insist that these provisions should be taken out. I look to the Minister, if he thinks that I am wrong, to give me a reasoned answer as to why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has been waiting very patiently.

[Mr Clappison]

We have just been debating the hon. Gentleman’s second point, but I shall say more about it shortly. However, I think that if he studies the Bill he will find that if he votes in favour of the clause, he will be voting in favour of the possibility of a referendum if the Government consider the effect of the provision concerned to be significant enough. It is not a question of whether it might be significant enough, otherwise the clause would not be in the Bill. If a Minister says that it is significant enough there will be a referendum, and I welcome that. It is a question of how we decide whether it is significant enough for a referendum. Should we leave that decision to a Minister, or should it be made by means of a vote in the House of Commons and the other place?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I find amendment 11 very attractive, because it would ensure that the Minister was subjected to a vote in both Houses. But what would happen if sweeping powers were passed to the European Union which anyone would describe, objectively, as significant, if both Houses were whipped to ram the legislation through, and if they did so? Where is the backstop to ensure that the British people are not cheated out of a referendum in such a case?

[Mr Clappison]

It would be a matter for this House and the other place to express their opinion and to vote for a referendum. That is in addition to all the other procedural steps contained in the Bill. It is not a case of either/or. We propose a further process: indeed, a further safeguard against the granting of significant powers to the European Union, as well as the powers for which the Bill already provides. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will enlighten us a little more on his position later. The important thing is that we are talking about the sovereignty of Parliament and the opportunity for us to have that debate and to have a say. Frankly, I think we all agree that there is a role for a committee to sort out the detail.

In many areas, there is general consensus that we do not want to see swathes of power wafted away to Europe. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has always made a very forceful case for keeping out of the euro and I dare say that many Government Members agree that that is a good position to take. We are trying to provide the opportunity for greater safeguards and for a committee to consider matters that would sift out the unnecessary and trivial, focus on the issues that matter and ensure that we have the discussions that we need.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous in taking interventions. As I understand it, she is saying that she was sent here by her constituents to do the detail, work out the complicated stuff and then tell them whether they need a referendum. Were she selected by Mr Speaker—by an entirely independent process, and not by the Whips, as would seem to be the case—to be on that committee, what sort of detail would there need to be to make her say, “Yes, I vote for a referendum on this issue”? What kinds of subjects does she think would merit referendums?

[Nia Griffith]

We have spent a considerable time in the European Scrutiny Committee listening to experts on particular issues. We would need to ask what powers are being given away, what would not be the same as it is now and where the qualified majority vote would become a simple majority. We would need to ask, “Is that acceptable? Is there an issue of sovereignty? Would we be giving away something that we have always had in this Parliament to a European super-structure?” Those are the things that we would want to consider in detail. The whole point is that the committee makes a recommendation; the committee does not simply live by its own views. I have had few letters or e-mails from anybody about a referendum, even during the last Parliament when there was quite a fuss about it in the media. I must have had three or four letters or e-mails throughout the five years of the previous Parliament, when the matter was quite an issue in the press, so I do not think it is such a huge and exciting topic out there as the hon. Gentleman might think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I will address my remarks to the question before us. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is much wider and would merit full debate in the House before any decisions were made. It may well be outside the remit of the Bill. It is a matter that any Government would want to discuss thoroughly. I can hardly see it being a popular move without proper discussion and consensus.

We need to remain in Europe. We do not want the label that Giscard d’Estaing threw upon us in the Lisbon treaty discussions, when he said that the UK would opt out of this and opt out of that, and that we were for ever opting out. We got a reputation as the country that cried wolf all the time and did not engage with the serious issues. It is important that we do not become the spoilt child of Europe. We must take our part; we must stand up and be counted; and we want a mature and sensible approach to what merits a referendum and what does not.

In conclusion, I fully support the idea of a special referendum committee being set up, which would have as its remit to look into the necessary factors and then make a recommendation to both Houses about whether a referendum were needed.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I see the Bill as a ground-breaking and essential force for good. It is important to understand that the context of the Bill is the reaction of many people throughout the land against the denial of a referendum on an EU constitution renamed and rebadged as the Lisbon treaty, but not changed.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), and a privilege to hear from a Member of Parliament who has not had the ire of constituents come down upon her head for not standing up for a referendum on Europe. I congratulate her on having a constituency which is clearly full of people who are delighted with the European Union and delighted never to be consulted by means of a referendum. It is a fine constituency that she has. No doubt she has the odd housing claim—

[Mr David]

Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that people are not concerned about constitutional abstractions. They are concerned about their jobs, their children’s education and their health. Those are the issues that matter to people. If he does not realise that, he is not in this world.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The shadow Minister for Europe makes a fair point. In my constituency, yes, people’s prime concern is that Labour all but closed the hospital down and that we will be getting a new hospital. They are concerned that they lost jobs and money. They worry about how they will get by, and about the massive amount of borrowing and taxation. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government are trying hard to sort out that difficult problem. That will take time.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). Constitutional matters underlie everything else that happens. For example, constitutionally we chose not to join the euro. Had we joined, our economy would now be utterly wrecked, but in fact it will survive.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is highly knowledgeable and skilled in European matters, for making the point far better than I could. I was about to make it myself. Yes, of course schools, hospitals and the economy matter, but what also matters is our sense of nation and our independence as a member state in the European Union, not as a state in a federation. That is essential, and it is essential that we were not in the euro, for the exact reasons that he set out.

Had we been in the euro, we may well have found ourselves in the predicament that we see across the Irish sea or in southern Europe, given the reckless borrowing that took place over the previous decade, which brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy. I, for one, am glad that we did not join the euro. It is the one thing on which I congratulate the new shadow Chancellor and the former Prime Minister—preventing Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister, from going into the euro. It was the only spark of light and quality in that Government. I am hard pushed to think of any other.

I return to the Bill, having been led astray by those gentle and generous interventions. I shall begin by focusing on clause 11. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) made a series of powerful points about the primacy of Parliament. His argument was that we cannot trust the Ministers of the day because they have their own agenda. If they do not consider a matter significant, they will certify it as not significant. Some check and balance is needed. There must be a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

When I first thought about that, I found it attractive, but on reflection my concern is that if the Minister considers a matter not to be significant, he will toddle down to the Whips Office and have a chat to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He will say, “Look, chief, this isn’t significant. Let’s just whip this vote through the Commons, whip it through the Lords and push it through.” That is what would happen.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that he would be swayed by his Whips on such a question?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I defer to my hon. Friend. His independence of mind and spirit is well known, and his championship of the cause of our nation in the matter of Maastricht is well recognised and on the record of the House. I would be proud if I were half as strong, resolute and bold as he is. I hope the day will come. It is, as everyone knows, a feature of the working of our political process that there will be heavy pressure in both Houses for a Government to get their agenda through.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

There is history here, is there not? Were we not told as a nation by a former Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), that the charter of fundamental rights had no more significance than The Beano? The charter is now incorporated in the Lisbon treaty and we are all suffering from it. A judgment call by a Minister about what is significant could turn out to be very important indeed.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I entirely agree. I remember in times past the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, saying that the Scottish Parliament was a parish council, but it has far more sweeping powers than that. He was making a point about sovereignty and saying that it would not change anything, but a considerable amount of devolution has been given to Scotland. In the same way, the movement towards ever-closer union, which we have seen latterly in the Lisbon treaty, has highlighted the fact that although we are told, “It’s okay, it’s a small step, it won’t make any real difference,” it makes a massive difference.

I will be corrected if am wrong, but I think that about seven of every 10 of our laws are now effectively made in Europe. I have costed that and found that the European Union costs each and every household in this country an average of about £2,000 a year in taxes, which is a substantial sum. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) rightly said that our constitution and how we interrelate with Europe are important matters. If he wants to intervene on that point, I will give way.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made light of the matter in saying that we would not obey the Whips, but surely the important point is that when the House makes a decision, we as individual MPs with individual votes that will go on the record must account to our electorates for that. It is possible that the Whips will bully, cajole, press and threaten—I have no experience of these things, of course—but our responsibility is to our electorates. In my constituency, a mini-referendum was won by those calling for a national referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and it was publicised on television and elsewhere. On something as fundamental as constitutional change relating to the European Union, the electorate do care. We are accountable to our electorates first, even though we pay lip service and tip our caps to the Whips from time to time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My central concern with clause 11 is that a Minister could say, “This isn’t significant,” and sign over some massive power. The Act of Parliament will then be whipped and rammed through both Houses. An individual, perhaps a constituent of mine in Dover, might then take issue with that because they think that it is significant. How will that constituent have a say? The Bill’s current protection is judicial review, but if we had a whipped vote of both Houses and a resolution that the matter was not significant, that would weigh in the minds of the courts.

I will go further: on this matter I am a renegade among many of my hon. Friends who say that the courts have no place interfering in the business of this House. I am an old-fashioned lawyer, and I take the view that the courts are an important check and balance in our democracy. Perhaps it is just me, but in respect of our political system wishing to ram something through and take away our rights, I always thought that the purpose of the rule of law was to hold back the Executive and act as a check and balance. The purpose of the rule of law—I think this started with Magna Carta, and it has continued in legal documents written since—and the purpose of the courts is to hold back that express, overweening Executive power and ensure that the subject has their say and stands up for their rights. I do not seek to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in determining whether a significant condition has or has not been met, which I think is an important part of the Bill and an important check and balance.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, but surely the ultimate sanction should not be with the courts, but with Parliament. Having an Act of Parliament as part of the process must be the check. He is not really describing a legal check on the Executive; he is implying that it is a legal check on Parliament, which surely rather threatens the constitutional arguments that some of his hon. Friends made last week in relation to the Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, so let me to clarify my position. We will hopefully have an Act of Parliament that will state that there will be referendums in the case of matters that are of significance. A Minister might then come along and say that he does not think that a matter is significant. An individual will be able to go to the courts to seek a judicial review, saying that they think that the matter is significant on objective criteria. The court will then rule on that ministerial decision. That has to be right.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

What exactly will the courts do on a judicial review? Will they say that the Minister has not followed the correct process in coming to his decision, or will they try to overturn his decision? My hon. Friend is a lawyer, so I would be grateful for his explanation.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I believe that they would refer the decision back to the Minister to take into account relevant considerations, which would prevent a perversity. For example, if a Minister were to say that joining the euro was not significant, and if there were no other checks and balances in the Bill, an individual might decide that the matter was very significant and seek a judicial review. The courts would then tell the Minister that that was a perverse and an unreasonable decision.

[Mr David]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that precedent and the vagueness of the Bill tend to indicate that it is likely that there would be no judicial review, because the issue would be defined as a political decision?

[Charlie Elphicke]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that that is increasingly less likely to be the case.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

In a judicial review, the courts would be concerned about any abuses of power and about whether a public body might have taken decisions that were ultra vires, meaning that they were beyond the powers of that body. The courts have recently been involved in reviewing decisions relating to the royal prerogative. As far as judicial review is concerned, the courts will not interfere with primary legislation or the decisions of this House. It seems perfectly reasonable, therefore, that the administrative courts could act as a safeguard in relation to secondary decisions, such as those taken by a Minister of the Crown on whether a matter is significant.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree with my hon.—and learned—Friend, who makes the central point. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that until recently the courts shied away from reviewing the exercise of prerogative powers. These days, they are far more gung-ho in acting as a check on the decisions of the Executive. We should be in no doubt that the significance condition set out in the Bill is the decision of a Minister, meaning a decision of the Executive. As such, it is amenable to judicial review. In that way, we have the check and balance, which gets us out of the problem that concerns me: the issue of whipped votes being used to ram legislation through Parliament under some future Government. That does not apply to the current Minister, because he is a fine Minister who will use the powers correctly, but what if a future Minister has a more Euro-enthusiastic approach?

[Michael Ellis]

A Labour Minister.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Perish the thought. Were such a Minister to make such a decision, my constituent would be able to challenge it and ensure that there was a more objective assessment.

[Mr David]

I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that the Bill might in some way bind future Parliaments.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The shadow Minister knows from our discussions on clause 18 that it is not possible to do that. Nevertheless, were he to become Minister in future and find the Act tiresome in holding back the floodgates of his Euro-enthusiasm and desire to embrace the greater Europe, he could dispense with the Bill by repealing it. However, he would take a political hit in doing so, because he would be taking away from the British people their right to have a say on the treaties that would follow. Therefore, he would have to be pretty forthright with the electorate in an election manifesto. If he was not, he would be open to the questions and ire of a large section of the British public who would regard that as an issue of concern.

Without further ado, it is right that I discuss new clause 9, which was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Europe Minister. As far as I can see, it proposes a total watering down of everything in the Bill. I have been told by the Clerks that I am not allowed to describe it as a wrecking amendment, but I believe that I am allowed to say that it would, in my humble opinion, wreck the Bill, as far as its purpose and intent are concerned.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 demonstrates that the Opposition have not learned the lessons from when they duped the electorate about the proposal for a referendum? In the new clause, they seek to hide the decision-making authority in a committee, but we do not know who the members would be, in what proportion they would be drawn from either House, whether all of them would be elected or whether they would be whipped. In short, it would lack the clarity that the British people want on such a decision about their future in relation to the European Union.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the point that concerns me most. New clause 9(5) states:

“The Committee shall consist of no more than 19 Members”—

19 great and good—

“drawn from both Houses”.

But would it include my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is so learned and knowledgeable about European matters? Some future Government, operating that selection mechanism, might find that his services were not required, that he was more trouble than he was worth, and that he would talk for too long—perhaps for longer than an hour in Committee—and tie up everyone. In such a manner, they might not include him. I, however, can think of no Member who knows more about the matter than he, except perhaps the hon. Member for Luton North.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I absolutely protest. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) knows infinitely more than I do.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Shortly after my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, the hon. Gentleman is a true expert, and whenever he rises to speak I listen with interest and learn.

Would the proposed committee include, for example, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is highly knowledgeable but does not always take quite the on-message view that her pager instructs? Would it include my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), or his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell)? I can think of no more expert people to sit on such a committee, but, if the new clause were passed and the Bill changed as advertised, those people—who are so expert and know so much about matters européenne—would not find themselves on it. I have a sense that the Front-Bench teams of whoever was in power, might not include such people. For that reason, new clause 9 is a Trojan horse. Its purpose, in my humble opinion, is to take power away from the people and to stuff it upstairs in a committee; and that, in essence, is the wrong thing to do.

[Stephen Gilbert]

Is there not another problem? Today, we have teased out of the Opposition the fact that the new clause would effectively give the other place a veto. If the House of Lords decided that it did not want a referendum but the House of Commons decided that it did, we would have stalemate and no referendum.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The House of Lords was once a thoughtful, revising Chamber that would have orderly debates and not detain business excessively, but some of the new arrivals seem to have changed the way in which it operates. I am told that the Standing Orders and courtesies of this House prevent me going any further into all that happened in the House of Lords, but we have all read the news and seen the number of marathon sessions, and it is incumbent on some of its newer Members to think of the health of some of its older Members and to be a little more considerate than they have been of late. My hon. Friend is right about the House of Lords: whether we go further into or come out of Europe is a matter that should start in the House of Commons, because this is the House of the people.

[Michael Ellis]

Is my hon. Friend struck by the fact that the Opposition appear to wish to increase the power of the unelected Chamber, as it is currently constituted, in a way that one has not seen since at least the Parliament Act 1949 and potentially the Parliament Act 1911? Through their proposed change, they seek to give the House of Lords the power, in effect, to overrule the wishes of the House of Commons.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend makes a strong and forceful point.

I have another concern about new clause 9. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, as I have said, fought valiantly for the people to have a say on the Maastricht treaty. If Maastricht were refought and the matter reconsidered, is it likely that out of the Opposition’s proposed committee a referendum would come forth? Many of us have some doubts about that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in former times made the case that the Amsterdam and Nice treaties should also have been subject to a referendum. If we had had such a committee system, would there have been a referendum? Can the shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), tell us whether there would have been a referendum if his committee system had been operational?

[Mr David]

I do not have a retrospective crystal ball. We are looking to the future.

[Charlie Elphicke]

We come to the vexed question of Lisbon, when the push for a referendum reached its apogee and the people felt that they were outrageously cheated. If there were a Lisbon question once again, and if the facts were the same or similar, could the new clause 9 committee be relied upon to sit and, in making a determination, to ensure that we had a referendum? If a Government had said in their election manifesto, “We will have a referendum on this matter, the committee will sit, and we will make sure that it recommends a referendum,” would the committee then do so? Some people have grave doubts, because of the Whips’ system, and that is why the new clause should not be the preferred way.

The Bill’s measures on a referendum lock are the way forward. The amendments are all about breaking up that lock, and they would take us back to where we were with the Lisbon treaty, which was rammed through both Houses. The new clause is a concern for that reason. It would water down the referendum lock and leave us with significance tests writ large. Do we want that, or do we want to ensure that the British people have a referendum guarantee? That is very important.

[Mr Buckland]

Does my hon. Friend agree—I tried to make this point earlier to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—that in the new clause there is an absence of any time scale for a report by the committee to the House? In itself, that significant omission would lead to more delay and obfuscation and not deal properly with the matter at hand.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree strongly. That is the risk: the whole thing could be buried in committee. The new clause is also slightly defective, given that it would allow the committee to

“determine its own procedure…broadly in line with…the Joint Committees of the two Houses.”

That is not sufficiently precise. I defer to those more expert in how such committees are set up, but I am concerned about the defects in the drafting of the new clause.

The Government’s Bill, which the new clause seeks to amend, sets out strict and exact tests on what a referendum would be and details how it would bind Ministers in terms of the law of the land. Those provisions would not be in place if the new clause were passed. We would end up with the classic old Whips’ fix, and we would not have the people’s guarantee.

I believe—because I am a bit old fashioned—in government for the people, by the people and of the people, that that should not perish from this earth, and that my constituents should have a say on the great matters of our times. Given that, the Bill is important and the right step towards more public power. The people and their sovereignty should be recognised, and they should be given that say, which time and again they have been cheated of—to my mind, unacceptably.

New clause 9 would give Parliament more power; I believe in giving the people more power in our modern age. I do not agree with both Houses of Parliament having a veto on a referendum. I do not think that the House of Lords should have a veto on a referendum, particularly given the substantial concern that recent events have given us about what goes on there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Yes, I agree. The Opposition are in a fix, and new clause 9 is designed to deal with that. On the one hand, they dare not oppose the idea in principle of a referendum and of allowing the British people to be consulted. They are slightly embarrassed by the Lisbon matter. On the other hand, they do not want to come out and say it. We have what can only be described as a devious amendment to stick it all up in committee. They claim that they are all in favour of referendums, while trying to squash the rights of the British people to have a say in a referendum. That is wrong in principle, but it indicates the Opposition’s lack of confidence in their position. It indicates that they do not feel that they are winning the debate on giving the British people a say.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend should not be surprised by that, given that two Members on the Opposition Front Bench orchestrated the coup against Tony Blair, which put an unelected Prime Minister in place, much to the detriment of our nation.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

[Mr David]

What has that got to do with the Bill?

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is a very important question. It shows the respect that the new Government have for our democratic process, for consulting the people and for taking bold steps in the national interest—not just bringing Britain back from the brink of bankruptcy, but ensuring that the British people have a say in referendums.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I want to speak briefly. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) might have a more sceptical view of Europe, living so close to it in Dover, but I agree generally with his views on Europe. He was sceptical about the strength of the committee proposed in new clause 9, but he would also be justified in being a little sceptical about the intentions of his Government, because the Bill is weaker than it needs to be and will not provide the strong defence that I think we need against the further aggrandisement of European power. I say as a warning: do not trust anybody in matters European.

Although I support and will vote for amendment 11, I am puzzled by new clause 9. I am not sure what it means, nor why it invokes so many decision-making processes. I do not know why it does not invoke the Mothers Union and the Privy Council as well.

As with all European debates, this debate has skirted around the main issue, which is that the Government always get their way on matters European and steamroller what they want through the House. This country has a system of government by party, in which the Executive effectively control the legislature. Party loyalty means that, whatever platform MPs are elected on—whether it is Eurosceptic, Euro-enthusiast or “don’t care two stuffs about Europe”—they get dragged along by the chariot. Government by party guarantees that.

Europe has a remorseless power to drag us in. It is rather like the conversation between Brer Rabbit and the tar baby—punch it, and we are stuck. The drive to ever-closer union drags us in, because Ministers never want to rock the boat or be disruptive. They do not want to stand and fight on any particular issue. Even the courageous and esteemed Yorkshireman who holds the position of Foreign Secretary is now beginning to say nicer things about Europe in the dulcet tones of his Yorkshire accent. That is a symptom of the way in which this Government are being drawn in. Instead of making a stand on the increase in the budget by 2.9%—it will go up because there are in-built drivers that will make it rise—they accepted the remorseless rise in contributions. The cost of implementing all the regulations must now cost the country about £40 billion a year, which is as big as the cuts that the Government are trying to make.

Each party gets drawn in. Ministers do not like confrontation, so we go down the path remorselessly. I do not know who said, “Talk tough and carry a big stick”, but Ministers talk tough and carry a feather duster. They come back from Europe waving the feather duster saying, “I didn’t get exactly what the House of Commons or the people wanted. I had to make compromises, of course, so I went along with this. Believe me, it is only a small increase in the power of Europe. We can trust them. This will cause no problems and will be acceptable.” Disastrous consequences follow. That is how Europe progresses. In this country, we always discover the extent of the disaster and the damaging consequences of the concessions long after the event. The classic example is the common fisheries policy, which was sold as an accommodation to Europe that would not be difficult or cause many problems.