European Elections 2014

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the opportunity that the European Scrutiny Committee has given the House to scrutinise these documents from the European Commission, one a communication and the other a recommendation, which make suggestions about the conduct and organisation of European elections by member states. The stated objective of the European Commission is to increase the democratic legitimacy of the EU and boost turnout in European elections. Fortunately, European communications and recommendations, as their names suggest, do not have legal force and, as the Minister stressed, the documents are not binding on member states. That is the only good thing about them.

The Opposition are pragmatically pro-European, but we do not agree with every directive, proposal or suggestion that comes out of European institutions. In this case, in particular, we disagree with the suggestions made by the European Commission and hope that our Government, when they are in Brussels negotiating on these and other documents, will put forward their opposition. I agree with the words in the motion.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

On the question of democratic legitimacy, does the hon. Lady agree that one problem is that European elections are held according to the strange d’Hondt form of proportional representation? The vast majority of British electors have no idea how it operates, which might well be part of the reason why turnout is so low in this country.

[Emma Reynolds]

Turnout is low for many reasons, and I agree that that is one of them. I would have preferred us to keep the system we had before 1999, under which we had constituencies that were bigger than the Westminster constituencies, as we have fewer MEPs than we have MPs but they retained the link with their constituency and their local party—the constituency Labour party for us, or the Conservative association for Conservative MEPs. I am not quite sure what the Liberal Democrats call their local parties—

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Absolutely. And Muslims could vote on both, and the election could start on Friday. We could be very flexible. Cultural traditions might also be relevant. The Commission’s proposal fails the basic subsidiarity test. This does not need to be mandated, therefore it should not be, and there seems to be wide agreement across the House on that.

The proposals for the candidates for the presidency of the Commission are rather curious. I am proud to be a member of Cheltenham Liberal Democrats, of the Liberal Democrat party in the United Kingdom and of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and intensely proud to be a member of Liberal International, where Liberals are fighting for things that we take for granted at risk to their own lives in many parts of the world. I know that other parties have slightly more hang-ups about being members of European political parties and have had some difficulties in that regard, but the proposals as far as they go seem to be fairly unexceptional.

The Commission’s proposals effectively talk about encouraging European political parties to nominate candidates, but actually they can already do that. A report by my colleague Andrew Duff, which the European Parliament will vote on at the start of July, goes rather further. It states that

“the candidate for Commission President who was put forward by the European political party that wins the most seats in the Parliament will be the first to be considered”

with a view to

“ascertaining his/her ability to secure the support of the necessary absolute majority in Parliament”.

That might be a legitimate and interesting way of interpreting article 17.7 of the treaty, but so long as they must only have regard to the candidate, the Councils of the European Union will not actually be obliged to choose that candidate or even to consider them in preference over others.

We need to create a situation that encourages more involvement, openness and accountability, and in that respect I think that it would be good to have greater democratic involvement in the process of promoting and choosing candidates, so long as it does not mandate it, because I think that a slight constitutional issue would start to emerge if we drifted into the mandation of candidates by political parties. That would start to blur the line between who are the Governments and politicians and who are the civil servants, which is a line that we draw very carefully in this country. In a sense, the Commission is the equivalent of the civil service and the permanent secretaries. In many respects, it should be the impartial servant of the political will of the Parliament and of the people and Governments of Europe in the Councils. We can decide at some future stage—this is certainly not something I support now—whether to have a European Government, but we do not have one at the moment and that is not something we should start doing in an accidental, piecemeal way.

I accept that there is a particular problem for the Conservatives on this issue. They belong to the fifth largest group in the Parliament—it feels rather good to say that—and the Liberal and Socialist groups are rather larger. I think it is a problem for the Conservatives that they are not represented in the mainstream conservative grouping, or Christian Democrat grouping, in the Parliament. I think that it was a regrettable decision by the British Conservatives not to take part in that, because I think it has reduced British political influence within the European political forum.

[Mr Nuttall]

I can assure my hon. Friend that not a single constituent of mine has ever expressed to me any dissatisfaction whatever with the position of the Conservatives in the European Parliament.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The UK has been advancing the case for such guidelines. That was done under the previous Government, and this Government support it. As the hon. Gentleman says, I have taken this up, along with other Foreign Ministers, with the EU High Representative. We look to the whole of the EU to do this in a co-ordinated and effective way.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that, in view of the fact that we have been members of the Common Market for 40 years, it is certainly true to describe negotiations as “ponderous and slow.” Does he agree that this country might have made more progress towards securing a free trade agreement with the United States if we had not been members of the Common Market, or what is now the European Union?

[Mr Hague]

Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend is asking me to speculate on areas I do not want to get drawn into speculating about. We make the most of the situation we are dealing with. The fact is that this is a competence of the EU, although our strong political will and support within the EU is required to make the most of such free trade agreements. As I mentioned earlier, working with 26 other countries can mean the process is slow, but it also means that when we succeed, that has an enormous impact. My hon. Friend should bear that trade-off in mind.

European Council

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I am not aware that there was specific discussion of the Christian community in Syria, but as a Government we take it extremely seriously not just in Syria but elsewhere in the world when Christians find themselves under unprecedented levels of attack. I pay tribute to the continuing work of my noble friend Baroness Warsi, who takes her duties as Minister for faith extremely seriously, including the protection of Christians.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

British businesses want to see action not just words on reducing the burden of EU regulation, so may I urge the Minister to encourage the EU to adopt our one in, two out policy on new regulations, which will show whether it really is serious about cutting the burden of red tape?

[Mr Swire]

I see nothing to disagree with in that statement. It seems to me that our companies still suffer from over-regulation. All of us in the House are guilty of talking about cutting red tape; at the next election, let us not be judged by the electorate as guilty of having not cut red tape. Of course, my hon. Friend is right; we need to free our businesses from red tape, particularly the smaller ones that we need to grow. There were concrete moves towards that in the recent Brussels Council.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady is not seeking, by means of that question, to suggest that she supports an end to our opt-out from the 48-hour working week under the working time directive. I hope that she is not being complacent about the European Court of Justice judgments that have caused such difficulties for the national health service and for the social care sector, problems that are not unique to the United Kingdom and concerns about which are shared by many other member states.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Has the Minister drawn any conclusion from the fact that at last Thursday’s Eastleigh by-election a majority of voters voted for candidates who want to see the United Kingdom repatriate all powers from the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that what the voters in every constituency in the country will be looking for is a Government who actually deliver results for the people of the United Kingdom, at both the economic and political level, in Europe and globally.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

The Government at the time had grave reservations about this being included in the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, for the very reason to which my hon. Friend refers—namely, that it represented a duplication of activity that was already taking place. It was an attempt to set up in the European Union a duplicate body to the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights.

My hon. Friend asks what the agency does. It was intended to try to create what was called a fundamental rights culture within the European Union, and to that end, the organisation does an enormous amount of research. It holds conferences, one of which I have attended. As I said on Second Reading, it was more a propaganda exercise than anything else. The agency produces large tomes of documentation relating to what it describes as fundamental rights in different countries in the European Union. However, it is clear from everything that it does that its ultimate agenda is to be not an advisory body but a legislative body. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government realise that that is the agenda, that they have seen through it, and that they are vigorously opposing it, given that it involves the duplication of so many activities.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am still not clear about one point. Will my hon. Friend give the House a precise summary of the difference between a human right and a fundamental right?

[Mr Chope]

In essence, the Agency for Fundamental Rights tries to deal with collective rights, rather than individual rights, whereas the European Court of Human Rights deals with individual rights. That is a moot point, however. As with so many things, the European Union comes along and confuses the issue by giving a new institution a very similar name to that of an existing body. We have a Council of Europe, and, although we do not have a council of the European Union, we have a European Union Council. We also have a Commission of the European Union. The European Union has stolen the flag that was originally the flag of the Council of Europe. It has even stolen the anthem of the Council of Europe, and it is now intent on stealing the main part of the Council of Europe’s activities—namely, looking after human rights under the European convention on human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I take the point. It is well made by the hon. Gentleman, who speaks from the dual perspective of looking in from the European Union at the effect on other countries, and looking out now from this Parliament at what the European Union is doing.

I find it remarkable that every time the European Union grows, we have a convention that the new member state gets a new Commissioner. At my first meeting in Brussels, I believe I raised the matter with UKRep—why did we need a new Commissioner every time we added a country? Why does every member state have to have an office of some kind because it does not have an office of some other kind? We did it. We were fighting over the universal patent recently, and the most important thing to the UK was where the patent court would be based. It had to be based in London. It was not about whether the patent was a good or a bad thing. There is a problem with the EU in that it sprays benefits around. I believe it has put some institution on Crete—a wonderful island where I have holidayed often, but I could not work out why a major institution of the European Union had been located on Crete, apart from the fact that the Greeks wanted to have their turn.

That has to be looked at fundamentally, but the principle is correct. If the European Union sets up the agency, it will monitor what is happening with human rights, and I hope it will then begin to ask how it can help the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and those who want, as Churchill and many others did after the last war, to base Europe on human rights. The questions will continue about the corpus juris, which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will no doubt talk about, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) will no doubt talk about economic interference.

After all that is discussed, I hope we will all be able to agree that if the EU supports the Council of Europe and does the business, making human rights available to all the people in the EU and then beyond, it will advance Europe in accordance with the original principles of the people who set up the convention, which should be at the heart of our politics.

[Mr Nuttall]

That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), but one with which I fundamentally disagree. It was obvious from the early part of his comments that they reinforced the points that have been made throughout this debate. In essence, we have jumped back from fundamental rights to human rights.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I asked whether we could try to agree on the difference between human rights and fundamental rights, but everyone seems to have jumped back to accepting that fundamental rights is just another phrase for human rights, and that the agency does no more than replicate what is done elsewhere in the European Union by the Council of Europe. What came out of those comments was the fact that if reform is needed, we need to reform the Court, so that it can enforce the decisions made by the Council of Europe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What is the difference between British human rights and European Union human rights? Surely British human rights should be decided here and should take precedence.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is the second of the points that I want to make, which is about subsidiarity. We hear a lot about subsidiarity, yet in practice the European Union goes the other way, rather than saying, “Look, these are the matters which you will probably be concerned with. We’ve had a look at the UK and you’ve got plenty of organisations within the UK to deal with all these matters. There is no need for an EU body.” That applies across all 27, soon to be 28, member states.

[Philip Davies]

Has my hon. Friend thought about what situation we would be left in if the UK got a positive judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, but was then told that it was falling foul of the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which gets to the heart of one of my major concerns about the organisation and why I support entirely the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It highlights the confusion in the minds of our constituents.

I wonder how many of our constituents even know that that body exists. I suspect that if I conducted a poll on the streets of Bury, I would have to wait a very long time and ask a large number of people before I found anyone who had even heard of the agency, never mind understood what it was intended to do. That is not surprising, because it was introduced in 2007 by the back door. It was introduced under the provisions of section 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the Lisbon treaty, which allows for such new bodies to be established without any proper discussion. As I say, it was introduced through the back door.

The EU goes on about the principle of subsidiarity, but then we find that it is creating an EU-wide body to do things which, as we have heard in tonight’s debate, are not only being done elsewhere in Europe, but ought to be and can be done properly here in the UK. This is not a cheap body. We know that in 2013 the agency will get a subsidy of €21.3 million from the EU budget.

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

Is it not anomalous that the agency should have a separate multi-annual financial framework for the five years from 2013 to 2017, rather than being rolled into the overall multi-annual financial framework from 2014 to 2020, which the Prime Minister has ably ensured will be significantly reduced?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The question arises what would happen in a situation which has partly happened now and will certainly happen in the next multi-annual framework, where the agency straddles two financial periods. How can an agency properly budget when its framework straddles two budgetary periods? It does not make sense. That is just another example of muddled thinking in Europe, and of an organisation that has no intention of being transparent or open to the people whom it seeks to serve.

[Mr Redwood]

I am sure my hon. Friend has noticed that in the supporting documentation it is asserted that there will be no impact on public sector manpower or cost. Having to deal with yet another one of these fiddly agencies means huge legal bills, on top of the ones that we have for the European Court of Human Rights and on top of our domestic ones. Is that not an awful lot of extra money?

[Mr Nuttall]

Yes. My right hon. Friend again makes an excellent point. We will find that someone who is concerned about a particular right in this country is faced with a plethora of bodies, and those involved in this field in this country have an extra body to liaise with on the European front. Whereas in the past they would just have looked to the contents of the European convention on human rights and the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, they now have to think, “I wonder what the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights will think about all this. I wonder what it has said about it.”

I will not go down that road, as we have other amendments to consider and there is a further debate afterwards. I doubt whether we need that body at all. That is why I will support my hon. Friend’s amendments tonight. The body is unnecessary and it adds confusion to what is already a very crowded playing field in the area of human rights. I simply ask the Minister how the agency will benefit my constituents in Bury, North. How would they notice if it were simply abolished? That is what I think should happen.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I do not always agree on matters relating to the European Union, but we generally agree on matters relating to human rights. He does sterling service in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of the Europe as chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I was not suggesting for a moment that my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends or anyone else who has contributed to this debate were out of order; I was merely making the point that I want to address the amendments. My right hon. Friend has expressed his views with characteristic force, but I have to disappoint him by saying that the amendments would not achieve what he hopes they would.

Let me be clear about the consequences of the UK not approving the draft decision. Failure to agree the work programme would deprive the Council of the opportunity to set the direction of the agency by defining the themes. However, the absence of a work programme would not mean that the agency would go away or down tools. My right hon. and hon. Friends should bear that important point in mind when considering whether or not to support the amendment. If there was no draft framework, the agency would still be able to carry out its role. However, its focus would shift to answering requests for work from other EU institutions. Not supporting the framework therefore means that member states, including the UK, would have less influence on the work that the agency does. I do not think that that would be a good result for the UK and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would agree with that.

The themes set out in the work programme continue those in the current one, and I welcome the European Scrutiny Committee’s analysis that the proposed work programme can indeed be considered to be equivalent to the former one. Although there are some adjustments between the two work programmes with regard to terminology, the changes will not alter the work that the agency has been doing.

During negotiations the UK Government were successful in ensuring that the themes set out in the work programme should continue to be limited to Community law. Other member states proposed the inclusion of themes on police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. That would have been an extension of the agency’s work and it was successfully resisted by the UK Government. The draft decision records that we were successful. Agreeing to the draft decision will ensure that that is a binding decision of the EU institutions. That is why we are asking Parliament to approve it.

Moving on to some of the specific points that have been raised, the issue of duplication of the work of the Council of Europe has been a feature of this debate. The agency’s role is to provide the EU institutions and member states with independent evidence on how fundamental rights are respected. It does so through undertaking research and producing comparative data of the situation of rights across those member states, and through producing indicators that can be applied across the EU. Some of my hon. Friends were treating it as though it were an alternative to either the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights. It is, in essence, a data collection and dissemination agency that does not do any of the work of the ECJ or the ECHR. I agree that that would be unnecessary duplication. The same point applies to those in this country who, quite reasonably, would not want to lectured by the Fundamental Rights Agency about our performance on human rights. It does not do that sort of thing—that is not the work that it does.

There has been much discussion and concern expressed about money. This, of course, has to be set in the context of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier today. As he made clear—I think this was widely welcomed by all parties—the Government will continue to push for a good deal for UK taxpayers through agreement on the next multi-annual financial framework. The agency’s budget for the period covered by the next MAFF will form part of our negotiations following the agreement of that framework.

[Mr Nuttall]

Before the Minister concludes, could he give just one example of how British citizens have benefited in any way whatsoever from the existence of this agency since it was established?

[Damian Green]

The dissemination of hard facts and data on human rights performance across the European Union is intrinsically useful for British citizens and, indeed, those of other countries, because it enables us to assess how one of the basic things that we all wish to preserve—not just in our country, but in neighbouring countries—namely a basic commitment to human rights, is actually happening. It is extremely desirable for the citizens of democratic countries to enjoy human rights almost as a matter of habit, and it seems to me that any body that promotes such a state of affairs, in however small a way, is doing useful things for the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

That is a fair point, and it was reflected in what the Prime Minister said earlier. He said that the European Commission simply has not looked at what it can do to constrain its administrative expenditure. He has a lot of knowledge about that issue because he sees it face to face every time he goes to Brussels or any other European institution. He can see the amount of money wasted on bureaucracy in Brussels. There is obviously scope for a modest reduction, and that is why I had hoped that I would have already received notice that the Government intended to accept my amendment.

[Mr Nuttall]

Given that the decision by the European Council to maintain one Commissioner per country was taken only because of the result of the Irish referendums, and the decision by the Irish people to say no to the Lisbon treaty, would it not strengthen our Government’s hand in their attempt to cut the administration costs of the European Union if the Committee approved the amendment?

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, and I would have thought that this amendment would be supported by Opposition Members too, as they have been in the forefront of calling for a reduction in expenditure by the European Union. Whether or not they believe that sincerely, they have been calling for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

With characteristic modesty, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has presented his amendment. He also discussed the scope of clause 2, and I wish to speak to that before I come on to his amendment.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the fact that there is a live debate on both the shape or membership of the European Commission and on financing it. Clause 2 provides for the current formula of one Commissioner per member state to be maintained at least for the next Commission. According to the explanatory notes, it also provides for a review of that decision either before the 2019 European Commission is formed or before the 30th member state joins the EU, whichever is sooner. We are having this debate today, we had a debate on it on Second Reading and it will continue to be debated. I want to highlight some of the points that were made on Second Reading.

There are two sides to this debate. On the one hand there is a complaint—one that I think we should listen to, and one I am sure other hon. Members will make—that the European Commission College of Commissioners has become too big and unwieldy. As the EU has grown to 27 member states—soon to be 28—there are simply too many Commissioners and that has had an effect on how it can take decisions. The other side of the argument, put powerfully and effectively by the Irish Government in recent years, is that for small member states the current formula of one Commissioner per member state guarantees an equality that would not otherwise be secured. That point has been made in the intergovernmental conference and the convention, in the constitutional treaty discussions and the Lisbon treaty negotiations by Ireland and other small member states, although not all. I mentioned last week that Denmark is of the opinion that although it does not want to give away that equality, it is worth giving it away in order to make the European Commission a more effective decision-making body.

Those are the two sides to the debate. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and I suggested that there is a case for considering different degrees of seniority. If we were to keep one Commissioner per member state, then, as with our system of government where there is a Secretary of State and Ministers beneath that level, we could keep one Commissioner per member state, but with degrees of seniority, which might make for more effective decision-making.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does the shadow Minister think there would be any merit in a system whereby only those countries that were net contributors to the EU had a Commissioner?

[Emma Reynolds]

All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that that is a fluid situation, so it would be unfair to both new and existing member states. For example, the Polish economy is the only economy that I can name, certainly in Europe, that did not go into recession after the global financial crisis hit, and so its trajectory is healthy. We would do well to remember that the success of the Polish economy might mean, sooner than the hon. Gentleman might think, that it will become a net contributor rather than a net recipient.

On Amendment 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch, last autumn he and I were in the same Division Lobby calling on the Government to seek a cut in the EU budget, and we strengthened their hand in the negotiations. To an extent I agree with the spirit of his amendment and see some merit in it.

It would be better, however, if the hon. Member for Christchurch called on the Government to prevent an increase in the administration ceiling in the EU budget. According to the comparative table we received following last Friday’s negotiations, however, that ceiling will increase by 8% over the MFF period. I do not think that such a big victory. We heard a lot of cheers earlier during the EU Council statement, but very little attention was paid to that point, and it is a point worth considering. That would be a more powerful demand for him to make of the Government than their writing into this fairly minor Bill the conditions he has set out. For that reason, I am not in favour of the amendment, although, as I said, I agree with its spirit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good case for the Government about why this modest amendment is being resisted, but let me ask him a simple question. If my right hon. Friend does not feel that he would be able to persuade our partners in the European Union to accept such a modest amendment as this one, what hope is there of us ever being able to negotiate anything like the sorts of return of competences that would be necessary to satisfy the desires of the British people?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend looks at what the Prime Minister achieved last week—against expectations in some parts of this House and outside it—and if he looks at the significant moves taken towards fisheries reform in recent weeks, I think he would see evidence to show that it is possible for a determined and energetic UK Government working closely with like-minded allies to secure the kind of reforms to the European Union that both he and I would wish to see enacted.

Antarctic Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), which gives me the opportunity to underline the fact that there is a treaty, that various nation states have signed it and that they have an interest in new clause 1. New clause 1 is unlikely to be discussed in the United Nations. I am fairly confident of saying that without contradiction, but I take into account, of course, your observation, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Nuttall]

Surely the point is that all the contracting parties will have an interest in ensuring that the treaty works properly?

[Neil Carmichael]

That is absolutely right. One interesting point about new clause 1—this is one reason why we should not support it—is that more and more nation states are showing an interest in Antarctica. That brings pressure in respect of challenges to the Antarctica environment as well as numbers. Some of the new arrivals are not as interested as we are in making sure that the area is properly protected and that responsible actions are taken. By passing this legislation, we apply international pressure, ensuring that other nation states that need to do the same get on with the process and that the international focus on what is important for Antarctica—the protection of the continent—continually remains a top priority.

Amendment 1 deals with historic sites and monuments. It is an interesting amendment and it is right to discuss it because it provides an opportunity to make a very important point. The point is that the provisions relate to who is doing something, not to where the action is being taken. If we wanted to take action to preserve the hut of Captain Robert Scott and his colleagues, the fact that it is in what might be described as the New Zealand slice of Antarctica would not prevent us from doing so. As we would be going there to preserve the hut, British law would apply to our efforts to ensure that it was looked after properly.

While I have a huge amount of sympathy with the thrust of amendment 1, and while I think that the hon. Member for Bury North is absolutely right to remind us that we need to have the capacity to deal with all monuments and sites of historical interest, it is with the British people, and those connected with Britain, that clause 15 deals, and they are more than welcome to pursue such priorities throughout the continent of Antarctica. I therefore do not think that the amendment is necessary, although I do think that it has given us a useful opportunity to reinforce the point that everyone in our jurisdiction would be covered by the clause. Indeed, as the Bill’s promoter, I have welcomed the opportunity to comment on all three of what I consider useful amendments—not because I think that they should be included in the Bill, but because the House has been able to discuss them all properly and make some important points.

Let me summarise those points. With regard to the cost-benefit analysis proposed in new clause 1, the Bill is financially neutral. I do not think we should add any extra burden of bureaucracy, but I do think we should make it clear that the real test is co-operation between all interested nation states in ensuring that the continent is properly protected, and ensuring that the measures on which we continue to work are properly supported and implemented by all of them. That is the test that I shall continue to press for beyond the passage of this Bill, because I believe it is critical.

The main issue in relation to amendment 2, which proposes the removal of clause 5, is that we are building on existing measures—and quite right too. It is good that the House has had an opportunity to test the validity of the clause, because it is important. It will ensure not only that there is a line of responsibility for operators, visitors, tourists and so on, but that they must have contingency plans. In the absence of those two measures, such people would make themselves vulnerable to punishment. The clause also includes the important provision that people and organisations should be properly insured for whatever they may do. The clause puts into domestic law a clear set of responsibilities for operators visiting Antarctica.

As I have already made abundantly clear, amendment 1, which refers to historic sites and monuments, is unnecessary, because clause 15 relates to the people who are doing something rather than where the action is taken. However, it has provided another useful opportunity for me to make it clear that we are taking responsible action, and enabling others to take responsible action, in protecting monuments and sites of historical interest.

Let me end by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity that the debate has given us so far to expose and develop some of the elements of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Given those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for Shipley will withdraw their new clause and amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

We have had a very full and comprehensive debate on new clause 1 and my amendment, and on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I have listened closely to what Members have said, particularly the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).

On the new clause, the Minister said that there will be a reassessment of the effectiveness of the protocol once it is passed into law by all the nations that are signatories to the treaty, and he has reassured me on that point. It is important that international mechanisms are used to review the effectiveness of the treaty.

In respect of my amendment, which relates to historic sites and monuments, I am sure that the whole House will be as reassured as I am that the protection that is necessary for the huts of Shackleton and Captain Scott to be preserved is already contained within the treaties and the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister made some very good points about my amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). I am as satisfied with the explanations given on my amendment as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) appears to be with regard to his amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his view clear to the House. I said that I might be persuaded by his arguments, but I am grateful that he was persuaded by the other arguments, and that clause 5 will remain in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not only is he right about the new discoveries, but another interesting point is that existing marine life is taking a different shape in terms of breeding and growth and so on because of the changing temperatures. All that is part of the science that we need to see, which, of course, has been helped by really interesting technology, most particularly a glider—for gliding through the ocean, not the air—that is able to co-ordinate its own pathway and send valuable signals back to Rothera about what it is finding throughout the ocean, from top to bottom and along the bottom. We should be taking note and celebrating that kind of research and science. There was other scientific work as well.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend has explained that he went to Rothera, which is one of the year-round stations. As he will know, however, there are also two field stations: Fossil Bluff and Sky Blu, with Fossil Bluff being nearest to Rothera. Did he have the opportunity to visit the research stations?

[Neil Carmichael]

No, I did not get to Sky Blu although I heard an awful lot about it. It is a very important part of the work by the British Antarctic Survey and will remain so for some time. It is excellent that it is doing so well and contributing so much to our knowledge base about what is happening, and what will and could happen on that continent.

We were also told about long-term record keeping of weather conditions, temperatures and so forth. That is important because we cannot just take a snapshot now and make a judgment; we need to go back some years. The British Antarctic Survey has been working on climate change, looking for patterns and studying changes for nearly 20 years. That knowledge base is important and it is used by others as a benchmark for measuring developments in climate change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

Yes I did, and the ice cores are from drilling down into ice that is 800,000 years old. That tells us a huge amount about what was happening to the air, because trapped within the ice are very small air bubbles that contain strong messages and signals about what life was like all those years ago. Ice core research is a huge logistical exercise. First it has to be drilled and transported, and then it needs to go to Cambridge for proper evaluation.

That brings me to the important role that the British Antarctic Survey plays in providing logistics, not just to the scientists—although that is crucial—but to visitors and other structures. I want to emphasise the international nature of the British Antarctic Survey. It is able to help other nation states in their work and I was particularly struck by the good relationships that exist between the various countries represented, in connection with scientific discoveries and the work they do.

As I mentioned in connection with clause 5, the memorandum of understanding between Britain and Chile was signed before Christmas and is clearly much appreciated by the Chileans. Britain also has relationships with other European countries, which serves to enhance the quality of the work—not least because a Dutch contingent of scientists at Rothera is doing important work in the invertebrates department—and shows the level of co-operation. Co-operation is necessary in the Antarctic continent because the risks are great—they really are great. Not being able or willing to help others would be a danger, but that danger does not exist because of those good relationships.

The British Antarctic Survey performs another important role: the simple fact of being there. It is important that Britain has a proper location in Antarctica that it supports and promotes. I was impressed by the level of dedication shown by everybody at Rothera and in all parts of the Survey’s activities. Ultimately, they are there for their work, and for their commitment to science and to the continent. However, by being there, they also show Britain’s commitment to the continent. That has to be noted, celebrated and properly recognised. For those reasons, I was pleased to go to Antarctica and meet people from the British Antarctic Survey, to thank them for all they have done, reassure them of my personal support and the continued support of the Government, and underline the fact that by visiting them we are signalling that we appreciate the things they do. We understand the stresses and strains involved in their work, and we want them to know that it is properly appreciated. I thank the British Antarctic Survey for giving me an opportunity to see all of that.

[Mr Nuttall]

While my hon. Friend was on his visit, did any of the scientists he met express any views about the Bill?

[Neil Carmichael]

Yes, they did. They were extraordinarily appreciative of it going through Parliament, and thanked me for promoting it. The Bill was one of the reasons I was there, and I learnt a lot about the impact it will have on Antarctica. I saw the appreciation from members of the British Antarctic Survey, and noticed that other countries were also appreciative of the Bill, particularly Chile. I was with the Chileans for some time, as we flew to Chile before we got to Antarctica. I had the opportunity of visiting the Chilean Antarctic Institute, which is the Chilean equivalent of the British Antarctic Survey. Like us, it has a strong science wing and recognises the importance of logistics—although it does not use its own, but accesses other logistical services—and like us, it recognises the importance of international co-operation. In terms of regional geopolitics, that co-operation is all the more important given the issues relating to the Falkland Islands, Argentina and other nation states. The presence and commitment that we have demonstrated in Antarctica for decades and the relationships we are developing with nearby nation states are necessary to ensure that our broader interests are protected and enhanced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

Absolutely. I have been to the university in Plymouth. I presented a paper on restructuring the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but my thoughts were not taken into account by the then Prime Minister. There we are. I enjoyed my time there, however.

My constituency of Stroud has a strong connection with the Scott memory. Sir Peter Scott, the son of Captain Scott, established the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust there. That was emblematic of Captain Scott’s wish—almost his last wish, in fact—that his son should get involved in that kind of activity. It is also emblematic of the fact that my constituency is interested in protecting the environment and is prepared to take the necessary steps to do so. I am proud of that connection between my constituency and Antarctica. One reason why I am so pleased to be able to take the Bill through the House of Commons is that there is a huge synergy between protecting the environment in my constituency and the need to do so in Antarctica. My constituency link and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) are strong and should be clearly stated.

I touched on the foreign policy aspect of the legislation when I mentioned Chile and Argentina. It is important to note that other nation states are becoming interested in Antarctica. Just 12 nation states signed the treaty in 1959, but now the number expressing an interest in Antarctica exceeds 50. Unlike us, however, some of those nation states do not have aims and objectives consistent with a determination to protect the environment. We should be using our influence to ensure, first, that all nation states respect the idea that Antarctica should remain properly protected and not be exploited, and secondly that it remains demilitarised. It is important to state and restate both those points, because we have to remember that Antarctica is pristine, vulnerable, pivotal to our climate change issues and has no Government. It relies on interested nation states coming to an agreement, including on territorial claims, about which we have heard in the past few weeks and whose contest the treaty suspends. We should take note of that.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the work of the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting—the highest level of government controlling the area—which will next occur in Belgium in May. Does he have any plans to attend that meeting on behalf of the House?

[Neil Carmichael]

I have no immediate plans, but it is important that we are properly represented at such gatherings. I know that the Government will ensure that their views are expressed and their contributions made—given the Minister’s excellent performance, we can be confident of that—but my hon. Friend makes a good point. As I have said already, I am committed to ensuring that other nation states do the right thing, behave in the right way and take the appropriate steps to improve and protect Antarctica.

Political leadership is extremely important and it is right that Britain plays a significant leadership role, because we were one of the first nation states to show an interest in Antarctica and have been consistent on it ever since. We have always conducted ourselves responsibly—I do not expect to be contradicted on that—and we should be encouraging others to follow that example.

We debated the Bill in detail on Report, but it is important briefly to canter through its key parts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

It is a great pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), in speaking on this matter. I associate myself with his remarks about the work that the Royal Navy does in the area.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on piloting the Bill through its Commons stages so skilfully and ensuring that it has arrived at its Third Reading in good time to be able to proceed to the other place. Having come seventh in the ballot he could easily have picked one of his own pet causes to promote, but instead he nobly took on the job of piloting this measure, which at first sight might not seem the most populist ever brought before this House but concerns a matter of great importance. It is testimony to the Bill’s lengthy gestation period that it passed through its Second Reading so quickly in November last year, went through Committee in a little over an hour on 21 November, and will, I hope, pass through its Third Reading today.

Some may wonder why such an important measure has been left to the vagaries of the private Members’ Bill system. I might have missed it, but I could not see it in the coalition’s original programme for government. Given the nature and content of the Bill, I find that fairly surprising. I would have thought that, in view of its cross-party nature and cross-party support, it was have been an ideal measure to put in the coalition’s programme for government.

I am conscious that we have not yet heard from the Minister, so I will restrict my remarks to one aspect of the Bill—its effect on visitors to the Antarctic. Increasing visitor numbers is a good thing, because it is good that more people are interested in exploring the world and our environment. Television programmes such as the “Frozen Planet” series will undoubtedly have had the effect of publicising the splendour of the Antarctic to a wider audience. However, higher visitor numbers undeniably bring a greater risk to that precious environment. It is for that reason that we need the Bill desperately. We are putting into law the maxim that prevention is better than cure, which is a good maxim to follow in matters of environmental protection.

We have heard that the number of tourists has increased enormously in recent years. That is partly because of the growing diversity in the nature of the tourism that is available, with more activity-based tourism such as diving, kayaking and extended walks. People no longer go just to look at the millions and millions of penguins that live in the Antarctic. Activity-based tourism brings different potential impacts on the environment from the traditional forms of tourism.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the Bill is not just of academic interest. Sadly, there have been occasions on which ships have sunk. In November 2007, the MS Explorer struck submerged ice with 154 crew and passengers on board and sank. Mercifully, all those on board were rescued, thanks to a passing Norwegian cruise liner. However, that example demonstrates that as more ships visit the region, there is a risk that accidents will happen that damage the environment.

When it comes to the Antarctic, we should leave only footprints and take away only photographs. That is what we have often said about our own countryside, and it applies all the more so to the pristine environment of the Antarctic. I trust that the Bill will pass through this House today on Third Reading, receive a warm welcome and cross-party support in the other place, and have a speedy passage into law.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 6, in page 1, line 7, after ‘approved’, insert

‘, except for those provisions requiring the full application by the United Kingdom in respect of the Republic of Croatia, seven years after Croatian accession, of EU law on the free movement of workers’.

On Second Reading, referring to the report of the European Scrutiny Committee on the Croatian accession procedure—“Croatia: monitoring the accession process”—the Minister said:

“We will have other opportunities during later stages of the Bill to explore the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and his Committee raised”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 762.]

It appears that it is thanks only to the fairly modest, minor and small amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is not in his place, and me that the Committee has the opportunity this afternoon to discuss anything at all at this stage of the Bill’s progress. I hope that, if for no other reason, the Minister will welcome this debate and the amendments that have been tabled.

Although the Government have made it clear that they intend to take whatever measures they can to stop an influx of Croatian workers during the seven-year transitional period, the risk of such an influx after the transitional period has elapsed nevertheless remains. The amendment would provide a solution to that problem.

Under European Union law, as soon as accession takes place, Croatian nationals will have the right to move to and live in the United Kingdom if they are self-employed, or have sickness insurance cover and “sufficient resources” for themselves and their family members

“not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I will deal with that point more fully later in my speech, but let me respond to it briefly now. The hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that there are other countries that are closer geographically or with which Croatians have historical links, to which they will wish to move. Nevertheless, this country’s economic position, and the fact that the most widely spoken second language of Croatians is not German but English, provides evidence that there is—I shall use the word that I used earlier—a risk that some Croatians will want to move to the United Kingdom. We do not know how many there will be, and I shall say more about that later as well.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Nuttall]

Yes, I will certainly give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

Under the Government’s proposals, Croatian citizens will be in exactly the same position as citizens of Romania and Bulgaria. They will be part of the transition process, and they will be able to work here only if there is a job for them to do. They will apply for registration cards, and if they are students they will be given certificates of eligibility. It will not be a case of their simply turning up and working; there are very severe restrictions, as I know from representations that I have received. In view of that, why is the hon. Gentleman fearful that a whole lot of people will suddenly arrive and start trying to work?

[Mr Nuttall]

Again, I will come to that point later in my speech, but, again, I will respond to it briefly. We know that following earlier accessions the number of people coming to work in this country, or to seek work, has significantly exceeded the original estimate.

As I said earlier, during the transitional arrangements EU nationals will have the right to come here if they are self-employed, or have sickness insurance cover and sufficient resources to ensure that they do not become a burden on

“the social assistance system of the host Member State”.

Certain family members—spouses, dependent children, children under 21, and dependent parents and grandparents of a Croatian meeting either of those criteria—will also have the right to live in the United Kingdom.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the risks, but of course there are opportunities as well. Is not the experience of many countries with warm Mediterranean coastlines that rather a lot of British people end up moving to them, taking advantage of the business and cultural opportunities that European Union membership brings for both countries?

[Mr Nuttall]

I am sure you would not wish me to be drawn off the subject of Croatia, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend may well be right about that, although none of my constituents have expressed to me a desire to go to look for work in Croatia. They may all have a secret desire to do that, but I am not aware of a great number of my constituents seeking that opportunity at the moment.

We know what happened when Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007. According to the Home Office’s impact assessment, the number of national insurance numbers issued to Bulgarians and Romanians increased by 560% and 710% respectively two years after accession. We do not have the precise figures, but it is likely that a number of those will have been Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK under the seasonal agricultural worker scheme and the sector-based scheme, which the current Government have stated will not be open to Croatians.

Moving for work is likely to be the reason why most Croatians will want to emigrate to the UK, and this amendment focuses on worker immigration. Let us be clear that after the seven-year period has elapsed the UK will have to apply full EU law on the free movement of workers. So a Croatian could move to the UK and compete with a British national for any job, and a Croatian so employed would have the right to reside in the UK. Of course, it is not purely the number of Croatians seeking work that would boost the number of people living within our shores, because the worker could bring their spouse, their children under the age of 21, together with any other dependent children, and their dependent parents and grandparents. While all those parents have the right to reside in the UK under EU law, they would all be entitled to equal treatment with British citizens, unless EU law stated otherwise. Of course that would include access to state welfare.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—perhaps he does not—that Croatia has the potential to be a tourist destination similar to Spain 20 or 30 years ago? If so, there is every possibility that more people will want to go from the United Kingdom to Croatia because of job opportunities and because the countries around it have stable economies.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman may well be right that lots of UK nationals will want to visit Croatia. All the evidence suggests that its desirability as a destination is increasing for UK holidaymakers, but that strays from my concern about the need to protect workers in this country. Once full EU law applies, a Croatian national, together with their family members, could move to and stay in the UK if they were looking for work. The Government already grant EU immigrants in the UK looking for work access to income-related jobseeker’s allowance. If a Croatian had been employed in the UK for 12 months continuously but had then lost their job, they would retain their right to reside in the UK indefinitely, provided they registered as a jobseeker. A Croatian would acquire the same right to reside if, having been in work, they then decided to take up vocational training. It would be fair to ask how many Croatians are likely to arrive on this basis. Unfortunately, even the Home Office’s impact assessment states that it has no “robust estimates” of the likely number of Croatian immigrants after accession, so no realistic estimate can be made—in other words, we simply do not know.

It has been suggested, including by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), that the evidence points to the fact that most Croatian migrant workers will be attracted to Germany. However, as the Home Office impact assessment points out, the most widely spoken second language in Croatia is not German, but English.

[Angus Robertson]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the most widely spoken second language among Croatians who have been prepared to move thus far and live, work and have businesses elsewhere, and who are likely to attract people from Croatia to work elsewhere, is German, and that they are in the German-speaking countries of Austria and Germany?

[Mr Nuttall]

I do not know whether that is true or not, because I do not know the respective numbers. Even if one assumes, for the purposes of this debate, that it is true, it does not detract from what the position may be in the future if, as is more than likely, Croatia accedes to the European Union and its nationals have a new framework within which to examine their options. They may well, for a variety of reasons, choose to come to this country. It is reasonable to assume that once the UK is forced—we have no choice in this matter at the moment—to drop the transitional arrangements, our country could become a very attractive destination for those Croatians who have gone to the trouble of learning English as their second language.

We can also make a useful comparison with what happened after Lithuania, a country with a population some 20% smaller than Croatia, joined the EU in 2004. The Home Office estimates that about 134,000 Lithuanians are now living in the UK. Of course the major factor in determining whether a significant number of Croatians decide to move to the UK is probably the state of the Croatian economy relative to our own. The EU’s own figures from EUROSTAT show that unemployment in Croatia is running at about 15%, which is almost double the UK’s level. World Bank figures show that Croatia’s gross national income per capita in 2011 was equivalent to $13,850, compared with a UK figure of $37,780.

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

If I understand the hon. Gentleman properly, he is talking about what will happen after the seven-year transition period, and those statistics will be tremendously inaccurate by then. It is unlikely that he will be able to produce statistics that predict the levels of unemployment in our country and Croatia seven years after accession.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The position at the end of the seven-year transitional period will indeed be relevant, although of course we can only consider the statistics we have now. There might well be—who knows—some miracle growth in the Croatian economy as a result of it joining the European Union that leads to the complete transformation of its economy. If we consider the situation with other economies in the European Union, we can see that that idea stretches the bounds of credulity a little.

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman has looked at the subject very closely so I am sure he will have considered the experience of Croatia’s neighbour, which is, of course, Slovenia, a former constituent part of Yugoslavia. Does he concede that in recent years the economic upswing in Slovenia has been remarkable?

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There might be a sudden upswing in Croatia’s economy. However, rather than running the risk that there might not be such an upturn, the amendment would leave it open for this country to put in place a different set of criteria to ensure that the transitional arrangements could be kept in place until we were sure that the upturn had happened, rather than when we merely thought that it might happen.

[Keith Vaz]

I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. Is he suggesting a further transitional period? He is obviously not suggesting no transitional period, even though his amendment makes it clear that he wants the clause approved without the transitional arrangements. Is he arguing for a longer period?

[Mr Nuttall]

My view is that the Government could negotiate a different set of criteria, which might involve a longer period, if they were linked to an equalisation of the economic imbalances between respective member states. That is the key.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

To be clear on the implications of the amendment, if it were passed, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would put a stop to Croatia’s membership of the European Union because we would effectively have to go back and renegotiate the whole package for Croatia to enter the EU? It would effectively put an end to that membership.

[Mr Nuttall]

One can only surmise that that might be the case; I have no doubt that our European neighbours might be more than happy to agree to my suggestions. That prompts a question: if the Government were unable to deliver what is, in the scale of European affairs, a minor adjustment to the arrangements governing member states, how on earth would they ever be able to repatriate the powers Members on both sides of the House talk about so often? I do not want to go down that road, but I was asked the question, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Angus Robertson]

Sounds like you do.

[Mr Nuttall]

No.

A fact that is as worrying as the difference between the comparative present wealth—I accept that I am using the current statistics—of Croatia and the UK is EUROSTAT’s prediction that the Croatian economy will contract by 1.9% this year and will not grow at all next year whereas UK growth will be just under 1% next year. All the evidence points to the fact that the UK could well prove to be an attractive destination for Croatians looking for work, for better paid work or for any job so that they have the opportunity to improve their command of the English language.

When one considers the various measures the Government have taken to control the numbers of immigrants coming to the UK from outside the EU, is it not logical that we should now start at least to question whether placing a simple arbitrary time limit on the restrictions that apply to migrant workers from accession countries to the EU is enough? Would it not make sense when there are significant imbalances between the relative economic positions of would-be new entrants and the UK for more rigorous restrictions to be applied as long as those disparities exist?

Our first duty must be to protect the interests of British workers. It does not make logical sense for the Government to argue for stricter controls on immigration on the one hand while agreeing to new EU treaties that will almost certainly lead to thousands and perhaps tens of thousands more workers arriving in the UK on the other.

[Martin Horwood]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the traffic will be entirely one way and to be obsessed with the idea that Croatians would have to come to this country to learn English. He does not look like someone who goes clubbing regularly in Malaga, Ibiza or Ayia Napa—perhaps it would broaden his horizons—but all those places were probably in disadvantageous economic situations relative to the United Kingdom to start with. Accession offered an opportunity for kids to go clubbing and on holiday, for British businesses to invest, for British jobs to be created and for wealth to be created for British companies. These things can work reciprocally, and that is the opportunity that Croatia might offer to this country, too.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I have no wish to do anything to prevent UK nationals from travelling to Croatia if they want to. It is for the Croatians to determine who they want to allow into their country and the conditions they want to impose on people who want to visit or remain within their borders. I am saying that I think that the vast majority of British nationals would want our Government to do exactly the same thing. Indeed, that is what the Government are doing for the rest of the world, but somehow, when it comes to the EU, an entirely different set of rules and regulations apply.

On that basis, I commend my amendment to the House.

[Keith Vaz]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). All his speeches on EU matters have reflected his close interest on this subject, and it is right that he should bring his concerns to the House before Croatia’s accession. I do not agree with what he said, but he has every right to express his views and to have the House debate their merits.

I congratulate the Minister for Europe and the Government on how they have conducted the negotiations that mean that Croatia will become the 28th member of the European Union. As a former Minister for Europe whose responsibility was the EU enlargement that brought in the first major set of accession countries since the reunification of Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall, I know how difficult these negotiations are. We had to visit quite a number of countries, and I am sure the Minister has had to do the same, but at least we are dealing now with just Croatia. It must have been a very difficult task and I congratulate him on what he has done. It is right that we should focus on the amount of money that the EU has given Croatia; I think that about €1 billion have been given in support. So Croatia is ready for accession and we look forward to welcoming it.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bury North deals with immigration, which is always a contentious subject in the House, but in recent years EU migration to the UK has also become contentious. I should place on record my belief that the arrival of eastern European migrants in this country has made Britain a better place. They have contributed enormously to our country, helped our economy, provided new skills and brought in an enviable work ethic. Not all of them, incidentally, have arrived in huge numbers and then decided to stay. Some, of course, have stayed; some have returned to their countries of origin.

Enormous numbers of Poles, we were told, were coming to flood our towns and cities, take our jobs, take over our pubs and take our women—or whatever the saying is when foreigners arrive in a different country. That did not happen. The myths put about by some tabloid newspapers did not materialise. In fact, those immigrants have been model citizens contributing to our country in cities such as Bristol, Leicester and London. We welcome them and we welcome what they have done.

We need to have the argument on EU migration in the context of what has happened before. If we focus almost exclusively on all the negative aspects of EU migration, we miss the real importance of enlargement and the way in which these countries have made the European Union stronger and wider, and have created more jobs in our country. I think that as a result of Croatia coming in, exports from our country to Croatia will increase, as they have done to other EU countries.

I want to examine two aspects of what the hon. Member for Bury North said. The House needs to know that his arguments were directed against the whole notion of Britain being in the European Union, rather than just against letting little Croatia in. He makes arguments much deeper than the ones about enlargement, and those are for another day. As the House knows, I favour an in/out referendum because it gives the British people the opportunity to have their say on this and other issues, so on that matter I am on the same side as the hon. Gentleman, and I supported his Bill when he put it before the House.

If we look at the immigration issue and are sensible about it, however, we will find that we are limited anyway in extending transitional arrangements beyond what has been agreed by the Government. When the Minister replies, he will be able to tell us whether we are right or wrong, but the seven-year transition is the same arrangement as we had for Romanians and Bulgarians. That has not been a huge success, if I may say so. I have had representations from the Romanian and Bulgarian ambassadors about the length of time it takes for their citizens to exercise their treaty rights in order, for example, to get their permits to work in this country—their worker registration cards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friends know where I stand on these issues. We always have a good-tempered but serious debate. The points that my hon. Friends have raised this afternoon reflect concerns that are expressed by many thousands of people—

[Mr Nuttall]

Millions.

[Mr Lidington]

Possibly by millions of people, in every constituency in this country. It is right that Parliament should be seen to be paying close attention to those concerns, which are being ably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in supporting the amendment.

Croatia has a small population of only 4.5 million people. The levels of emigration from Croatia to EU member states are currently very low. The official Croatian statistics suggest that in 2011, about 2,000 Croatians migrated to EU member states. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is right that half those people went to Germany and that a fair number of the others went to Austria.

The UK Border Agency’s statistics state that in 2011, 115 Croatian nationals were admitted to the UK for the purposes of employment. Of course, those 115 people will have had to meet the same tests as anybody else who comes here from a third country anywhere else in the world. They will have had to apply successfully under the points system or perhaps as a person of independent means. If we look at the patterns of migration from Croatia and the history of Croatian migration to this country, and set that in the context of a small country with a small population, the Government judge that there is little risk of a mass migration of Croatian nationals to these shores when the seven-year transitional period is up.

I do not think that the travel is likely to be one-way. For example, several thousand British people are now resident in Bulgaria, largely because the Black sea coast is an attractive place in which to settle and is less expensive than the parts of Spain and the western Mediterranean that had previously been fashionable. I can envisage the Adriatic coastline of Croatia becoming a magnet for people from elsewhere in Europe who are seeking a warmer climate in which to settle. I therefore do not think that freedom of movement will be exercised in one direction only.

In conclusion, the accession treaty, which has been signed by all member states already, provides for only a temporary imposition of transitional controls up to a maximum of seven years. It is not possible to extend transitional controls on Croatian nationals beyond the seven-year period. The Government’s careful judgment is that the existing flexibility provided by the accession treaty will protect the stability of the United Kingdom labour market as we would wish. I hope that, having heard the assurances that I have given, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North will choose not to press his amendment.

[Mr Nuttall]

We have had a useful and interesting debate on the amendment. I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), the Minister and all the Members who have intervened.

I suspect that the Government’s view on this matter and the stance that is widely taken by Members will only add to the concerns of many of my constituents and, as the Minister has said, of people across the United Kingdom.

[Emma Reynolds]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether any of his constituents have written or spoken to him to raise specific fears about Croatian nationals coming here to work after the maximum seven-year transitional period?

[Mr Nuttall]

No, they have not. However, I often receive representations about immigration in general and difficulties with finding work. I will be honest and say that nobody has said that they are worried about Croatia specifically, but people have said that they are concerned about what will happen if large numbers of people from other countries come to this country and about how that will affect them. That particularly affects people who feel that they are competing for jobs with people who have come to this country from abroad.

This has been a useful debate. However, the stance of the Government and of many Members will add to the concerns of my many constituents and the many millions of people throughout the country who think that our membership of the EU is damaging the interests of the UK and that we would be better off if we left it. I share that view. The further this country becomes entangled in the tentacles of the EU, the more it hastens the day when a majority of people in the UK vote to leave it. The accession of Croatia and the extra migrants that it brings will be another drop in the British people’s growing puddle, reservoir or ocean of discontent with the EU.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Approval of Irish Protocol

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to find some link between the de Montforts and Somerset, which would have been more helpful. I am not opposed to people coming over from Europe, although I do not have any Norman blood, as far as I am aware. However, we are wandering slightly from the point.

Amendments 1 and 2 would simply ensure that the affirmative procedure was followed and would marginally improve parliamentary scrutiny—they would not change the world, but they would add a little to parliamentary scrutiny. I meant the compliments I paid to the Minister and his commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, which has been exemplary. The European Union Act 2011, which we passed to ensure the rights of Parliament, was an important advance in protecting this country from European activities passing through without anybody really knowing about them. When the rules are changed, they should be changed in the same way as they are first introduced, because sometimes a change can be more important than the initial introduction. For example, a new Government might want to adjust things or not continue with them for as long, and could do so via a statutory instrument, with a limited form of negative control.

I hope that the Government will support my amendment 5. I hope that the Opposition will, too, because we may not lose the next election, in which case things might be changed by a similar Government, and my amendments would give them a way to hold Her Majesty’s Government to better account. I am proposing modest, easy, humble, simplifying, gentle, but marginally improving amendments, which I hope in their wisdom the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government will accept.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

My amendment 5 is also a minor and modest amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, it is perfectly compatible with amendments 1 and 2, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). There is absolutely no reason why the Government should not accept his amendments and my minor amendment. My amendment would open the way for the draft regulations laid by the Government—pursuant to what will in due course become section 4 of the Act—to be amended by this House. As anyone who has looked at the Bill will be aware, clause 4 is by some way the longest clause—indeed, it is longer than the rest of the Bill put together. The regulations that are brought forward might all be perfectly in order, and it might be that they cannot be improved on in any way, shape or form. Knowing the Minister’s skill and intelligence in such matters, I have absolutely no doubt that that will be the case. However, we are all human, and it is just possible that a tiny little matter somewhere in those regulations—which will undoubtedly be fairly lengthy and detailed—might need amending. My amendment 5 would give this House the flexibility to amend the draft regulations, rather than simply having the option of accepting or rejecting them in their entirety. It is a minor, modest and humble amendment, and I hope that the Government and the Opposition will support it.

[Emma Reynolds]

I appreciate that the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) are seeking to improve parliamentary scrutiny of these matters by providing for the use of the affirmative procedure for any statutory instrument arising from clause 4. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. Given that the Government do not seem to have much business for us to scrutinise at the moment, surely there might be time for such provision. I did not go through the Lobby once last week—to my disappointment—so we would welcome any move towards increased parliamentary scrutiny and we await the Minister’s response with bated breath.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I have listened to the Minister with great care. The problem with comparing anybody to the great figures of history is that so many of them came to a sticky end. That does not, however, undermine the valour of their actions before they met their sticky end. It is the way of politics nowadays that people are reshuffled, whereas in olden times they were rather more finally dealt with. This is perhaps one respect in which I am a moderniser, in that I am glad and reassured that political careers now end more gently than they did in times gone by. I was comparing my right hon. Friend the Minister to Simon de Montfort at the height of his powers when he was successfully commanding the country and advancing democracy.

The mood of the Committee today suggests that it would probably not vote in support of my amendment, and I shall therefore seek leave to withdraw it. However, I would just add that, to use an old cliché, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It would be an advantage to place in the legislation a requirement for the affirmative resolution procedure, because we cannot guarantee what future Governments will do or, more particularly, what the European Court of Justice will do. The Minister referred to that possibility. There is a risk that the Court could make a highly political judgment that would change the regulations or cause them to be changed by the Government. That could allow the Government to use the negative resolution procedure, because the decision had come from the ECJ, without giving the House the opportunity to debate a genuinely important political matter. I regret that Her Majesty’s Government are not going to accept my proposal, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 6

Extent, commencement and short title

[Mr Nuttall]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) This Act comes into force in accordance with the following provisions—

(a) Section 1 comes into force on the day after the following conditions are fulfilled—

(i) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown moves a motion that the House approves the coming into force of section 1, and

(ii) each House agrees to the motion without amendment,

(b) the other provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the Question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

This will be the last amendment to be discussed in Committee. It would enable the House to revisit the question of whether Croatia was ready to join the EU before this Bill ratifying the accession treaty came into effect. The Minister made it clear on Second Reading that the accession process that Croatia had followed had involved more rigorous demands than those placed on Romania or Bulgaria, or any of the earlier accession states. However, I think it is accepted on all sides that, unless things have changed dramatically since the Second Reading debate, Croatia has not yet fulfilled all that is expected of it. Much progress has clearly been made, and that is to be welcomed, but more undoubtedly remains to be done.

The European Commission is continuing its monitoring process, and the Minister mentioned that a further report was expected next spring. He provided the more accurate date of next March for its delivery, and we expect it to be the final report. On Croatia’s progress in dealing with domestic war crimes, the Minister said on Second Reading that the Government’s assessment was “almost complete”, but that more work was still required. The amendment would allow the House the opportunity to assess whether Croatia had made further progress and whether the process had been completed.

On the Croatian civil justice system, the Minister said on Second Reading that despite a significant number of additional judges being appointed to focus on the backlog of outstanding civil cases, the number of such cases had increased. About 844,000 new cases had been brought before the civil courts during the first half of 2012, and only 836,00 cases had been resolved during that period. In fact, not only was the backlog not being reduced, it was getting worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Crausby. I have some details on that matter and will be happy to speak about it on Third Reading.

Member states signed the Croatian accession treaty with the firm intention that it should be ratified by 1 July 2013. We believe that new member states should be able to join the EU when they have fulfilled their commitments as part of the tough and demanding accession process and are ready to take on the obligations of membership. Given the progress Croatia has made and the transparent commitment of its Government to completing the reforms that are still outstanding, we think there is no reason to delay this legislation coming into force and that we can be confident, on the basis of evidence, that Croatia will be ready. We should be eager to grasp the opportunities for the United Kingdom, both political and commercial, that stem from EU enlargement. Therefore, I think it is right to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North to withdraw his amendment and for the House to support clause 6 as it stands.

[Mr Nuttall]

I have listened carefully to the Minister and to the debate. I must say that if Croatia is as ready for accession as the Minister would have us believe, my proposed amendment would not hold that up. Croatia would complete all the requirements put on it and would be able to satisfy Members of this House, and when a Minister of the Crown laid an order before us we would happily pass it. However, I heard what the Minister said and feel that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I, despite the views we have put forward, are perhaps in a minority in the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

David Nuttall Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

The concept of a multi-speed Europe is already a reality: some countries opt in to Schengen, the euro, defence co-operation, and co-operation on justice and home affairs, and some opt out. A multi-speed Europe is already a reality, not something we are inventing for the first time.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Is not the danger in saying that we have a multi-speed Europe that it implies that everybody is going in the same direction albeit at different speeds, whereas there are millions of us in this country who do not want to be going in that direction at any speed?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I entirely respect my hon. Friend’s views and perhaps I should say “multi-tier”, because his criticism is very fair—“multi-speed” is the wrong term. The point that I was trying to make is that there can be different relationships with the EU, not that different countries are all trying to get to the same end-point. His criticism is fair; I apologise for my careless writing there.

The key advantage of the EU for Britain’s national interest is that of a trade area. I think that most people, whether or not they are in favour of Britain’s membership of the EU, would accept that Britain will continue to trade with the EU. In fact, 48.6% of UK goods exports now go to the EU as a whole—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate.

As chairman of the Lords and Commons “Better Off Out” group, I agree that we should repatriate powers from the European Union. The only difference is that I think that we ought to repatriate all powers. Other countries in Europe should not have the power to tell this country what to do. Given all the problems in the eurozone, it is a fruitful time to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union.

However, based on the precedents, I fear that the hope of success is not great. Nevertheless, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in a few months or in two or three years’ time, those who wish to stay in the European Union and repatriate some powers will be successful. The British people will then be faced with what I call an in/in referendum: they will be given the choice of the status quo—staying in as we are now—or staying in with 17/20, 18/20 or 19/20 of the status quo and repatriating a few powers. I suspect that for millions of people in this country, that will simply not be good enough.

The question is what those people should do who think, as I do, that we would be better off outside the European Union. Faced with an in/in referendum, those who wish to be outside the European Union should take part in the referendum and, as a third option to come out will not be granted, simply write the word “out” on the ballot paper. Even if those votes are not counted, it will be clear how many spoiled ballots there are. We will know how many voted for the proposition, how many voted against it and how many voted to come out. That is one way for those of us who think that we would be better off outside the European Union to make our voices heard.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Without interventions, we are on track to get everybody in.

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

David Nuttall Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, other Parliaments are doing that in their own various ways. My point is that the reason this requires the full examination and passing of a Bill is the passage through this House of the European Union Act 2011, which the right hon. Gentleman probably opposed if he voted on it. A much briefer procedure was required under the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which he supported. Parliamentary scrutiny has been enhanced by the recent change, and I am merely establishing that point. [Interruption.] Labour Members are reminding me that they did not vote against the EU Act 2011—although they were probably unable to vote for it. Having taken so many positions on the holding of a referendum, they decided not to have a position at all.

As the House will remember, the background to the ESM is that in response to the first Greek crisis, the previous Government, in their very last days, agreed to the establishment of two emergency instruments to respond to financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility, an emergency facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states. It has been used to provide loans to euro area member states in financial difficulty. The UK is not a member of that facility and has no exposure to financial assistance provided by it. The EFSF will operate alongside the ESM up until its wind-down by the end of June next year. The second is the European financial stabilisation mechanism, or EFSM. This allows the Council to agree by qualified majority a Commission proposal to provide assistance using money raised on the financial markets, backed by the EU budget. It has been used for assistance to Portugal and the Republic of Ireland, for which we also contributed a bilateral loan.

In the new Government, we have never thought that that was a satisfactory state of affairs. It was a questionable use of article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. An inability to access the markets because of the unsustainability of public finances is not a natural disaster, and it is hard to argue that it is an exceptional occurrence beyond a country’s control, and those were meant to be the criteria for the use of article 122. When qualified majority voting was introduced into the provision under the Nice treaty, we warned the then Government of the risk, and that warning was dismissed. The amendment to article 136 gave us the opportunity to deal with the problem, and we took that opportunity. Britain is not in the euro, we are not going to join the euro, and we should have no liability for bailing out eurozone countries.

On coming to office, therefore, the Government found established a mechanism which enabled the Council of Ministers to decide by qualified majority voting to allow the European Commission to raise funds on the capital markets guaranteed by the headroom in the EU budget—about €60 billion—for loans to eurozone countries. We must grant that thus far this has not cost the British taxpayer a penny. The money is borrowed from the markets by the European Commission against the headroom in the EU budget. It must be granted that these are only contingent liabilities that would be called on only if Portugal or the Republic of Ireland defaulted on their loan obligations. However, it is still not right that a country outside the euro should be obliged to assume contingent liabilities for matters that are clearly the responsibility of countries that are in the euro. That is why this Government were determined to bring the situation to an end, and we have succeeded in our goal. That is a good example of this Government repairing the damage caused by the last one.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because we have come to the crux of the matter. Will he please confirm that if the Bill goes through and reaches the statute book, this country will have no further liability whatsoever under the European financial stabilisation mechanism and will not be called on to contribute any further?

[Mr Hague]

That is what has been agreed. I am going to examine, in what my hon. Friend or other hon. Members might find painstaking detail—[Interruption.] Actually, I can see that some of my hon. Friends will not find it painstaking. I will go through this in detail to give full, frank and maximum assurance to my hon. Friend and others.

Not only does the new mechanism, the ESM, which is limited to eurozone countries, supersede the EFSM; crucially, the decision that the Bill approves and which is being ratified by all other EU countries reflects in its recitals, or preamble, an agreement that article 122

“will no longer be needed for such purposes”,

The Heads of State or Government have therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes. Therefore, when this decision is ratified, our liability for future euro area financial assistance programmes under the EU budget will be removed. That is a great gain for British taxpayers and, because it fetters the use of article 122, a shift of a power from the European Union to the United Kingdom.

Court of Justice of the European Union

David Nuttall Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is true that every time the competence of the European institutions is enlarged through treaty amendments, the potential case load of the European Court of Justice is also enlarged. However, as I shall come to demonstrate, the reason for these particular reforms is largely to do with an increase in the case load as a result of litigation by private parties, particularly on single market matters. The case load that the reforms are intended to address certainly does not arise out of the negotiation of the fiscal compact by 25 member states last year.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I shall make progress.

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point in saying that the ECJ’s increasing work load is often owing to disputes between private organisations. In the past, those disputes would often have been resolved here in London, as a result of contracts providing for the determination to be under English law. Therefore is not the work of European judges replacing the work of British judges?

[Mr Lidington]

Under successive Governments, the United Kingdom has supported the principle that we should be part of a single European market with a set of common regulations and legal provisions, because Conservative and Labour Governments alike, and now the coalition Government, have taken the view, backed by British industry for the overwhelming part, that that is to the economic advantage of British businesses—both manufacturers and service providers—the United Kingdom economy and the prosperity of our people.

Let us look at the justification for the package of measures before us. The House of Lords European Union Committee set out in its report of March 2011 how the work load of the Court had increased substantially in recent years. Between 2007 and 2011, new cases at the European Court of Justice increased by 18%. In paragraph 44 of its report, the Committee noted that

“We believe that the expansion of the CJ’s jurisdiction into the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, coupled with the increase of EU membership to 27 States, will have an impact on the CJ’s ability to manage its workload. We predict another crisis of workload soon.”

What has also happened is that the number of cases going to the ECJ on appeal has increased significantly in recent years. For example, in 2008 just seven cases relating to competition law went on appeal to the ECJ; in 2011, the total had risen to 52 such cases. Given the Court’s key role as the arbiter of the single market and the advantage that the United Kingdom’s business community derives from the single market, dealing with the problem of delays and the overload of the Court is in the United Kingdom’s national interest.